This deserves it's own thread.

http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=558271&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/DocumentExplorer/documentstream/documentstream.aspx?name=public:0901487a80f308e1.pdf+0901487a80f308e1&unique=558271&type=eplprod_DC_PLANAPP

I don't understand how public consultation can end on the 22/01/12 but with the demolition starting on 09/01/12 for such a significant Eastside building. Seems slightly unusual to me.

Received 15-12-2011
Registered 04-01-2012
Valid From 04-01-2012
Public Consultation Period Ends 22-01-2012

Commencement of works 09-01-2012
Completion of works 23-03-2012

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Island_House%2C_Birmingham.jpg/800px-Island_House%2C_Birmingham.jpg

http://www.cityparkgate.co.uk/images/island_house_big.jpg

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/60/27/1602731_d92997ae.jpg

Might be worth contacting BCC legal department to get it stalled.

I think its a over before it has even started really, the applicant has sought pre-application advice form BCC, if BCC did not want this demolished the application wouldn't have gone this far i think.

Why is that being demolished? It looks quite nice. The area looks like a giant car park.

I don't like demolition of historic buildings, but this is a graffiti ridden, decomposing eyesore. If nobody will look at it to renovate it, then I would rather see some landscaping. It will look awful once Hotel la Tour opens. Sometimes I feel we just have to move on... better still move it somewhere else..but whose gonna pay for that..no one:ohno:

I don't like demolition of historic buildings, but this is a graffiti ridden, decomposing eyesore. If nobody will look at it to renovate it, then I would rather see some landscaping. It will look awful once Hotel la Tour opens. Sometimes I feel we just have to move on... better still move it somewhere else..but whose gonna pay for that..no one:ohno:

with the hotel there, this could become special

Future of Island House in Birmingham Eastside under threat
by Cillian O'Brien, Birmingham Post
Jan 6 2012

A distinctive period building in the heart of Birmingham’s Eastside could be demolished and landscaped due to uncertainty over High Speed rail link.

Armac Demolition has applied to demolish Island House on behalf of owner Quintain Estates and Development just three years after it was proposed that it formed the centrepiece of the now shelved City Park Gate scheme.

The three-storey triangular building, which was built in 1912 and is one of Eastside’s most recognisable landmarks, is listed locally, but does not have statutory national listing.

Quintain’s original City Park Gate (CPG) masterplan – which was described as “oven-ready” when it was approved by planners in 2008, stalled because of the credit crunch and included land which has since been developed for the new four-star 200-bedroom Hotel La Tour.

According to a covering letter with the demolition application, once the building is demolished, the site will be landscaped.

The letter stated that due to HS2 “there is a significant level of uncertainty and blight affecting the area”.

Armac managing director Mark Dudley wrote: “This uncertainty has been further increased with the publication of the Birmingham City Council masterplan for Eastside which shows Island House being demolished.

“With the uncertainty surrounding the area and the extreme difficulty in securing a tenant, it is not viable to undertake the substantial repair and refurbishment works on a speculative basis required to bring the building back into a safe condition and demolition is the only viable proposition.

“Once Island House has been demolished the site will be restored to provide a temporary landscaped area.”

In 2009 Ben Giddens, Quintain’s development director for CPG, said: “Island House offers an occupier, owner-occupier or investor a fantastic opportunity to establish a foothold at the gateway to Birmingham’s most important development district.

“The Eastside stakeholders are making great progress, even in the current climate, with a new university campus, the Magistrates’ Court and a 200-room hotel all committed.

“The gateway to Eastside will be very different in two to three years’ time, and Island House will sit at the heart of this activity.”

Karen Leach, the former chair of the Eastside Sustainability Advisory Group, said the demolition would be another devastating blow for the area.

“There has been so much demolished in Digbeth and Eastside and so much local character removed that surely this building should remain,” she said. “We need to keep some of that character.”

Joe Holyoak, from the Birmingham and West Midlands Victorian Society, said: “It is a building of some architectural interest, it is a landmark and it is a building with merit. It was in use until a few years ago.

"City Park Gate was a very good plan, which starts from the new hotel up to Moor Street and includes the Fox and Grapes pub which is late 18th century.

“One of the good things about this masterplan was that it very cleverly incorporated these buildings.

“It is especially disappointing that this application has come in from the developers when it was part of the masterplan.

“I would advocate to the planners that before they even consider the demolition of Island House they should demand to see the type of scheme that would replace it.”

The public consultation for the plans ends on January 22.

Quintain was unavailable for comment on plans for the site at the time of going to press.

Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-transport-news/highspeedrail/2012/01/06/future-of-island-house-in-birmingham-eastside-under-threat-65233-30067016/#ixzz1ifRrUfOo

I don't like demolition of historic buildings, but this is a graffiti ridden, decomposing eyesore. If nobody will look at it to renovate it, then I would rather see some landscaping. It will look awful once Hotel la Tour opens. Sometimes I feel we just have to move on... better still move it somewhere else..but whose gonna pay for that..no one:ohno:

Using the same argument the Grand Hotel would have be demolished

This would make a brilliant investment as a resturant/bar. Particularly when the 'park,' museum quarter, HS2 station are built. This building will become another one we'll look back on and think what on earth were we doing by pulling it down?!!!

If I was that way inclined I'd go down and chain myself to it. As it is I'll just shake my head in despair and reminisce over old photo's on a website in 30 years time.

Objected.

I strongly object to the demolition of Island House in the strongest terms.

Island House will play a very important role when Eastside is eventually finished and can become a gateway building to the area.

The building is perfectly formed with the road structure and this is evident with the layout of some of Birminghams newest buildings I.e. Hotel LaTour. To remove the building would change the fabric of the area and provide no context for what will be crudely misshapen rather than organic buildings.

So far the design quality of the Eastside
masterplan is underwhelming. We will be left with buildings made cheaply and quickly akin to an out of town business park. We will awash of buildings the poor quality such as Ormiston Academy and a small patch of grass will only serve to frame and showcase.

To demolish such a building over uncertainty is unwarranted when the building may very well survive. It can easily be brought back into use and provide the leisure/meeting/eating facilities that Eastside will be lacking.

I urge to consider saving one of the few buildings of note in Birmingham city centre, otherwise I fear the 2010's will be another postwar mistake.

Worth noting that the date of the 9th is only the applicants expected date to commence works - surely they need approval. I suggest we all do our bit and contact anyone we know who might be able to help prevent this from happening. I got this in the Post yesterday by raising the issue on twitter on Wednesday. Local councillors/MPs/journalists are all easy to contact, and a quick email or letter should only take 10 minutes to knock up and send out.

Worth noting that the date of the 9th is only the applicants expected date to commence works - surely they need approval. I suggest we all do our bit and contact anyone we know who might be able to help prevent this from happening. I got this in the Post yesterday by raising the issue on twitter on Wednesday. Local councillors/MPs/journalists are all easy to contact, and a quick email or letter should only take 10 minutes to knock up and send out.

Can we publish a thread of all councillor and MP twitter contact details.

Let's get a movement going.

*chants "What do we want, Island House. When do we want it.... Ermmm forever?"

Head of regeneration Timothy.Huxtable@birmingham.gov.uk

It might be most valuable to include the fact that we have not seen what will replace Island House after demolition in your objections. I was glad to see Joe Holyoak mention that but it was right at the end of the article and not expanded upon, sadly.

If features in the updated BCP masterplan for eastside here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/martynahood/Birmingham/BCPUpdated.jpg

But not here...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/martynahood/Birmingham/BCPMasterplanDevelopmentBlocksUpdated.jpg

Deduce what you will.

It's a poor excuse to say that nobody wants it. It was in use until Quintain Estates took over it 3 years ago. I have spoken to Quintain Estates many times, and the plan is to refurb and build an extension on the back, it has not been occupied because of uncertainty to when works would start.

I have to say I will very upset if this is knocked down (as I am sure will many others).

Firstly, you would have thought that Birmingham would have learned its lesson from the 1970s about knocking buildings down, I thought we were past all that.

Once they are gone they have gone, and buildings like this, with some character, can make a huge difference to an area.

Secondly, a lot of Eastside is currrently a DUMP (not all of it but a lot of it), and this is one of the few "historic" buildings in the area.

Parts of Eastside (like the car park between Island House and Moor St station) look absolutley terrible, and have done for about a decade, yet here we are knocking down a perfectly reasonsable building.

If this goes there will be almost nothing "old" left in Eastide except the Curzon St station, and about 4 pubs that are currently closed, and many of the new buildings that have been built are of a bland grey (Ormiston Academy etc).

The city has learned nothing from its past. Clearly.

Worth noting that the date of the 9th is only the applicants expected date to commence works - surely they need approval. I suggest we all do our bit and contact anyone we know who might be able to help prevent this from happening. I got this in the Post yesterday by raising the issue on twitter on Wednesday. Local councillors/MPs/journalists are all easy to contact, and a quick email or letter should only take 10 minutes to knock up and send out.

