St Martin's Place | Broad Street | Residential/Retail | 17fl | 53m | U/C - Page 3 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Birmingham Metro Area > Birmingham Construction Forum

Birmingham Construction Forum Building projects in Birmingham and the Black Country


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 30th, 2017, 10:12 AM   #41
nigeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,158
Likes (Received): 2183

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerpetualBrum View Post
Ace Sino Group acquired Auchineck House back in 2011. They have one sole director as of today according to Companies House, yet back in 2015 they set up Colmore Investments with the guidance of Balbinder Singh Sohal - the Founder and Chairman of Seven Capital. ASG own 3/4 of Colmore Investment shares & have one subsidiary - Staywell Hospitality Management, the group involved with Park Regis.

Nigeman, it's 2am, all that above was my 25 minutes of research. Simplistically - they could well be partners

You really didn't need to at 2am in the morning PB, but thanks all the same.
Would have thought they could easily have gone a bit higher here, but this will still be a massive improvement on the surface level car park.
Did I miss it, but what's happening to Park Regis's car parking, obviously reduced, but are they getting any basement parking underneath this? just thought 4 star hotels had to have adjacent or attached parking?
nigeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 30th, 2017, 03:50 PM   #42
morestoreysplease
Brummie Angeleno
 
morestoreysplease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Birmingham UK, Los Angeles CA
Posts: 14,192
Likes (Received): 2019

Couldn't this start pretty quickly then?
__________________
http://www.brumhaus.uk/ This isn't my work - I'm just putting their amazing art out there.
morestoreysplease no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 10:08 AM   #43
Sonny97
Registered User
 
Sonny97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rubery, bIRmiNGhaM (or is it BrOMsgRoVe?)
Posts: 959
Likes (Received): 87

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/busi...block-13693146

The Post, finally catches up with this approved "dull" tower!

Quote:
"It's not much of a building to look at but that's no reason to turn it down."
- Doesn't show much in the way of ambition if they find a dull proposal acceptable!

By reducing the height from 30 to 17 for this tower, is anyone concerned about something similar happening for the 2one2 proposal further down Broad Street? I would hate the planning committee to use a similar argument and ask for it to be reduced to 20 odd floors.
__________________
How Do I Get Out Of This Chickenshit Outfit!

Last edited by Sonny97; October 1st, 2017 at 10:21 AM.
Sonny97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 1st, 2017, 10:34 AM   #44
BhamBadger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wolverhampton/Mainz
Posts: 4,596
Likes (Received): 1600

Are they allowed to turn something for being 'dull' though.

It doesn't seem like a robust enough legal reason to do so. Any planning nerds know?
__________________
Flickr
Mainly pictures of Mainz and Birmingham, with a healthy dose of tram thrown in.
BhamBadger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 11:20 AM   #45
nigeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,158
Likes (Received): 2183

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny97 View Post
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/busi...block-13693146

By reducing the height from 30 to 17 for this tower, is anyone concerned about something similar happening for the 2one2 proposal further down Broad Street? I would hate the planning committee to use a similar argument and ask for it to be reduced to 20 odd floors.

That's the first time I have heard that this project was originally mooted for 30 storeys.
Must admit our planning committee defies logic.
My understanding with 2one2 was that after talking to the planners, planning actually asked them to go higher before submitting the proposal, surely they wouldn't change their minds half way through the submission?
But like I said BCC planning department defies logic...they were all for the V building 5-6 years ago and now NOTHING is allowed to encroach on Alpha Tower
__________________

Kingsheathen liked this post
nigeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:13 PM   #46
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by BhamBadger View Post
Are they allowed to turn something for being 'dull' though.

It doesn't seem like a robust enough legal reason to do so. Any planning nerds know?
It would not be robust enough to refuse an application and would be overturned at appeal with the LPA likely to be liable for a costs claim. If it went to an Inquiry then this cost might be upwards of ú100k without their own costs included.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigeman View Post

That's the first time I have heard that this project was originally mooted for 30 storeys.
Must admit our planning committee defies logic.
My understanding with 2one2 was that after talking to the planners, planning actually asked them to go higher before submitting the proposal, surely they wouldn't change their minds half way through the submission?
But like I said BCC planning department defies logic...they were all for the V building 5-6 years ago and now NOTHING is allowed to encroach on Alpha Tower
This is what the Officer said about the reduction in height. I think it represents sound and reasoned Planning logic to me.

