Official Birmingham Thread 18

[fruit&nut]

Originally Posted by Erebus555

Has anyone got a picture of the Swing? I can't remember the bastard thing.

I think this is a good idea though. Lets just hope they don't turn into some odd artistic statement like an 8ft tall iron gate hanging off a building 20 metres above the ground just to be arty farty.

I have but it's an oldie so i'll have to scan it in. I'm off to Scotland tomorrow, so that'll have to wait till the weekend.....unless anyone else can oblige!

[Bachy Soletanche]

Also see the great, but increably dated mini-site
http://www.joyfeed.com/euphoria/swing.stm

[hopo]

Bit of a random one. does anyone know what is being built on the old copperworks site next to the m6 at walsall? what are the plans? and more importantly when is construction due?

[feltip]

Some committee planning documents that are worth a read but not much we dont already know:

http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore...0026105FUL.pdf
http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore...0026105FUL.pdf

http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore...ity%20Park.pdf

http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore...0039307FUL.pdf
http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore...0039107FUL.pdf

http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore...0080807ADV.pdf

[ShavenHeaden]

Reading those makes me nervous about Typhoo Wharf and possibly Warwick Bar - with them being within the MacDermid 'blast zone' will many banks be willing to grant mortgages for them?

The plant should be relocated elsewhere to some kid of business park - as should most of the companies around that side of Eastside really. Who would want to live next to the variety of car workshops and industrial warehouses that are there now? Not to even mention the chemicals 500m away.

[blahblah]

Originally Posted by ShavenHeaden

Reading those makes me nervous about Typhoo Wharf and possibly Warwick Bar - with them being within the MacDermid 'blast zone' will many banks be willing to grant mortgages for them?

The plant should be relocated elsewhere to some kid of business park - as should most of the companies around that side of Eastside really. Who would want to live next to the variety of car workshops and industrial warehouses that are there now? Not to even mention the chemicals 500m away.

I thought MacDermid were moving to make way for Eastside's regeneration?

[woodhousen]

good find feltip, it does indeed look as if ours very own snowhill beast will be approved this week!

[woodhousen]

Originally Posted by ShavenHeaden

Reading those makes me nervous about Typhoo Wharf and possibly Warwick Bar - with them being within the MacDermid 'blast zone' will many banks be willing to grant mortgages for them?

The plant should be relocated elsewhere to some kid of business park - as should most of the companies around that side of Eastside really. Who would want to live next to the variety of car workshops and industrial warehouses that are there now? Not to even mention the chemicals 500m away.

yes bah blah is right, you should really read the whole document. the chemical plant issue has been ressolved!

[Erebus555]

Curzon Park is/ was in the blast zone too, I seem to remember.

[ShavenHeaden]

Originally Posted by woodhousen

yes bah blah is right, you should really read the whole document. the chemical plant issue has been ressolved!

Any particular reason you feel the need to be patronising?

Also, I did read the whole document; as far as I can see it makes no mention of the plant moving - if I've missed something feel free to point it out.

It does state that the permit for use of hazardous substances will be restricted as previously it was too general. However it still means that the properties are within the blast zone and it still seems that the HSE have concerns. Therefore I feel my question about banks willing to lend is a valid one.

That said all is moot if I have missed something in those documents that says the plant is moving.

[woodhousen]

well firstly its not about being patronising, just honest and logical. the quote above is taken from the first page of the first report, not overly hard to find. i just ask what is the point of someone going to the effort of finding an posting these reports for someone to read and for people not to bother reading them but then asking questions.

The plant is not moving, which is why you will not find it documented anywhere. however, as has been publisised on these boards and in this report the matter has now been resolved. something i believe to the owners of the plant agreeing to move the dangerous processes in question to another location!

[ShavenHeaden]

Originally Posted by woodhousen

well firstly its not about being patronising, just honest and logical. the quote above is taken from the first page of the first report, not overly hard to find. i just ask what is the point of someone going to the effort of finding an posting these reports for someone to read and for people not to bother reading them but then asking questions.

The plant is not moving, which is why you will not find it documented anywhere. however, as has been publisised on these boards and in this report the matter has now been resolved. something i believe to the owners of the plant agreeing to move the dangerous processes in question to another location!

Once again I did read it. pages 8 through 10 on this report discuss the HSE's objections in further detail.

The planning department came to the conclusion that the key point the HSE took issue with is that future developments could take place at the plant because the hazardous materials consent was so vague. This is what they resolved with the company by a new hazardous consent application that wasn't so vague.

However the HSE still seems to have concerns and still recommend against the development (as they also seem to have done with Curzon Gateway). Now I understand the fact that the planning department thinks they've resolved what they (the planning dept) have determined to be the HSE's main problems with the development. However the HSE still advises against the scheme.

The HSE may decide that the application need not be called in. However, in view of the nature of the installation, it is unlikely however, that the HSE would withdraw their objection. As such any permission would be contrary to the advice of the HSE. (paragraph 4, page 8)

So I again ask - if you were applying for a mortgage to buy a property that was built against HSE recommendations, would a bank be likely to lend? Also would it affect insurance costs? If you like, consider it a hypothetical question.

[Biosonic]

There's insurance to worry about too.

[Biosonic]

So, 100m or over we have:

VTP-175 @ 175m
V Tower @ c. 150m
Snow Hill @ 137m
Broad Street Tower @ 135m (I have a feeling we'll hear an announcement soon)
New St Station 1 @ 130m
New St Station 2 @ 130m
Central Fire Station @ c. 120m +
Martineau Galleries @ 110m
Masshouse @ 104m
Former Natwest @ c. 100m

Nice

[Erebus555]

Good or bad announcement on Broad Street Tower? Me thinks its to do with the hotel operator.

[Biosonic]

It is only speculation, but I reckon it will be good - everything seems right (market conditions, construction, planning applications) for them to make a move now.

I haven't seen any tenders appear though.

[Flogging Molly]

You might aswell add the ones that are built

Interestinf snippet from Gothic aswell in another thread. Says he knows of at least 20 new towers in the pipeline for Brum.

[Flogging Molly]

I suggest they wait until Snow Hill name thier hotel operator and get all thier press out the way. What worse way to market a new skyscraper with the knowledge a more luxurious one is flying up across the city.

[Mercurius]

Originally Posted by Flogging Molly

You might aswell add the ones that are built

Interestinf snippet from Gothic aswell in another thread. Says he knows of at least 20 new towers in the pipeline for Brum.

20 towers??? i think he was exagerating. I dont think we even have the space for that many towers in the city centre. If its true than its good news but i must admit a bit hard to believe.

[Flogging Molly]

I take it you dont know how little space is needed for a significant tower?

P.S Gothic, just incase you didnt know is the best source we have on these forums. He also runs www.skyscrapernews.com with Woody as one of his busy bees.