I can't open the docs but is it a planning app or just a notification of demolition? If it ain't listed then not sure they need bcc approval. i think English heritage have the ability to spot list buildings which are at risk of demolition

I can't open the docs but is it a planning app or just a notification of demolition? If it ain't listed then not sure they need bcc approval. i think English heritage have the ability to spot list buildings which are at risk of demolition

Demolition Determination

Well I got told Island House is not the last bit of history in Eastside...we have Curzon St Station..I sleep well now :bash:

Does anyone know any background to this building, the architect, why it was built? It has similar features to Oceanic House in London built in 1911 a year before Island House.

Here's the demolition document
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77338701/Island-House

with historic detail on page 8 of document

Well I got told Island House is not the last bit of history in Eastside...we have Curzon St Station..I sleep well now :bash:

And don't forget belmont works although rumours that bcc want that down as well due to cost of maintaining the facade

And don't forget belmont works although rumours that bcc want that down as well due to cost of maintaining the facade

They've just included its renovation in the Eastside masterplan. It has planning permission for conversion into a hotel (with an extension to the back) but that was a few years ago... it might have expired now.

A shame, lets hope it stays.

Do we know if the Birmingham Conservation Trust, Victorian Society (not sure how relevant this would be to them though) or Twentieth Century Society have been contacted about this? They may have a greater influence within English Heritage than a regular joe.

If Joe Hollyoak has commented, then you can assume they are aware, or at least the VicSoc and Twentieth Century society are.

Do we know if the Birmingham Conservation Trust, Victorian Society (not sure how relevant this would be to them though) or Twentieth Century Society have been contacted about this? They may have a greater influence within English Heritage than a regular joe.

There is a quote in this article below from the Victorian Society and the Eastside Sustainability Advisory Group.

http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/businesslatest/2012/01/06/future-of-island-house-in-birmingham-eastside-under-threat-65233-30067016/#ixzz1igjQFbJ9

This topic is also being discussed on the Birmingham History Forum

http://forum.birminghamhistory.co.uk/showthread.php?t=38575

Can we apply to English Heritage for it to be listed, or is it too late for this?

Can we apply to English Heritage for it to be listed, or is it too late for this?

While no expert on listing I doubt it meets the criteria (or it probably would have been listed already).

You can nominate a building here

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/online-application-form/

Anyway loads of buildings are listed by English Heritage and many of those are under threat from decay and lack of investment, so that is no guarantee it would be saved, it could just be allowed to crumble.

Here is a web site for English Heritage "At risk" properties.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/
.

While no expert on listing I doubt it meets the criteria (or it probably would have been listed already).

You can nominate a building here

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/online-application-form/

Anyway loads of buildings are listed by English Heritage and many of those are under threat from decay and lack of investment, so that is no guarantee it would be saved, it could just be allowed to crumble.

Here is a web site for English Heritage "At risk" properties.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/
.

Is anyone prepared to do this?

I would but feel others are able to but together a much better argument for it's retention.

English Heritage won't do anything once the gov steps in. Besides Island house is not as important as other buildings they are trying to save, so it will likely get swept aside. Sorry for the pessimism on that, but it's pretty true.

I think we're going to have to come to the conclusion that this part of town has very little history or culture. Digbeth is the place for that.

While no expert on listing I doubt it meets the criteria (or it probably would have been listed already).

You can nominate a building here

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/online-application-form/

Anyway loads of buildings are listed by English Heritage and many of those are under threat from decay and lack of investment, so that is no guarantee it would be saved, it could just be allowed to crumble.

Here is a web site for English Heritage "At risk" properties.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/
.

Yes but they would need listed building consent to demolish whereas currently bcc have no control over iy whatsoever.

It is likely to be more attractive to the market once the hotel is operational and what if hs2 never happens? its a disgrace how they have handled this, particularly with the app over the xmsd period to keep it low key

English Heritage won't do anything once the gov steps in. Besides Island house is not as important as other buildings they are trying to save, so it will likely get swept aside. Sorry for the pessimism on that, but it's pretty true.

I think we're going to have to come to the conclusion that this part of town has very little history or culture. Digbeth is the place for that.

Listing buildings isn't about "saving" them, it's about recognising their historical or architectural importance. If this was submitted to English Heritage, they've got to evaluate whether this building is of any historical and architectural heritage. They did this already just under 10 years ago with the original City Park Gate scheme and came to the conclusion that it was not worth listing (although the nearby Fox & Grapes was designated Grade II listing).

However, the character of the area has changed a lot since and their view may change, although I'm quite doubtful. Whilst it is one of only a handful of structures of any antiquity in the area, it's not that special. It's attractive but even that architectural style was becoming dated by the time it was built.

Seeing as the council have designated it a building of local interest, it's really up to them (with all our objections) to see if it really is of that much local interest and how far they are willing to go to protect it. At this stage, I'm positive because the owners haven't shown what they want to replace it with nor really given much of a case for demolition. However, if they came back again with this sort of stuff, I think it would be much more in their favour.

(And Suttonbluenose, that last statement was a bit silly now, wasn't it? You know there's culture all over the city and will continue to be. There's going to be culture in Eastside, the loss of Island House won't really change that).

It's just bloody frustrating that this little Birmingham version of the flatiron building is loved by pretty much everyone yet the developers aren't prepared to give it a chance.

I just hope that BCC wakes up for once and does the right thing.

It's just bloody frustrating that this little Birmingham version of the flatiron building is loved by pretty much everyone yet the developers aren't prepared to give it a chance.

I just hope that BCC wakes up for once and does the right thing.

There's loads that are similar to the flat iron in bham.

Viet An Vietnamese for one, or whatever the place is called

Another by snow hill.

Island house was a poor attempt at copying the flat iron (i understand it was never to be the same size obviously) The plot of land it was built on was never triangular, like the flat iron of nyc. It was just built that way.

Island house was a poor attempt at copying the flat iron (i understand it was never to be the same size obviously) The plot of land it was built on was never triangular, like the flat iron of nyc. It was just built that way.

Actually the land was triangular in shape, as this map from 1905 shows. You can also see where it gets the "Island" part of its name from.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/islandhouse.jpg

I think it's unnecessary and particularly unimaginative to demolish this little gem, especially when we have no idea of what would replace it long term. Landscaping in the short term? So what? There's plenty of landscaping going on all over Eastside (especially while we wait for the behemoth that is the HS2 station to land). Surely, our city has learnt from the past mistakes of demolishing perfectly good buildings in haste?

It's just bloody frustrating that this little Birmingham version of the flatiron building is loved by pretty much everyone yet the developers aren't prepared to give it a chance.

I just hope that BCC wakes up for once and does the right thing.

Bcc are powerless unless it is listed. also the developer doesn't need to show what will replace it. that is only required when applying for listed building consent. unless it is listed the building will be demolished

Actually the land was triangular in shape, as this map from 1905 shows. You can also see where it gets the "Island" part of its name from.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/islandhouse.jpg

I stand corrected then, I was confused by a report I read from an archive.

It's attractive but even that architectural style was becoming dated by the time it was built.


While I always like your appends Erebus, I must take objection to this line.

The fact that a building was "dated by the time it was built" should not matter one jot whether it is knocked down or not.

What should matter, to the council anyway, is that if you knock Island House down you leave yourself an area awash with bland grey modern buildings like the Ormiston Academny and the Millenium Point building, and almost nothing of real interest in the area.

If they want to knock anything down then knock down the Albert street car park opposite, that is an awful eyesore.

We have already lost enough interesting buildings in Birmingham so cant really afford to lose more.

p.s. Just noticied Wiki says it was not constrained by a triangular plot. Also the info on there is out of date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_House_%28Birmingham%29
.

This made me laugh.

I searched on Island House Birmingham and found it on a web site offering properties to let.

But just look at the map to the right and see where they think the building is (you can zoom out to see more of it).

http://www.estatesgazette.com/propertylink/advert/island_house-birmingham-3100855.htm

While I always like your appends Erebus, I must take objection to this line.

The fact that a building was "dated by the time it was built" should not matter one jot whether it is knocked down or not.

I made the reference more towards the decision about listing it. If the architectural style was more innovative (as in it was an early example of such a style) that it would have the odds stacked in its favour. But I do agree that it shouldn't come into play when deciding to knock it down or not.

p.s. Just noticied Wiki says it was not constrained by a triangular plot. Also the info on there is out of date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_House_%28Birmingham%29
.

Yeh most of the info on that page seems to be based off a blog post I made years and years ago. The article itself hasn't been updated properly since 2008.

This made me laugh.

I searched on Island House Birmingham and found it on a web site offering properties to let.

But just look at the map to the right and see where they think the building is (you can zoom out to see more of it).

http://www.estatesgazette.com/propertylink/advert/island_house-birmingham-3100855.htm

Haha Brilliant.

I knew satellite mapping was correct to within 200 metres. Would have thought 200miles shows problems with the software.

Accrington!

Not much to see today.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7017/6666397417_11ac9092c1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6666397417/)
Island House demolition. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6666397417/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

^^That be SimontheSoundman's Flickr! Seems like work has begun then, at least internally...

