Regal Tower | Broad Street | 56fl | 201m | App.

[KHvillan]

Originally Posted by Ecological

Planning consents are always for 3 or 5 years. They can build any time during that. Why not go for 5 years. Saves them money by re submitting planning applications every 12 months.

No they are not. The standard/default is three years but LPAs can shorten or extend as they see fit.

The Council are suggesting that them life of the permission could be reduced to 3 years in order to reflect the current economic downturn and the level of public transport contribution. Otherwise, if the market picks up between years 3 and 5 the contribution could turn out to be low.

[Engels]

Look at it this way.

We have no idea whether it will get planning permission - but things usually do so lets say there's an 80% chance it will get permission.

It will either be granted permission for 3 years or the requested 5. The applicant is requesting 5 years which suggests they have no intention of an immediate start. From granting of permission they will have to make a start on site within the 3 or 5 year period. Which takes us to a max start date of either 2013 or 2015. Within that timeframe the developer will have to secure the finance for the development and be confident it will make financial sense. Only when the developer and lenders are confident of the success of the project they decide to start. All that being said the longer the window in which they can choose to build it the higher the likelyhood it will go ahead and thus the value of the land / markability of the development will be greater.

None of this gives us an clue whether they will make a start in 2011, 2015 or ever.

[woodhousen]

i am totally against the principle of extending the planning consent from 3 to 5 years, and imho often displays the fact that developers are not intending to build anything anytime soon....

you then ask why? is this purely a money making exercise.... get planning consent in the bad times when no-one wants the site, then hold on to it with consent and then sell it off in 5 years time am make top dollar from their investment.

the reason the life span of a planning application was reduced from 5 to 3 was for this very reason, and so to go back to 5 is rediculous. 3 years is a long time, and if they dont have any intention to build anytime in the next 3 years, then i think an extra fee of approx. £50,000+ to apply for another planning consent and run the risk of getting it refused, is a fair punishment and risk they take!

why should the council allow major/important brownfield sites be held to randsom by developers who have no plans to building anything.

regal put your money where you mouth is and be happy with the 3 year consent!

[GAZ]

well said Woodhousen

i am fed up of promises not being delivered in Brum

[woodhousen]

me for mayor?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Sion Simon to contend with. Go Woody!

[joshwebb]

Defo

[blar]

Did anyone go to the Ladywood ward committee meeting last night?

[Brums'grove]

Originally Posted by blar

Did anyone go to the Ladywood ward committee meeting last night?

No, but im guessing it was related to Regal?

[Langur]

Originally Posted by majortim

From the Post today:

'Plans for a 650-ft tower in Birmingham city centre have been slammed by the government’s architecture watchdog as inappropriate and over-bearing.

Regal Property Group unveiled proposals a year ago to build a 56-storey skyscraper at a cost of £125 million on Broad Street.

The scheme, which would be Birmingham’s tallest building, includes a 289-bed hotel with a sky bar and restaurants, apartments and car parking.

But CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, is urging the city planning committee not to grant approval and to ask the scheme’s architects to think again.

The commission said the tower would be one of the city’s most visible buildings and had to be of exceptional design.

In a letter to the council, CABE demand a more “innovative and robust approach” and warn that the tower would be too high and loom over Brindleyplace.

CABE adds that the structure appears to be driven by financial concerns rather than urban design considerations.

The letter adds: “The lack of breathing space on the ground calls into question whether this constrained site is appropriate for a tall building at all.

“There is no outdoor or covered public space to receive the large number of people arriving or leaving the building.

“It should have a generous contribution to the public realm and have an inventive and sustainable approach to is form and architecture.”

CABE add that Birmingham must “do better” and that the planning application as it stands should be refused.

Objections have also been lodged by members of the public and by the Victorian Society, which fears the tower will dominate the surrounding area and spoil views in and out of the Colmore Row, Edgbaston and Jewellery Quarter conservation areas.

The site is in an area zoned by the council for tall buildings and plans exist for a 40-storey tower on the opposite side of Broad Street.

CABE’s role is only advisory and planners do not have to take the commission’s advice.

Regal managing director Roger Holbeche praised the design when submitting planning permission last year.

He said: “Regal Tower will be one of Birmingham’s tallest buildings and is set to alter the city’s skyline with its inspirational design. It will provide the highest fine dining and drinking venue in the city within its premier sky bar.”

