Greater Birmingham - Thread


Advertisement


Ray Finkle

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 22, 2012
12,368
265
Birmingham
Not knowing Birmingham that well I've been interested to look at all the new deveopments that are taking place that seem to be transforming the city and its skyline.

Whilst looking for something else on YouTube I came across this short colour film of Birmingham's central areas as they were in 1964. I wonder what people who remember the Brum of 55 years ago think of the contrast that 2019 brings. 1964 probably looks rather quaint to some who weren't around then. The film fascinated me. I used to take 8 millimetre cine films as a hobby and I've got a collection of the UK and beyond as it was in those days and a bit later.

If this film has been linked previously in this thread please accept my apologies for the duplication.

Fascinating video and from someone who was born in the mid 1970's it is definitely quaint.

It's incredible to see how clean the Rotunda and the old Bullring Markets were back then. My earliest memories of the area are from the late 1980's when you couldn't see the paving slabs for pigeon faeces and syringes and you took your life into your own hands when negotiating one of those awful subways.

I do miss the Coca cola lights on the Rotunda, the Fuji Film building and the huge neon pint glass that emptied and refilled (M&B?). Manzoni Gardens definitely had some 'characters' when I used to walk through on the way to Ritzy or Exile :)
 

Ray Finkle

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 22, 2012
12,368
265
Birmingham
Great news for the traditional centre of Birmingham which will bring in lots of new business for shops, bars and restaurants. And lots of new punters for our expanded Metro which goes straight past this development.
I think New Street has so much potential for nice bars and cafes that spill out onto the pavement. The top end has improved no end in recent years but so much more could be done.
 

Brum X

Premium Member Plus
Mar 23, 2011
4,559
360
43
Birmingham UK
The Mercian Tower | 42 fl (132m) Residential Tower 42 storey mixed-use development comprising of a thirty-nine storey residential building (from studios to three bedroom apartments) which will sit on a three storey podium.

Whilst having a nosey down Broad street I only come across a panel that they are going to use on this tower, I would love to know how many they have on order ? :love:


 

Ray Finkle

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 22, 2012
12,368
265
Birmingham
I like the tower but am not sure about that smaller block attached to the left. Maybe the materials used will be quality and it will turn out well but from the pictures it looks like something I'd expect to find bolted on to Chelmsley Wood Shopping Centre. I seem to remember reading that it was to be a Premier Inn, I wonder if they could have added 10 or so storeys to the tower and used the bottom floors for the hotel? Possibly too expensive?

Overall though I think it deserves a (y)
 

Brum X

Premium Member Plus
Mar 23, 2011
4,559
360
43
Birmingham UK
There are far too many blanks walls and as jfy1999 has suggested they are also facing the city centre and the proposed new Curzon street station so it gets a (n)

And what is it with the small windows,. do they think people who live in tower blocks are dwarfs ?? :unsure:
 

Ashley

Active Member
Apr 9, 2015
122
43
As part of the £25million regeneration plan in the city centre – famous ‘Floozie in the Jacuzzi’ fountain back into use in time for Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games.


 

Brum X

Premium Member Plus
Mar 23, 2011
4,559
360
43
Birmingham UK
As part of the £25million regeneration plan in the city centre – famous ‘Floozie in the Jacuzzi’ fountain back into use in time for Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games.


Great news Ashley :cool:
 

Brum X

Premium Member Plus
Mar 23, 2011
4,559
360
43
Birmingham UK
100 Broad Street | Residential | 61fl | 193m | Prop

I have listed the below for people who are interested in the really big projects planned for Birmingham. Well all I can say is at least it isn't a blanket NO for this proposal as I am sure the recommendations below can be sorted out, Oh and of course our BHX ;)