No...I went there today..and it looked the same as usual ^^ its always been boarded up like that.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6668942127_7b618011f0_b.jpg

(And Suttonbluenose, that last statement was a bit silly now, wasn't it? You know there's culture all over the city and will continue to be. There's going to be culture in Eastside, the loss of Island House won't really change that).
I think, maybe, Suttonbluenose was referring to the lack of culture within BCC.

I'd ignored this thread as I thought Island House would simply be a generic 60s/70s office building that was being demolished - but I didn't realise it was THAT building! As other people have said, you'd think lessons would have been learnt by now. :ohno:

I think, maybe, Suttonbluenose was referring to the lack of culture within BCC.

Completely missed that by Erebus,

yeah I meant historic culture within this part of birmingham being the majority of eastside (or atleast masshouse to the ringroad).

What do we have apart from curzon street station, beautiful derelict buildings the council are determined to demolish and canals? not a lot.

So are they holding back on letting this one go or demolishing it at a later stage? Sorry, I'm a little slow with this one.

Posted this on Hotel La tour in construction forum:

Okay, I think I found why this building has to go. Read through the masterplan, and sorry, I can't remember what page it is, but it says that the space Island house incorporates will need to be used when constructing the station. It says pretty much that the construction site will spread 10-20m north of the viaduct being created. This space is for the cranes etc and the service area etc.

Butterfield, have you registered your objection yet?

Nahh. I'll let you lot sort it out. :shifty:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6673300571_340b5b4fe4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673300571/)
IMG_7265 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673300571/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6673298179_e6c5a5ef7a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673298179/)
IMG_7264 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673298179/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6673296285_88d74abbed_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673296285/)
IMG_7263 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673296285/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6673295071_cbac550bc6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673295071/)
IMG_7262 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673295071/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6673294283_112d2872cc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673294283/)
IMG_7261 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6673294283/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

It’s a shame that this building is going, I’m sure the developer could find a way of integrating the building with the master plan, could all way knock it down brick by brick and rebuild it is another location.

Considering how difficult it was to get the Spiral Cafe relocated, I can't imagine how difficult to it would be to find someone to take on this if it was put into storage!

images of the "landscaping scheme" now on show in new app, Dont get excited....
Application Details
Application Number 2012/00182/PA
Application Type Section 106A Modification of Planning Obligation
Site Address City Park Gate - land bounded by Moor Street Queensway Masshouse Lane, Park Street City Birmingham
ProposalApplication to vary section 106 agreement attached to 2008/00460/PA to allow demolition of Island House

Link to landscaping plan
http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/DocumentExplorer/documentstream/documentstream.aspx?name=public:0901487a80f3cbfd.pdf+0901487a80f3cbfd&unique=559327&type=eplprod_DC_PLANAPP

Looks amazing!!!


Not, its as bland as what they put outside Masshouse, and we'll have to deal with this until the start to build HS2? Ridiculous.

lmao at this shambles, if i was in the hotel i'd rather look at a island house or have no windows over looking at that teletubbie land

Had a response from Tim Huxtable. It's made me think what's the bloody point.

Care to share it?

It tells what we already know. I suppose I'm just frustrated at I'd like someone to stick their head about the parapit and express and opinion

FROM COUNCILLOR TIMOTHY HUXTABLE
CABINET MEMBER – TRANSPORT, ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION

OUR REF: CAB14025


ISLAND HOUSE, 2 FAZELEY STREET
APPLICATION 2011/08448/PA

Thank you for your email concerning the above application to demolish Island House.

I note your comments and will ensure that they are reported to the Planning Committee when the application is submitted. The City Council seeks to retain and enhance listed buildings to build upon the character and distinctiveness of the local area.

However, whilst Island House is locally listed, it is not a statutory listed building nor is it within a Conservation Area. In these circumstances the owner can demolish the building subject to applying for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. The method of demolition and proposed restoration of the site are therefore the only two issues that can be considered under applications of this type.

a real shame.. That could have made a decent small gastro/pub catching trade from the car park and hotel, possibly even the bus stops across the road- nothing too fancy or expensive but opportunity lost, and regrettably (yet again after the loss of the Victorian houses on the Hagley Road RV site) we have to say, "that's progress..."

I came on this morning to post the exact same message I received from Councillor Huxtable.

So it shows how totally powerless the council is on this matter! Does that mean as we all own the Council House that we can all collectively knock it down? What a load of spineless BS from Huxtable.

^^ no, the council house is statutarily listed Grade I, island house isnt statutarily listed, only locally listed.

the question therefore does beg, what is the point of local listings... afterall a lot of councils dont even have local lists!

shocking....

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8538/0901487a80f37d34.jpg

Same response, complete and utter joke.

Same response here too.

I replied back posing the question that Woodhousen did.

What is the point of locally listed. They have recognised the value of the building only for it to be knocked down.

It's probably a done deal,m backhander from the hotel owners to the council to create a green space for their guests to look out on.

the hotel wanted to keep the building... they just didnt want it abandoned and vacant!

the hotel wanted to keep the building... they just didnt want it abandoned and vacant!

well put some money into the building and fit it out to reduce the cost for an operator... but of course they wont spend the money as they wont make nothing from it so, instead lets use that money on demolition

It's probably a done deal,m backhander from the hotel owners to the council to create a green space for their guests to look out on.

ppl really don't get it do they? The owners don't need to do a deal cus the council can't stop the demolition.

Like it's been said, it's nothing to do with backhanders or the council being asleep, it's the fact that they're just powerless to stop it. In an ideal world, they could purchase the building and seek to retain that way. Other than that, all they can really do is urge the applicant behind the scenes to reconsider. If the applicant says "no", the council can't do anything more.

If Island House was a Grade A listed building, then the council could kick up a fuss to Central Government and it could lead to a costly process that the applicant would probably want to avoid. But as Island House is Grade B, the council can only urge the applicant to reconsider, and seeing as demolition hasn't actually started yet, I'm wondering if they've actually had some success in at least demanding more information from the applicant and delaying the demolition - maybe even making some head way in making them change their mind.

Like it's been said, it's nothing to do with backhanders or the council being asleep, it's the fact that they're just powerless to stop it. In an ideal world, they could purchase the building and seek to retain that way. Other than that, all they can really do is urge the applicant behind the scenes to reconsider. If the applicant says "no", the council can't do anything more.

If Island House was a Grade A listed building, then the council could kick up a fuss to Central Government and it could lead to a costly process that the applicant would probably want to avoid. But as Island House is Grade B, the council can only urge the applicant to reconsider, and seeing as demolition hasn't actually started yet, I'm wondering if they've actually had some success in at least demanding more information from the applicant and delaying the demolition - maybe even making some head way in making them change their mind.

Please clear something uo for me.

If I buy a house in Birmingham, it's an attractive old Edwardian building in the city centre which is listed locally. Then I decide I want to demolish it. Do I need planning permission to do this? Or can I send in the wreckers.

With all demolition, you have to give 6 weeks prior notice to the local authority of your intention to demolish the building. This gives the council time to draw up conditions to protect adjacent properties but, their powers do not extend to protect the building the applicant intends to demolish. For Grade B and Grade C locally listed buildings, this is the process, and there are no special exceptions available to the council.

Even with listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas, you don't need planning permission, although consent must be acquired (which is pretty much the same thing, except you don't submit a planning application). If it's Grade A locally listed, the council will refer your notice of intent to demolish to the Secretary of State and can have a preservation order placed on it, which ultimately means you can't demolish it. English Heritage will almost certainly become involved here as well, and it may end up that the building becomes statutorily listed (I believe this happened when the Fox & Grapes was threatened with demolition and with the Rotunda when plans to modify it started rolling).

So in short, if it's Grade A locally listed, you'll need consent. If it's Grade B or C, you just need to inform the council but they can't stop you, only urge you to reconsider.

[QUOTE=Elizabeth Kinoke;87717407]Please clear something uo for me.

erebus answered it

No surprise, but this is recommended for approval.

Just to correct a tiny point on erebusses post....

Statutary listings (officially listed buildings) are grades as follows:

Grade I
Grade II*
Grade II

Locally listed buildings (locally and more informally listed) are graded as follows:

A
B
C
D

Also, one point to added to EKs question which erebuss didnt pick up on

that if you bought a locally listed building to live in and wanted to send the wrecking ball in, you would also need to check that you werent in a conservation area.. which is another line of protection.

Pretty much, the following applies...

Statutory listed building in a conservation area - very very very hard case to make for demolition, look at the grand hotel for example

Locally listed building in conservation area - very very hard case to make for demoltion

Statutory listed building not in conservation area - still mighty tough to make a case to demolish though it now depends on the grade of listing

locally listed building not in conservation area - the council cant stop you demolishing it but would discourage you from doing so!

Thanks for the info.