Quote:
Massing has been redistributed to provide a more comfortable relationship with the adjacent buildings and the development has been rearranged to have a more direct relationship with the surrounding streets. The heights have been reduced on Broad Street from 30 to 17 storeys, from 18 to 10 storeys on St Martin’s Street and from 18 storeys to 6 storeys at Tennant Street.

The initially proposed heights were considered unacceptable as [it] would have competed with Auchinleck House which marks the corner and should remain the focal point at this key location.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:23 PM   #47
citywatcher01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 894
Likes (Received): 532

what housing crisis eh? not worried about the height for heights sake. however 'praising' a height reduction and calling something dull, is hardly the signal from a motivated, constructive and professional planning political committee. It does make you wonder what criteria the planning dept work to.

surely the planners could have worked to maximise the units on the site...
__________________

Kingsheathen liked this post
citywatcher01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:36 PM   #48
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatcher01 View Post
surely the planners could have worked to maximise the units on the site...
They work to balance the harm of a development with its benefits.

The provision of housing is of course a benefit and the Officer felt that reducing the height struck a good balance between the harm (you'll have read the report for the detail) to the street scene and adjacent buildings, and the number of homes the development would provided.

Not sure if i agree or disagree with the conclusion but their judgement seems well reasoned to me.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 02:10 PM   #49
SMUK86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,205
Likes (Received): 1371

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
They work to balance the harm of a development with its benefits.

The provision of housing is of course a benefit and the Officer felt that reducing the height struck a good balance between the harm (you'll have read the report for the detail) to the street scene and adjacent buildings, and the number of homes the development would provided.

Not sure if i agree or disagree with the conclusion but their judgement seems well reasoned to me.
Yet on the other side of Five Ways there is an absolute dogs dinner of building types and heights etc. Also why should The Park Regis be the focal point? Just because it's on a corner and is there already? Alpha Tower syndrome all over again.

Seems like the same sort of nonsense they trotted out to water down that proposal on Tennent street, despite having a terrible looking higher building directly behind it and approving similar height schemes a stones throw away at the bank which also has little or no parking. Absolutely no consistency in decision making, actually that's not true it's more like they consistently make bad decisions stifling ambition and development that you wouldn't get in other cities over a building proposed at 30 floors in a prominent location.

Last edited by SMUK86; October 1st, 2017 at 05:05 PM.
SMUK86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 02:31 PM   #50
Brum X
Registered User
 
Brum X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,499
Likes (Received): 17633

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMUK86 View Post
Yet on the other side of Five Ways there is an absolute dogs dinner of building types and heights etc. Also why should The Park Regis be the focal point? Just because it's on a corner and is there already? Alpha Tower syndrome all over again.

Seems like the same sort of nonsense they trotted out to water down that proposal on Tennent street, despite having a terrible looking higher building directly behind it and approving similar height schemes a stones throw away at the bank which also has little or no parking. Absolutely no consistency in decision making, actually that's not true it's more like they make consistently make bad decisions stifling ambition and development that you wouldn't get in other cities over a building proposed at 30 floors in a prominent location.
I have to agree 100%
__________________
Brum X no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 02:39 PM   #51
citywatcher01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 894
Likes (Received): 532

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
They work to balance the harm of a development with its benefits.

The provision of housing is of course a benefit and the Officer felt that reducing the height struck a good balance between the harm (you'll have read the report for the detail) to the street scene and adjacent buildings, and the number of homes the development would provided.

Not sure if i agree or disagree with the conclusion but their judgement seems well reasoned to me.
I'd suspect a different planning team in a different city may well interpret the same rules with a different outcome.....and it could still be reasoned
__________________

Kingsheathen liked this post
citywatcher01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 02:52 PM   #52
ReissOmari
Birmingham - #1
 
ReissOmari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 21,302
Likes (Received): 14765

Who are the people that approve and refuse these buildings anyway? Seems like we could do with much younger people making these decision as the oldies always have something to moan about.
__________________
ReissOmari..




Kingsheathen, Brum X liked this post
ReissOmari no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 03:34 PM   #53
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatcher01 View Post
I'd suspect a different planning team in a different city may well interpret the same rules with a different outcome.....and it could still be reasoned
Well exactly, doesn't make it right or wrong just that there is a reasoned argument for the decision with the policies they have to assess the proposal against. No doubt if this was Leamington Spa, Warwick Council (i think is the Council) would take much more restrictive view to say the City of London Corporation if this was in the City.