Planning committee members have decided to visit the Regal Tower site before making a decision.'

Took them a while to catch onto that one...!

CABE's conclusion is depressing. Won't it make the view from Brindley Place better rather than worse? And why must towers always have a generous entrance area? Birmingham isn't short of public spaces, and many of New York's finest skyscrapers soar up directly from the pavement without adding any new public space at all. Ultimately, however, Birmingham lacks in landmarks and inspiring architecture. Boldness and self confidence are what's needed to remedy that, but CABE is urging the reverse.

[joshwebb]

is this bad news because i read it all and im not really 100% sure of it?

[Erebus555]

No it's not bad news. It's disappointing, but it's not bad. All it means is that a group of people don't like this tower. The council have received the comments of that group, and work has been done to address these comments. Just because CABE object to the building, the council can still approve it. They do not need to follow CABE's recommendations.

Originally Posted by Langur

CABE's conclusion is depressing. Won't it make the view from Brindley Place better rather than worse? And why must towers always have a generous entrance area? Birmingham isn't short of public spaces, and many of New York's finest skyscrapers soar up directly from the pavement without adding any new public space at all. Ultimately, however, Birmingham lacks in landmarks and inspiring architecture. Boldness and self confidence are what's needed to remedy that, but CABE is urging the reverse.

I think whilst CABE's points are depressing and probably a little harsh, they are still valid, and you can understand their point of view.

Their point about it's effect on Brindleyplace is very much a subjective one, in my opinion. It is obviously absolutely massive compared to the rest of Brindleyplace. The tallest building in Brindleyplace is less than a third of the height of this. Personally, I love the view of it from Brindleyplace, it stands as a landmark and an identifiable building. But it will also be one of them buildings which will be there, no matter where you are. It'll always be peeping over the buildings. Maybe this is what CABE is concerned about.

I don't think it is possible to compare this to average NY skyscrapers. This is designed to be a stand along building, marking a pinnacle and landmark in its area. NY skyscrapers just fit in with eachother, generally. The only skyscraper I think you could compare to this is the Lipstick Building (which was apparently an influence in the design for this). The Lipstick Building does have quite an impressive entrance for what is another office building, I believe. This is an intended landmark with some of the best facilities for it's type in the city. CABE seem to believe that this building should reflect the importance and dominance it has on the skyline, in a similar way at street level. And I agree. However, I think that the entrance is satisfactory, and the changes made to the design since the CABE comments have further enhanced this so I have no issue.

I think CABE would disagree with you when you say that this is inspirational architecture. It certainly does follow the trend we are seeing of randomly placed cladding (although the Design & Access Statement would suggest that the placement of each cladding panel is anything but random). CABE seem to believe that this is just too similar to the style and should break the mould a bit more.

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, work for CABE.

[Soul_13]

Originally Posted by SimonTheSoundMan

Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, work for CABE.

hey that's my line.....

[Brum X]

And its not planned to be a standalone skyscraper, its planned to sit alongside a 134 metre skyscraper if its built.

[SuttonBaggie]

Originally Posted by Brum X

And its not planned to be a standalone skyscraper, its planned to sit alongside a 134 metre skyscraper if its built.

More like when it is built. Just waiting on a compulsory purchase order to go through and once the final building is acquired, construction will start on BST.

[nigeman]

Originally Posted by SuttonBaggie

More like when it is built. Just waiting on a compulsory purchase order to go through and once the final building is acquired, construction will start on BST.

Thats a confident statement SB. Being one of the few admirers of BST I hope you're right!

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by Brum X

And its not planned to be a standalone skyscraper, its planned to sit alongside a 134 metre skyscraper if its built.

I think you misunderstood me. Yes, there are plans to build another tower opposite but the design is for it to act as a standalone building. It won't slot in between a dense cluster of buildings that are next to eachother like in NY.

[SuttonBaggie]

Originally Posted by nigeman

Thats a confident statement SB. Being one of the few admirers of BST I hope you're right!

I'm confident only because I don't think they'd go to all the trouble of prizing this one last property from the owner through a CPO to then not build the tower. I'm with you I do like BST and think it will look much better once complete compared to the CGIs.

[Brum X]

When are we likely to hear some news on this????? Its been a while now