So the council could actually push to have this listed as a more important building if they wanted to, but they would need a good enough reason, is this correct? If so, would they have the powers to hold up demolition untill a conclusion was reached?

the council has the same ability as anyone... including member sof the public, to apply to english heritage to get a building statutory listed. its just often better coming from the council as they will have inhouse conservation officer who know the english heritage criteria and will know whether its worth while putting it forward for statutory listing status...

however, anyone can submit it to english heritage, they will assess it against their criteria and then decide if they should reccomend it for listing...

one point however, it is rarely age alone which english heritage will listy a building... unless its horrifically old... english heritage prefer to protect buildings which are one of a kind of the last of a kind.... so the last few buildings by a famous architect, or a building which has a special place in history etc....

next obvious question, sorry, has it been submitted to EH for consideration by the council?

next obvious question, sorry, has it been submitted to EH for consideration by the council?

English Heritage did a survey of the area not long after Masshouse Circus was demolished and the Eastside plans started coming in. They recognised Island House as a historical asset but not worth listing, whereas the nearby Fox & Grapes received Grade II listed status because it has some 17th/18th century parts to its structure, which is just generally very old anyway.

plus also, this is the point of a local list... ie a local list is to offer some protection of buildings not suitable to be statutarily listed.... consequently, if its on the local list, a judgement has been made by either english heritage or the council that it is unlikely to be worth for statutory listed status!

^^And there you were asking what the point of local lists was on the last page. ;)

no no, i know what they are meant to be for.... but then as this case proves, local listing carries no actual weight....

I know what you mean. I think it's time the council reviewed their use of the lists as it really does leave them open to attack when cases such as Island House pop up.

The determination of the Demolition of Island House is on the agenda
at the next Planning Committee Meeting on the 26/01/2012 with the
Planning Officer recommending approval.

Link to Planning Committee Report (http://tinyurl.com/7y3bpen)

The determination of the Demolition of Island House is on the agenda
at the next Planning Committee Meeting on the 26/01/2012 with the
Planning Officer recommending approval.

Link to Planning Committee Report (http://tinyurl.com/7y3bpen)

So the council DO want it destroyed then?

So the council DO want it destroyed then?

The recommendation for approval is not them saying they want it demolished, it's a recognition that the demolition is lawful. The report is written by the planning officer as well, not the council. On a planning application, the Cabinet can go against the planning officer's recommendation sometimes but this isn't common at all.

exactly erebuss..... the committee report is recommending approval simply because it has to. a planning copmmittee report can not recommend refusal unless there is a lawful reason to do so, and in this case, there will be very little things to determine it against which is unlawful!

i do find it interesting however that the planning report does clearly demonstrate their is a lot of public opposition against this application... and interestingly, the council has based their decision on case law and surprisingly doesnt mention PPS5 in the entire report...

Time will tell what the elected councillors say!

PPs5 is planning policy statement 5: planning for historical environments in case no one knows

ah sorry people

Digbeth Is Good has picked up on this story, lots of interest on Twitter too! -
http://digbeth.org/2012/01/save-island-house-and-historic-eastside-planning-committee-this-thursday-26th-janruary/

Check out Quintains justification

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77338701/Island-House

Digbeth Is Good has picked up on this story, lots of interest on Twitter too! -
http://digbeth.org/2012/01/save-island-house-and-historic-eastside-planning-committee-this-thursday-26th-janruary/

If we had more like Mullaney I think this city would be a better place.

Yet more protest! From Digbeth Is Good:

Save Island House – make your voice heard (Planning Committee tomorrow Thursday 26th January)
Posted on January 25, 2012 by Nicky Getgood | 2 Comments

Following a great deal of twitter discussion calling to #saveislandhouse yesterday, things are getting organised! Nicola Toms has created a Save Island House Facebook page, please ‘like’ to show your support!

Emails have been flying around between those planning to attend the Birmingham City Council Planning Committee tomorrow (Thursday 26th January), which will ‘decide the fate of this distinctive and iconic Birmingham landmark’.

The building is in its centenary year and was designed by Brummie architect George A. Pepper who also designed factories in the Jewellery Quarter which are listed.

This planned demolition is rushed and unwanted. The public consultation only just ended on 22/01/2012. Despite many and varied objections The Council ignored public opinion and demolition is still planned. If the Planning Committee approve on Thursday there is no turning back.

Last but by no means least, Occupy Birmingham are organising a demonstration (Facebook event page here) outside Birmingham City Council offices in Victoria Square whilst the Planning Committee takes place tomorrow (Thursday 26th January) at 11.00am-2.00pm. Go along if you can and make your voice heard!

Yet more protest! From Digbeth Is Good:



Excellent news on the support.

How can people not see it's worthy of being retained?

My latest response from Timbo. He CC'd the Nechells councillor in.

FROM COUNCILLOR TIMOTHY HUXTABLE
CABINET MEMBER – TRANSPORT, ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION

OUR REF: CAB14025B

Thank you for your email dated 17 January 2012.

I note your concerns regarding the loss of the building. However, determination of prior approval applications for demolition relates solely to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration to the site. The principle of the loss of the building is not therefore a matter for consideration in the determination of this prior approval application.

The building is locally listed, however this does not afford the building any protection against demolition in the way statutory listed buildings would be protected. Any member of the public can approach English Heritage if it is considered that a building is worthy of listing.

The legislation prevents the local authority from resisting the loss of the building, thereby this loss cannot be questioned nor prevented by the submission of the application

Committee meeting took place this morning. From what I gather, the developers have to restore Island House first, as agreed in the s106, and then they can demolish it. There is also protection in place which may make demolition very costly.

I think the council are trying to stall the demolition.

I'm waiting for some more info.

Why dont the owners just sell it to a company that can restore it and put it back into use?

Doesn't look like good news :(

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5714/imag2975.jpg

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/7918/imag2976.jpg

Yup, that's scaffolding you can see :(

^^
It not over just yet it seems....

Legal contract could save Birmingham's 100-year-old Island House from demolition

By Neil ElkesJan 26 2012Add a comment Recommend

inShare

Plans to demolish a much-loved 100-year-old Birmingham building have been approved by city planning chiefs - but it could still be saved due to an existing legal agreement.

Despite hearing massive opposition from local residents and conservation groups, the council’s planning committee said it was powerless to prevent a demolition order for Island House at Eastside.

Demolition workers were on site on Thursday believed to be beginning the process of dismantling the building.


But it has also emerged that the owner Quintain Estates, signed a legal deal known as a Section 106 agreement committing to restore and refurbish the former warehouse and office.

Details of the deal emerged as planning committee members fought to stall, stop or frustrate the demolition order.

But they were given clear legal advice that as the building has no legal protection from English Heritage they could not refuse demolition - only decide the method of demolition.

Couns John Clancy (Lab, Quinton) and Paula Smith (Lib Dem, Hall Green) tried to impose an order demanding the company demolish it brick by brick and rebuild it later.

Coun Smith insisted that they number the bricks rather than throw them in a skip so it would be easier to reassemble them.

But committee lawyers said this may be considered ‘unreasonable’ and the council would face a costly legal appeal.

Chief planning officer Richard Goulborn said: “We do not have the remit to save this building.”

Instead the committee was told that Quintain has lodged a planning application to alter the Section 106 deal which they would have the option of refusing in a few weeks time.

Coun Barry Henley (Lab, Brandwood) said: “The issue here is the reprehensible attitude of the developer who are saying that this building spoils the view for guests on the terrace of their new hotel. If they restored Island House they could look at a splendid Edwardian building.”

He added that they could not stop the demolition order, but would do better to challenge the next application.

Robert Sutton of the Digbeth Residents Association said: “I am encouraged that the committee were supportive of retaining the building and will challenge the section 106 agreement next time.

“If Island House is restored it will show the visitors coming into the new high speed rail station that Birmingham is proud of its heritage.”

The developer has argued that the building is difficult to let due to uncertainty surrounding the high speed rail development and is also in a poor state of repair.

Spokesman Paul Rouse said: “Ever since plans for High Speed 2 were announced our ability to do something productive with the site has been limited.”

The three-storey former warehouse and offices was built in 1913, and although seen by many as a landmark and an historic asset to the Eastside area, it has emerged that Island House has no legal protection – just an advisory local listing.

Applicant Armac Demolition claims that the building has been empty for several years, is in poor condition and suffers from break-ins and vandalism.

Among the leading objectors are the Victorian Society, the Occupy Birmingham Campaign, the City Centre Neighbourhood Forum and the Digbeth Residents Association. A total of 68 individual objections have been received.

They claim that as well as being a heritage asset to the city, there has been little evidence provided of any anti-social behaviour and that, like the nearby Curzon Street Station building, it could be re-used as an art gallery or venue.

Secretary of Digbeth Residents Association Pamela Pinski said: “Demolishing Island House is a short-sighted action that will reduce another Birmingham building into the pages of history.

“The building could enrich the area if only the expense of demolition was invested in its preservation. For the sake of Digbeth, Eastside and Birmingham please reconsider.”

Objector Louise Hudson said: “Many of Birmingham’s beautiful buildings have been demolished to make way for dull buildings with a short life expectancy.