17 October 2019
Submitted via email
Mrs Jo Todd
Birmingham City Council Planning and Regeneration 1 Lancaster Circus Birmingham
B4 7DJ
Dear Jo
100 BROAD STREET, BIRMINGHAM
2019/05158/PA | FULL PLANNING APPLICATION FOR 61 STOREY RESIDENTIAL TOWER (WITH 503 APARTMENTS) AND BASEMENT / GROUND FLOOR / UPPER LEVEL COMMERCIAL SPACE
The above planning application was validated and registered by your authority, and commenced its statutory consultation period, on 29 July 2019.
During this time, statutory consultees and other parties have provided comments on the proposed development.
This letter has been prepared to respond specifically to the comments of the council’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU). Officers requested further information relating to: noise; ventilation / overheating; extraction details; sound insulation; noise from plant and machinery; and air quality.
Noise
The initial comments from officers on noise required information on the audio recordings. The matter has been resolved in an email to officers on 7 October 2019.
Follow up comments from officers were received on 11 October 2019. We were advised that the EPU is recommending refusal (or any decision to be delayed until further information is received).
EPU officers have stated that the accompanying Noise Assessment provides options for mitigation, rather than a recommended scheme. Glazing specifications and mechanical ventilation have been clearly specified within the Noise Assessment. No further information is considered to be necessary at this stage.
EPU officers have asked for detailed acoustic performance data and any other relevant information to determine necessary mitigation. This would require information from manufacturers. These detailed design points will be confirmed upon instruction of a contractor. The information provided within the Noise Assessment specifies mitigation measures (glazing and mechanical ventilation specifications) that enable all internal noise criteria to be met, and is more than sufficient to determine this planning application. The applicant’s noise consultants have confirmed that there is suitable rated glazing available to achieve the level of specification required.
Officers have also raised the issue of non-openable windows and the possibility of the building overheating. This is addressed in further detail below.
The applicant’s appointed noise consultant considers that the Noise Assessment provides sufficient information for the purposes of determining this application and we find there is no reasonable reason to recommend refusal on noise grounds (subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions).
Ventilation / Overheating
The proposed development proposes a sealed façade on the building. EPU officers have advised that they do not normally support applications for residential use with non-openable windows where the noise is not due to transportation sources. Non-openable windows form part of the design philosophy of the proposed development. The philosophy seeks to provide a pure vertical glass ‘blade’ onto the Broad Street elevation. The introduction of opening lights with the associated window framing was deemed to compromise this aesthetic. It has been agreed in principle with city council planning officers that a building of this status should hold a civic contemporary appearance and not look overly domestic. Future residents will be able to access external amenity space via the pavilion roof terrace, allowing private access to outside conditions.
Officers go on to state that, where windows will need to be kept closed, an alternative ventilation system will need to be provided along with an overheating assessment to demonstrate that acceptable indoor temperature can be achieved.
Each apartment and internal amenity space within the proposed development will be provided with a full ‘whole house’ Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) systems. These will be designed to deliver the recommended minimum 4no. air changes per hour in accordance with Building Regulations Part F for purge ventilation. This provides a comfortable residential environment, good acoustic and air quality performance for apartments and an efficient performance of the thermal envelope.
Due to the large expanses of glass required to provide quality internal environments and achieve a high- quality external appearance, the building will be fully comfort cooled to prevent overheating issues. Purge ventilation is controlled and performed via MVHR units in each apartment. Opening lights to comply with purge requirements for Part F building regulations are unfeasible on apartments of this size and at up to 61-storeys in height, and would require mechanical supplementation. Opening windows are limited to 100mm only on multi-storey residences. This would have no effect to residents on a building of this height, particularly with the applied wind forces demonstrated in the wind modelling analysis.
Finally, we can confirm that compliance with the TM59 Overheating Assessment method for dwellings will be provided throughout the delivery of the project (post-determination) to ensure that suitable design strategies are incorporated where necessary to mitigate overheating.
Extraction details
The supporting Flue and Extraction Report states that the commercial units at ground floor level will be responsible for their own extraction systems and discharge will be at low level. There is no provision for high level discharge.
2

Officers have stated they are unable to support any kitchen extract systems that discharge below residential windows due to a risk to residential amenity from odour.
As confirmed above, the proposed development does not propose openable windows. Accordingly, there are no concerns relating to odour and the principle of extraction systems and discharge at low level is acceptable. Moreover, it would be impractical (and potentially unfeasible) to propose ductwork through a 61 storey building to the roof. The financial implications and the logistics in managing such a system would not be viable.
Sound insulation
EPU officers are seeking to impose a condition to control sound insulation between residential and commercial uses. This is stated as follows:
No development shall take place until a scheme of noise insulation between the commercial and residential premises has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained.
Reason: In order to secure the satisfactory development of the application site and safeguard the amenities of occupiers of premises/dwellings in the vicinity in accordance with Paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and the NPPF.
The accompanying Noise Assessment provides information on sound insulation between commercial and residential units at paragraphs 6.15 – 6.17 and in Table 9 (page 20). Accordingly, we consider that this condition is not necessary.
Noise from plant and machinery
EPU officers are seeking to impose a condition to control noise from plant and machinery. This is stated as follows:
ENVL12 - Noise Levels for Plant and Machinery Text Protected: Y Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery The rating levels for cumulative noise from all plant and machinery shall not exceed 5dB below the existing LA90 background levels and 10dB below the existing LAeq at any noise sensitive premises as assessed in accordance with British Standard 4142 (1997) or any subsequent guidance or legislation amending, revoking and/or re-enacting BS4142 with or without modification.
This condition would require that cumulative noise from all plant and machinery shall not exceed 5dB below the existing LA90 background levels and 10dB below the existing LAeq ambient level at any noise sensitive premises.
The submitted Noise Assessment has specified a plant noise limit in accordance with the city council’s own noise guidance – ‘EPU Response to Planning Consultation Note – 1 Noise & Vibration’. The note provides guidance to the city council’s EPU officers when reviewing planning applications and making recommendations.
The guidance states that the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level for commercial noise would be equal to the LA90 background level. However, the rating levels for noise within the suggested condition (above) do not reflect this guidance.
3

Accordingly, we request that the recommended planning condition should be amended to reflect the requirements of the city council’s own guidance.
Air Quality
EPU officers considered that the Air Quality Assessment (which was submitted in support of the planning application on 24 July 2019) provided insufficient information on site suitability, levels of air pollution and was missing the results of the dispersion modelling.
A revised Air Quality Assessment was formally submitted to the city council on 18 August 2019. The revised report concludes that pollutant concentrations were predicted to be below the relevant air quality objectives, and therefore the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed use.
Summary
The information set out in this letter provides a robust and comprehensive response to all of the matters raised in objection by the Environmental Protection Unit.
Yours sincerely
Ben Williams
Senior Planner
ben.williams@turley.co.uk



 
Top Bottom