“As this is a reversal on Quintain’s original 2008 proposal, this obviously is not an ideal solution. To flatten a previously considered proud asset to the Eastside’s gateway instead of investing some time in it is reckless at best.

“The Jewellery Quarter has been a thriving example of invigoration and pride in an area through renovation. A building doesn’t have to be listed in order for it to be appreciated.”

The council’s Conservation and Heritage Panel, which advises the planning committee on applications affecting historic buildings, was also vehemently opposed to demolition.



Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/01/26/legal-agreement-could-save-birmingham-s-100-year-old-island-house-from-demolition-65233-30206495/#ixzz1kait2y2k

and heres the change to the section 106 app and link through, worth objecting again to this one?

2012/00182/PA

http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=559327&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

And the merry go round starts again.

I think the council have played a blinder on this one.

A question about overall planning policy. Can you just apply to demolish a building? And where there is no statutory protection are councils helpless to prevent it?

I dont see how demolishing attractive buildings is any different from modifying or building monstrosities?

I'll have a look at the S106 and lodge my objection.

I would like to know what contribution the Bordesley Green and Nechell's councillors have had in this?

These are the people that should be leading these campaigns.

I've tried to contact them but to no avail. Councillors need to be accessible like Mullaney.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7028/6767535861_a41a5b8f25_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6767535861/)
IMG_0323 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6767535861/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

^^ For a building that suffers from vandalism all its window seem intact. They're often the first things to go.

I had spoke at the planning committee today for Island House...I had a good go! but it's unlikely this will stay....:(

I had spoke at the planning committee today for Island House...I had a good go! but it's unlikely this will stay....:(

From what was mentioned on radio WM that everyone was against the demolition, but there were very few options on the table.

I just hope this tactic works.

Good on you for speaking.

Hi all

Sorry I have only just found this wonderful forum and thread. Seems you feel similar to a little gang of us that have formed.

I've started a fb page: www.facebook.com/saveislandhouse
Pls all like and contribute. If anyone wants to be an admin let me know. Also we are sharing emails with a few key players, planning next steps, thinking about a protest etc. If you want to be kept up to date drop me a line nicolatoms@hotmail.com

And twitter has been great
#saveislandhouse
#islandhousewatch

I'm @NicTomTom

I emailed Nechells ward councillors but had no reply!

This is not over!
Nicola

Hi all

Sorry I have only just found this wonderful forum and thread. Seems you feel similar to a little gang of us that have formed.

I've started a fb page: www.facebook.com/saveislandhouse
Pls all like and contribute. If anyone wants to be an admin let me know. Also we are sharing emails with a few key players, planning next steps, thinking about a protest etc. If you want to be kept up to date drop me a line nicolatoms@hotmail.com

And twitter has been great
#saveislandhouse
#islandhousewatch

I'm @NicTomTom

I emailed Nechells ward councillors but had no reply!

This is not over!
Nicola

Already with you Nicola! I've been following your campaign and feel strongly about Island House. I've had a soft spot for it ever since I was young and used to have family trips into town and parked at the Masshouse car park.

While our the name of the forum maybe a little deceptive all we want is a cohesive and aesthetically pleasing city and save it from unscrupulous developers looking to bend Birmingham over and make a quick buck. It's happened before, and no doubt will happen again, but if we can make it difficult and make them think twice then it is worth the effort.

What's your view on the judgement today?

Coun Barry Henley (Lab, Brandwood) said: “The issue here is the reprehensible attitude of the developer who are saying that this building spoils the view for guests on the terrace of their new hotel. If they restored Island House they could look at a splendid Edwardian building.”

What did I say.. I had them weighed up from the start. Fuck me they are cheekers tosspots. Absolutely no respect for the heritage of the city and quite a surprising and short sighted attitude consdiering the possibilities of this site. The building was originally to be incorporated into the Eastside scheme so they would have surely accepted this when deciding on developing th hotel next door.

The silence from some councillors is disgusting. Maybe the natiomal; press could pick up on this?

...

I'm @NicTomTom

I emailed Nechells ward councillors but had no reply!

This is not over!
Nicola

Are you a resident of Nechells ward? If so, then you should contact the council directly and ask what your councillors' responsibilities are in terms of responding to your emails or letters, and what procedures exist to complain when you feel their behaviour towards you has fallen below the standards expected of them. Put some pressure on the bastards.

I've just had an email from Wahid Nazeer, basically saying that it's coming down.

I've just had an email from Wahid Nazeer, basically saying that it's coming down.

Could I see the email? nicolatoms@hotmail.com

I have just forwarded it to you Nicola.

Guys on site today with more scaffolding :(

O well Eastside is destined to become a generic wasteland of poorley clad souless buildings. Well done BCC.

I've just had an email from Wahid Nazeer, basically saying that it's coming down.

My other prediction is that Wahid Nazeer has probably taken a back hander to keep quiet and the developers have used the eyesore to the hotel argument to bring down a historic building which they will eventually replace with something which will make them and possibly other people with fingers in this pie a shit load of money.

Glad you made it here. Also, good briefly meeting you the other day. Hi all

Sorry I have only just found this wonderful forum and thread. Seems you feel similar to a little gang of us that have formed.

I've started a fb page: www.facebook.com/saveislandhouse (http://www.facebook.com/saveislandhouse)
Pls all like and contribute. If anyone wants to be an admin let me know. Also we are sharing emails with a few key players, planning next steps, thinking about a protest etc. If you want to be kept up to date drop me a line nicolatoms@hotmail.com

And twitter has been great
#saveislandhouse
#islandhousewatch

I'm @NicTomTom

I emailed Nechells ward councillors but had no reply!

This is not over!
Nicola

really sad to see this go, really think eastside is going to be so poor

there its so much opportunity this side of the city that it potential is being wasted

I've had an e-mail from Wahid Nazeer (a negative one) and another one from Peter Douglas Osborn (some what neutral, but hoping for the best).

Anyone know who he is?

really think eastside is going to be so poor

there its so much opportunity this side of the city that it potential is being wasted

£17 billion of wasted shit if you believe BCC.

A big shout out should go to Councillor John Clancy...forget about emailing the other lot..he stood up in that committee room and saw through all the supporting rubbish! :)

I've had an e-mail from Wahid Nazeer (a negative one) and another one from Peter Douglas Osborn (some what neutral, but hoping for the best).

Anyone know who he is?

He is on the planning committee i believe

He is on the planning committee i believe

the chair!

O well Eastside is destined to become a generic wasteland of poorley clad souless buildings. Well done BCC.

Why is it bccs fault? I hope the hotel fails. can't see why anyone would want to stay in that location

^^ I still dont think the hotel are to blame for this, They have previously said they wanted it refurbished, They would rather have a leisure destination, be that casino, restaurant, pub or even offices there than a pathetic garden. The land owner is just using the hotel to shift the blame I believe

Hotel La Tour statement

Hotel La Tour would like to make it clear that we were supportive of plans to refurbish and restore Island House. However, following due democratic process, we understand the decision has been taken to demolish the building which, although next to our new property in Albert Street, is not
owned by us and therefore beyond our control.

my A1 hand drawing of what Island House could look like with HS2 and HLT :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6776792839_733152dcb5_z.jpg

Protest outside from midday on Wednesday.

my A1 hand drawing of what Island House could look like with HS2 and HLT :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6776792839_733152dcb5_z.jpg

:eek: :applause:

Hotel La Tour statement

If Hotel La Tour have issued that statement saying they have nothing to do with it, why in the demolition app does it say its been demolished for landscaping FOR the hotel, is someone tell porkys here? So that really does me its been knocked down for no reason if its not the hotel, yet still it seems the owners are knocking it down for the hotel??


And that drawing above is awesome!

I think the land owner is using the hotel as an excuse to shift the blame from them

:eek: :applause:


And that drawing above is awesome!

Have to agree, cracking drawing.

Am I the only one who can't see the drawing? It just shows Flickr's Photo unavailable pic. :(

my A1 hand drawing of what Island House could look like with HS2 and HLT :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6776792839_733152dcb5_z.jpg

um.. Where is it?

And have you forwarded this to Glenn Howells and BCC?

Protest will be on Wednesday 1st February - outside Island House

12:00-1:30pm

Protest will be on Wednesday 1st February - outside Island House

12:00-1:30pm

http://www.facebook.com/events/179371692166665/

um.. Where is it?

And have you forwarded this to Glenn Howells and BCC?

um..the drawing is in my house...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6777014817_19dcd2880c_z.jpg

Yes I will do...I did try to show it in the planning committee room but i got a big fat no from cnlr osbourne lol

Pencil & Charcoal? It's been over a year since I did stuff like that, bloody hate doing drawings like that, love looking at them, and that's a real good effort there. I'd get that copied and framed mate.

What photo did you use for island house?

um..the drawing is in my house...

Yes I will do...I did try to show it in the planning committee room but i got a big fat no from cnlr osbourne lol

GAH! The miserable sod. Might be worth posting it on the relevant facebook/twitter channels.

GAH! The miserable sod. Might be worth posting it on the relevant facebook/twitter channels.

And email it to councillors on the committee. Not sure they can do much now, but still...

Great drawing, really great.

I find it strange that they can,t renovate this building and incorparate it into the curzon street square.I wish people would be upfront about it instead of the excuse being thrown around about it spoiling the view of the punters in the hotel.If thats the case what about the monstrosity called Albert street car park.

*loads* of workmen in yellow jackets outside here at noon. 50+? Can't imagine what they need that many for.

Protest will be on Wednesday 1st February - outside Island House

12:00-1:30pm

I'm going to go to this. Anyone else coming along?

*loads* of workmen in yellow jackets outside here at noon. 50+? Can't imagine what they need that many for.

Some extra security maybe, as they will know about the planned protest on Wednesday?

I took this photo from the launch of Hotel LaTour. Looks quite nice next to Island House.

A thoroughfare of people walking through. Island House goes, you get a crap view of a car park and the arse end of Moor Street station.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6791615777_dceca76a55_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6791615777/)
CRW_6299 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhowes/6791615777/) by simonhowes (http://www.flickr.com/people/simonhowes/), on Flickr

*loads* of workmen in yellow jackets outside here at noon. 50+? Can't imagine what they need that many for.
Thinking about the best way to knock it down?

I think this could cause some reputational damage in the city for Hotel La Tour. Whether they are directly responsible or not, there are already people saying that this happening in part at their request.

It's not difficult to imagine the hotel being cast as the new hotel that's making its mark by destroying Birmingham's heritage.

I reckon I'd be nervous about running the launch of the hotel with this potentially quite bitter dispute still going on.

i recon 99% of the general public of birmingham wont notice that island house has gone lol so to say this will have repocutions for la tour to me is very very unlikely!

i recon 99% of the general public of birmingham wont notice that island house has gone lol so to say this will have repocutions for la tour to me is very very unlikely!

I would like to think that if the general public knew that this building was being demolished (and the lacklustre plans for what it will be replaced with), 99% would be against the current plans.

i recon 99% of the general public of birmingham wont notice that island house has gone lol so to say this will have repocutions for la tour to me is very very unlikely!

I take your point, but ultimately it depends on how good a job those campaigning to save it do, I suppose.

more scaffolding up and workers lights on inside

I would like to think that if the general public knew that this building was being demolished (and the lacklustre plans for what it will be replaced with), 99% would be against the current plans.

oh i agree... but that said... how many people other than geeks like us actually do know anything about this

I think this could cause some reputational damage in the city for Hotel La Tour. Whether they are directly responsible or not, there are already people saying that this happening in part at their request.

It's not difficult to imagine the hotel being cast as the new hotel that's making its mark by destroying Birmingham's heritage.

I reckon I'd be nervous about running the launch of the hotel with this potentially quite bitter dispute still going on.

to be fair, its a hotel so most of the people using it will be from outside the city and wont give a toot

oh i agree... but that said... how many people other than geeks like us actually do know anything about this

Hopefully a few more, if my letter to The Birmingham Post gets published... :)

I'm going to go to this. Anyone else coming along?

possibly the BBC, saw a tweet to Kate Rowlett on the #saveislandhouse hashtag.

Kate Rowlett

:drool:

Reasonable turn out today, and most people passing seemed interested and took one of our leaflets. BBC WM and the Mail were there for interviews and photos.

Such a waste, objected too but saw workmen there today

The leaflet that was being given out at the protest today including instructions for how to lodge your objection (if you haven't already!)

http://www.studiob9.com/scrapers/island_house.gif

:drool:

haha! I know her personally...

Anyway it's great that the Beeb have picked this up at least this widens the coverage a little further.

As if people really want this building saved lol what good is it?

Don't try and be a 'shock-jock' Josh.

What benefits are there to pulling it down? There is nothign planned to replace it. The building could be utlilised as a bar/resturant/catering facility, office space or incorporated into the museum quarter or rail developments.

Look in the old pictures thread at some of the amazing buildings this city has lost due to carelessness and ill-thought out planning.

It's not a case of saving it at the moment, just leaving it alone will do, to create some time for thought.

My letter got published in The Birmingham Post today:

Further to your recent coverage of the plight of Island House in Eastside and Terry Grimley's letter on the subject, I would also like to register my utter exasperation at the prospect of losing a precious piece of older architecture in an area that has few examples of anything more than twenty years standing. Birmingham City Council's own recently published Eastside Masterplan document states "Retaining and enhancing existing character and distinctiveness, using the heritage assets of the quarter as an inspirational starting point" as one of it's objectives. With the future of The Eagle and Tun and The Fox and Grapes public houses in doubt and rumours that the Christopher Wray building and Woodman pub are by no means safe, it is critical that everything is done to preserve Island House for future generations to appreciate and enjoy. I understand that although the building is 'locally listed', it is not protected from demolition, which begs the question, what is the point of such a listing? Furthermore, it will be replaced by a lacklustre 'landscaped' area, something that this part of Eastside appears to be excelling at with great swathes of empty space, while we await the delivery of the HS2 terminus. The crowning shame in this sorry saga, is that the demolition document prepared for the developer Quintain, includes original drawings for Island House which reveal another storey including a magnificent cupola that was lost after being damaged during WWII. Why not restore the building to it's former glory and find a sympathetic use for it? It seems perverse to me that a city with the ambition and imagination of Birmingham should allow yet another part of its heritage to fall by the wayside.

Nice work Shel. Was I chatting to you yesterday by any chance?

Yeah, that was me Mikey! It was a pleasure to meet you... :)

Birmingham City Council to put pressure on Island House owners to prevent demolition
by Neil Elkes, Birmingham Post Feb 2 2012

Birmingham City Council is to ramp up the moral pressure on developer Quintain Estates in a bid to save the 100-year-old Island House building from demolition.

Conservative cabinet member for regeneration Timothy Huxtable has written to the company to offer council help to find a viable solution to halt the demolition order.

His cabinet colleague Coun Martin Mullaney announced that a letter had been sent as he joined protesters for a lunchtime rally in Moor Street outside the threatened three-storey building.


He stressed that the council was in no position to buy the building, but might be able to assist.

Coun Mullaney has already been involved in plans to turn the nearby Curzon Street Station into an art gallery.

He said: “This would make an excellent art gallery or cultural building. It might also be possible to extend it by two storeys without ruining its character. I don’t want us to lose this and I want to make sure the developers have looked at all options.

“Coun Huxtable is writing to them to see if the regeneration department can assist.”

Quintain says it has been unable to attract a tenant or make plans for Island House because the uncertainty around the High Speed Rail project has blighted the site.

Meanwhile it is paying empty building rates and has therefore decided to demolish and landscape the site.

Last week the council’s planning committee despite voicing its opposition, found itself unable to stop the demolition order, but was given some hope through an earlier Section 106 legal agreement through which Quintain committed to refurbish and restore Island House.

An attempt by the company to overturn that agreement will be looked at by the committee within the next few weeks.

Island House is currently wrapped in scaffolding and workers were filing in and out while the protest took place, although the company insists it has not yet begun full scale demolition work.

Meanwhile members of the Victorian Society, Birmingham Friends of the Earth, Digbeth residents and serial protester Ray Egan dressed as John Bull waved placards and handed out leaflets to passers-by, the majority of who were surprised and supportive of attempts to save the building.

Among them was Rob Sutton who took art design lessons in the building when it was part of Birmingham Polytechnic. He said: “This has survived German bombing during the war, it survived the students during the 1970s, but it seems unable to survive the demands of commercial interests. It is a gateway building and a beautiful part of the local landscape.”

Mr Sutton, a veteran of the Moorpool Estate planning disputes of two years ago, was a key speaker at last week’s planning committee and raised the matter of the section 106 deal.

“It is important that the City Council look into that agreement properly, it doesn’t seem right that someone can just scrap such an important building.”

Nicola Toms, from Acocks Green, said she joined the protest because she simply likes Island House. “I used to walk past on my way to Matthew Boulton College. I really like it and always enjoyed looking at it.”

Joe Holyoak of The Victorian Society urged people to write to the planning department objecting to the application to over turn the section 106 deal. He said: “They are proposing to unnecessarily and unjustifiably demolish a locally listed building of architectural distinction.”

Birmingham Civic Society has written to all members urging them to write in. Chairman David Clarke said: “The building is a memorable and important landmark in the area, and with its distinctive triangular shape adds character to the street.”

The company said it stands by an earlier statement that: “In the current circumstances, no tenant is interested in taking occupation of the building as they will have to vacate in a few years to make way for the new HS2 station, and we are left with a vacant building in an advanced state of disrepair, which attracts vandals and is sporadically used as a location for drug-related activities. Regrettably, the only sensible course of action is to demolish the building to prevent the anti-social behaviour continuing and then landscape the area.”

Hotel La Tour, which is being built next door, has stressed it is supportive of the retention and restoration of Island House



Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2012/02/02/birmingham-city-council-to-put-pressure-on-island-house-owners-to-prevent-demolition-65233-30248402/#ixzz1lG3FarXS

Can it not be listed, surely it deserves it?

So as I suspected, the BIG CITY PLAN is fast turning into A BIG WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. If these old buildings ar enot protected by our council then in reality that PLAN was simply LIP SERVICE and an expensive experiment.

There honestly seems no cohesion in Birmingham City Council. Maybe we do need a city mayor to throw their weight behind such causes.

Ohh my apologies I thought it needed to go for HS2

Until the distant reality of HS2 appearing on the horizon we should be making the most of what we already have in this eyesore of an area and tidy up the wasteground that is in abundance around there. Quintain sound like the same kind of knobbish vandals that St Modwen and Sainsbury's have become.

As if people really want this building saved lol what good is it?

One could say the same about the Taj Mahal, the pyramids, stonehenge, or even the old Curzon St station.

Some of the buildings around Broad St were in a worse condition in the 1980s than Island House, and they were all done up, and are now busy bars and restaurants.

Look at the state of these buildings on Broad St from the 1980s. If you go there now they are thriving businesses.

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv10/guilbert53/View10Picture1.jpg

Can it not be listed, surely it deserves it?

Sadly getting buildings listed doesn't work like that. They have to be assessed by English Heritage for their architectural and/or historical significance, and then an appropriate grade is given to them depending on that significance. EH already assessed Island House just under 10 years ago and they decided it wasn't of enough significance to be protected by law, so the council put it onto their locally listed register which is entirely different and carries little or no weight in the planning process, simply because it can't.

So as I suspected, the BIG CITY PLAN is fast turning into A BIG WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. If these old buildings ar enot protected by our council then in reality that PLAN was simply LIP SERVICE and an expensive experiment.

There honestly seems no cohesion in Birmingham City Council. Maybe we do need a city mayor to throw their weight behind such causes.

There does seem to be a lack of cohesion here - the exchanges between Mullaney and people seem to suggest that whilst the councillors all seem to support saving Island House, they're not necessarily talking about it or showing a unified front.

And I think you've misunderstood what the Big City Plan will be (seeing as it hasn't actually been finished yet). There's nothing from the Big City Plan that could save Island House. As has been said from the start, the best the council can do is just encourage the owners of the building to reconsider their plans. Aside from that, they've been bestowed no other power to stop it.

I walked past this morning and it is completely covered in scaffold. As Erebus once mentioned and I agreed with some time ago regarding the decorative stone cladding - it is a simple brick building with a nice clad. Ok it's been in this position for nigh on 100 years but wouldn't it be a terrific gesture by Quintain if instead of knocking down the building they managed the relocation of the cladding? I would love to see an identically shaped structure erected out of steelwork (which wouldn't take too long at all) and the cladding fixed to a the skin. All the contractors have to do is work out a system to number every block and then put back in place on the new structure. If they can do that with the Collonades and even the stonework to the wall outside the University of Birmingham when they built the by-pass, they can do it here! I would love to see this building re-born in say, the large grassy area between where it is now and the Woodman Pub, or in Newhall Sq or in a plaza which needs an Island House!

^^Well, Newhall Square's out the question because they're taking on the Spiral Cafe, if I remember correctly...? But next to the Woodman could be good? It would be an awkward jarring of styles, mind.......

^^ yep spiral cafe is going in new hall square

But if an exhibition contractor can "build" an Eco House in Trafalgar Sq (a project I was involved in 2007 which was also repeated twice afterwards) out of steelwork and brick cladding in the space of about 4 weeks, this is something that could be done in no time at all! Yes I agree the style would jarr with the Woodman but I was thinking of it being in the centre of the grassy area as a stand-alone bar/restaurant.

http://www.look4ideas.com/eco_house.html

You know the Christopher Wray building, is it Locally listed or national listed?

It's Grade II statutorily listed (nationally listed).

Didn't Christopher want to knock it down as well, but they didn't allow it? The system is truly screwed.

Yeah but he applied for permission to demolish because it was statutorily listed - meaning that it is protected by law. Quintain don't need that permission because it is only locally listed which isn't protected by law. By English Heritage's assessments of the 2 buildings, the Christopher Wray building is of higher architectural and historical significance than Island House.

Today.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3175/18721763.jpg

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9577/69667955.jpg

The top photo would have been perfect if there wasn't a cover on it, we could have seen the variety of the 3 buildings next to each other!

Thanks Grafik

Great pictures, its not looking good for Island House. Its on its way out isnt it.

Obscure it from view so the casual pedestrian has no idea what is underneath it and so wouldnt miss it?

People on the fb page are slating Hotel La Tour behind. Each to their own, but a lot of them are the nob head traditionalist extremists. They are mainly going on about the fact there is now going to be very few historic buildings in this area. I do agree there isn't but no use crying over spilt milk.

The fact that Island House is one of eight (?) buildings over ten years old in such a huge area is a very valid reason for wanting to save it!

The top photo would have been perfect if there wasn't a cover on it, we could have seen the variety of the 3 buildings next to each other!

That was the point to why the council told the designers to go back to the drawing board. Make Island House the centre of it all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexdeanphotos/sets/72157629274377767/with/6857977905/

When will Birmingham city council every learn. In 20 years we will be looking at pictures and everyone will ask why it was demolished. :bash:

I've just come back to Birmingham after 14 weeks away and thought i was imagining things when i saw "island house demolition" as a thread title, im really bitterly dissapointed and on the other hand not suprised :ohno:

When will Birmingham city council every learn. In 20 years we will be looking at pictures and everyone will ask why it was demolished. :bash:

Exactly right .... when will we learn!? :ohno:

When will Birmingham city council every learn. In 20 years we will be looking at pictures and everyone will ask why it was demolished. :bash:

Whilst the council can be blamed for a lot of things, this is not one of them. A private developer is applying to have it demolished, and legally the council cannot stop a grade B locally listed building from being demolished. They have however sought to prevent this by a process of delay, and have offered support to Quintain in finding a use for the building.

Not strictly true, the council could CPO the building if they felt too. Although i accept, they have no money

Not strictly true, the council could CPO the building if they felt too. Although i accept, they have no money

I'm struggling to see the basis of your argument. You have made a point then instantly argued against it.

The CPO could develop into a long drawn-out process, however. The owners can still appeal against it and the council would have to put up a pretty robust reason for taking it. If the council fail to have the CPO approved it could end up being very costly for them with no result.

Sad times. :(

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9053/imag3098.jpg

Whilst the council can be blamed for a lot of things, this is not one of them. A private developer is applying to have it demolished, and legally the council cannot stop a grade B locally listed building from being demolished. They have however sought to prevent this by a process of delay, and have offered support to Quintain in finding a use for the building.

exactly.... the council will not learn because there is nothing to learn. The council can not stop this, and even a CPO would have little chance of being successful in this circumstance.

It is the countries planning system and primarily english heritage who have failed this building. The panning system for being so black and white about historic buildings - are they listed yes or no? - and english heritage for not intervening and having a very otudated view on the reasons why buildings should or shouldnt be listed...

lets hope talking between the council and quintain are continuing behind closed doors!

So even if the building is locally listed the council can do nothing?

What is the point of it been locally listed if a developer can come to the city and choose to demolish a building which is in their way?

Were all the 'mistakes of the past' in Birmingham because the council had no power to prevent developers demolishing the existing buildings?

Double Posted

The council could also threaten quintain with future "problems" when they are seeking to develop other land in the city. i hope that msg is being conveyed.

So even if the building is locally listed the council can do nothing?

What is the point of it been locally listed if a developer can come to the city and choose to demolish a building which is in their way?

Were all the 'mistakes of the past' in Birmingham because the council had no power to prevent developers demolishing the existing buildings?

Local listing is just an acknowledgement of a building's local significance. Beyond that, all the council can do is try to persuade the developer not to demolish it. If it was statutorily listed, then the developer wouldn't be able to do it, but the council don't have the power to choose which buildings can or can't be statutorily listed.

Planning law has changed a lot over the past 60 years so I can't really answer that last question.

The council could also threaten quintain with future "problems" when they are seeking to develop other land in the city. i hope that msg is being conveyed.

and how exactly do you anticipate that happening?

Last time I went past, on Wednesday, Scaffolding had been put up on the other side, looks like it will vanish out of view for good soon :(

Who do we lobby to get the s106 amendment application turned down?

I think you just Object on the planning app?

Is s106 all done through planning then or is there a separate legal side?

They put in an app for variation of condition.... Of planning ref... Which was to get rid of the condition of refurbishing island house so they can demolish it.

I know the address of the app is under city park gate rather than island house.

Most people have objected to that planning app

23RD IS THE LAST DAY TO GET OBJECTIONS IN!

Application Number 2012/00182/PA
Application Type Section 106A Modification of Planning Obligation
Site Address City Park Gate - land bounded by Moor Street Queensway Masshouse Lane, Park Street City Birmingham
Proposal Application to vary section 106 agreement attached to 2008/00460/PA to allow demolition of Island House

http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=559327&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=&DAURI=PLANNING

My comments are in.

Cheers Reiss :cheers1:

and how exactly do you anticipate that happening?

Im sure you are aware that it is not unusual for councils to cause applicants problems. Applications are often refused for spurious reasons. Developers don't tend to like appeals due to the uncertainties, costs and delays involved.

23RD IS THE LAST DAY TO GET OBJECTIONS IN!



http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=559327&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=&DAURI=PLANNING

done :)

Sorry to say that the S106 isn't applicable here. It applied to the former City Park Gate scheme, and since that hasn't started it doesn't stand. I'm not sure for definite, but the Hotel LaTour app S106 didn't make any commitment about Island House. Speaking to Neil Elkes he seems to think this change to the S106 is more about land value/active planning approval if and when the site is CPO-ed for the HS2 station.

Sorry to say that the S106 isn't applicable here. It applied to the former City Park Gate scheme, and since that hasn't started it doesn't stand. I'm not sure for definite, but the Hotel LaTour app S106 didn't make any commitment about Island House. Speaking to Neil Elkes he seems to think this change to the S106 is more about land value/active planning approval if and when the site is CPO-ed for the HS2 station.

What do you mean? If you look at that app it showed you want island house will ve replaced with, I don't think it has anything to do with the old scheme as thats long gone right?

The application which we were suggesting people object to - the change of S106 conditions - doesn't relate to the Hotel LaTour application. Instead, it was when one of the earlier City Park Gate schemes which was granted approval but never saw work begin on site. Therefore this S106 agreement which forces Quintain to maintain and restore Island House isn't active because of the failure of City Park Gate to begin construction.

Essentially, Quintain are only applying to have the S106 conditions changed because of the future land value of the plots of land on the other side of Island House.

I'd suggest objections to this change are still lodged, but their impact won't prevent Island House from being demolished. Instead it might make things trickier for Quintain with future development or resale of the site.

The application which we were suggesting people object to - the change of S106 conditions - doesn't relate to the Hotel LaTour application. Instead, it was when one of the earlier City Park Gate schemes which was granted approval but never saw work begin on site. Therefore this S106 agreement which forces Quintain to maintain and restore Island House isn't active because of the failure of City Park Gate to begin construction.

Essentially, Quintain are only applying to have the S106 conditions changed because of the future land value of the plots of land on the other side of Island House.

I'd suggest objections to this change are still lodged, but their impact won't prevent Island House from being demolished. Instead it might make things trickier for Quintain with future development or resale of the site.

Yes that's right - Quintain want to amend the S106 so that if the land is sold in the future there will be no obligation upon the future landowner to restore IH if the CPG scheme were to be implemented.

In theory, CPG is never going to happen because of HS2 but when the land needs to be compulsorily acquired to make way for HS2 the planning permission will be an important consideration in establishing the site's market value. The land will be more valuable without an obligation to restore IS, hence the reason why they want it demolished.

Went on a site tour of hotel la tour earlier. Having spent weekend in Hotel Indigo in cube I'm liking the finishes so far. Will be very smart.

The person who gave me tour said they have gutted inside which has deep basement apparently. Demolition scheduled next week with it all complete in three weeks.
He said Quintain were looking at keeping it orignally with law firm due to go in but cost of refurb more than demolition with eventual demolition anyway.

done :)

For the benefit of the person who reads this on the 24th or 25th: ideally, objections should be in by 23rd - and they are likely to be more carefully read if they are. However, BCC Planning will normally take objections beyond the official closing date. They just can't promise to give them as much attention as those submitted earlier. (Many conversations with different BCC planners over the years.)

Latest update from today's Birmingham Post :

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/newsaggregator/2012/02/21/century-old-island-house-set-for-demolition-65233-30374299/

How ironic, Quintain use a picture of Island House on the history page of their own website:

http://www.quintain-estates.com/history

Shame on them! :ohno:

How ironic, Quintain use a picture of Island House on the history page of their own website:

http://www.quintain-estates.com/history

Shame on them! :ohno:


That has made my hackles go up!

So I have just fired off an e-mail for what good it will do:



Dear Sirs

With reference to the company history page on your web site:
http://www.quintain-estates.com/history

I find it quite laughable that the image you show on this page is that of Island House in Birmingham - the same Island House that you have prepared for imminent demolition despite a very vocal campaign by many groups in Birmingham to save the building.

Your total disregard for this building has angered many people in Birmingham and for this image to still appear on your web site promoting your company just beggars belief.

The fact that it is also on your 'history' page is rather ironic, considering that Island House will soon been consigned to history itself!

If you are interested, there is an associated story below from The Birmingham Post.

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/n...5233-30374299/

I trust that this image will be replaced with one that is more appropriate and of a building that is still standing - for the time being anyway.

That has made my hackles go up!

So I have just fired off an e-mail for what good it will do:

:applause:

How ironic, Quintain use a picture of Island House on the history page of their own website:

http://www.quintain-estates.com/history

Shame on them! :ohno:

Well that's quickly been removed..

I've made a PDF copy of the original. :)

I wasn't going to say anything to Quintain, use it as ammo at a later date.

I've made a PDF copy of the original. :)

I wasn't going to say anything, use it as ammo at a later date.

Can you send me that please Simon? Planning on writing an article on the whole affair.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2175625/ssc/Quintain%20Estates%20%26%20Development%20PLC%20-%20History.pdf

I don't know wether to be happy or what because I don't know where this is going to lead us but..

Quintain have WITHDRAWN this app

Application Number 2012/00182/PA
Application Type Section 106A Modification of Planning Obligation
Site Address City Park Gate - land bounded by Moor Street Queensway Masshouse Lane, Park Street City Birmingham
Proposal Application to vary section 106 agreement attached to 2008/00460/PA to allow demolition of Island House


http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=559327&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

I don't know wether to be happy or what because I don't know where this is going to lead us but..

Quintain have WITHDRAWN this app



http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=559327&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/BirminghamNew/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

stay of execution I think Reiss. They might pull a sneaky one and do a Morrisons

If I'm reading Nacho's Birmingham Post article right (and I really hope I'm not), it's saying that Quintain do not have to vary the S106 to begin demolition. It looks like they have withdrawn it as it is no longer needed and will continue demolition anyway. :ohno:

I think that was the last glimmer of hope that's just gone up in flames.

Yeah, it seems that Quintain probably sought some legal advice on the Sect 106 matter. I guess this is the end of the road... :(

Ahh sorry guys :(

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2175625/ssc/Quintain%20Estates%20%26%20Development%20PLC%20-%20History.pdf

Nice one Simon. I was regretting not taking a screen grab of that page as I thought they may quickly replace it... I wonder if The Birmingham Post would run something on this?

Until the recent issues with Island House I was a member of English Heritage, but if they think a 100 year old Edwardian building is not worthy enough to save, then they are not getting any of my money: I'll stick with the National Trust.

Until the recent issues with Island House I was a member of English Heritage, but if they think a 100 year old Edwardian building is not worthy enough to save, then they are not getting any of my money: I'll stick with the National Trust.

Trouble is even if English Heritage DO list a building there is no guarantee it wont be left and allowed to crumble.

There are plenty of listed buildings on English Heritage's "at risk" register that need to be saved but due to lack of money and other factors are crumbling on a daily basis.

More here

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/

IMO the 'empty buildings tax' is the real culprit here.. if that was changed or repealed, I think you'd see a lot more buildings like Island House and the Art Deco swimming baths that used to be off Hurst Street survive.:wallbash:

IMO the 'empty buildings tax' is the real culprit here.. if that was changed or repealed, I think you'd see a lot more buildings like Island House and the Art Deco swimming baths that used to be off Hurst Street survive.:wallbash:

A repeal would be impossible right now but to reduce the tax down to 20% of the normal rate would make sense on listed type buildings - nationally or locally, provided planning was approved for refurbishment. And obviously subject to deadlines. It could have given Island much greater chance of survival.

I maintain that it would not have meant rocket science technology to have planned a removal of the stonework, numbered it individually and clad it onto a newly built steel framed construction somewhere else at a later date. Utterly wasteful just like the St Modwen idealogy against 80-100 year old buildings in Longbridge - at least the Chinese had the "lift and shift" mentality to Rover's kit rather than smash it up!

It might not be rocket science, but it's damn costly. The whole building would have to go into storage and then comes the drawn out task of finding it a new home. Finding a new home for the Spiral Cafe was bloody difficult, despite the fact that it's small and its design is relatively universal for any location. Whereas Island House is much bigger and requires a much more specific site. I don't think any one would want to take on the task of reassembling the building on their site and Quintain would probably be aware of this as well, knowing that they'd spend a fortune on storage with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Alex Dean Photography (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexdeanphotos/)

image hosted on flickr (http://www.flickr.com)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7186/6933570081_9390612dc4_b.jpg

^^ What a thorougly depressing sight. :(

Only to be replaced with just off-level grass. :(

Well done Birmingham.