There does seem to be consistency from a number of different planning officers who have assessed buildings in this area. So it is an approach adopted throughout the department.

Nonetheless, reading though the reasoning, i find little to disagree with. You could argue whether Park Regis should be a focal point or not. To me it makes sense being at the roundabout and on a gateway to the city centre. Is this a reason enough for buildings behind to be shorter? Suppose there could be if it is felt that going taller would be overbearing.

What i suspect is happening is that the LPA want to create a cluster of really tall buildings in the middle of Broad Street, tapering down as you approach the end of the road and at gatway sites. Whilst also maintaining taller buildings along main roadways into and around the city. No evidence of this of course, just reading between the lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReissOmari View Post
Who are the people that approve and refuse these buildings anyway? Seems like we could do with much younger people making these decision as the oldies always have something to moan about.
in my experience there is a young base of planners and seniors, probably between the ages of 23- 40. Principals tend to be over 40 with Line Managers in their 50's or above.

Planners make a recommendation to Planning Committee. Planning Committee (local councilors) use the advice given in the recommendation to decide to grant or refuse, an application. Occasionally they request changes. The latter shouldn't really happen if Planners have done the work before hand but if someone is whispering in the ear of a Councillor or they have a vulnerable seat they might want to flex a little.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype

Last edited by djay; October 1st, 2017 at 05:24 PM.
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 05:10 PM   #54
SMUK86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,205
Likes (Received): 1371

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
Well exactly, doesn't make it right or wrong just that there is a reasoned argument for the decision with the policies they have to assess the proposal against. No doubt if this was Leamington Spa, Warwick Council (i think is the Council) would take much more restrictive view to say the City of London Corporation if this was in the City.

There does seem to be consistency from a number of different planning officers who have assessed buildings in this area. So it is an approach adopted throughout the department.

Nonetheless, reading though the reasoning, i find little to disagree with. You could argue whether Park Regis should be a focal point or not. To me it makes sense being at the roundabout and on a gateway to the city centre. Is this a reason enough for buildings behind to be shorter? Suppose there could be if it is felt that going taller would be overbearing.

What i suspect is happening is that the LPA want to create a cluster of really tall buildings in the middle of Broad Street, tapering down as you approach the end of the road and at gatway sites. Whilst also maintaining taller buildings along main roadways into and around the city. No evidence of this of course, just reading between the lines.



in my experience there is a young base of planners and seniors, probably between the ages of 23- 40. Principles tend to be over 40 with Line Managers in their 50's or above.

Planners make a recommendation to Planning Committee. Planning Committee (local councilors) use the advice given in the recommendation to decide to grant or refuse, an application. Occasionally they request changes. The latter shouldn't really happen if Planners have done the work before hand but if someone is whispering in the ear of a Councillor or they have a vulnerable seat they might want to flex a little.
When you watch those recordings of meetings they just seem to moan a lot, have almost nothing constructive to say and are quite unprofessional. There is no way they would get away with those kind of standards in any professional private organisation.
SMUK86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 09:08 PM   #55
Brum X
Registered User
 
Brum X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,499
Likes (Received): 17633

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReissOmari View Post
Who are the people that approve and refuse these buildings anyway? Seems like we could do with much younger people making these decision as the oldies always have something to moan about.
The oldies really do need to go, yeah i agree and im getting an oldie myself but i have to admit the oldies are so backwards in lots of ways.

They prevent progress of this city time and time again.
Brum X no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 11:34 PM   #56
SimonTheSoundMan
ENTJ 8w9
 
SimonTheSoundMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 11,985
Likes (Received): 1906

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigeman View Post

The article says Ace Sino Group have won approval for the scheme..I was sure this was a Seven Capital project?
Seven Capital will be selling it.

The owner of Ace Sino, Ace Hospitality, Huntcourt Limited also owns Colmore Tang Construction. He also owns 5 Ways Hospitality which is a hotel management company. He aso owns hotels such as Park Regis (and the rights to the brand from Staywell), Nitenite, and several Holiday Inn hotels such as A45 Birmingham South and the airport. He also owns many of the Seven Capital properties that are under construction to date. Another one he owns is Lansdowne House, which is sold by Seven Capital but built by Interserve, but owned by Colmore Tang.
__________________
y = 1/x ; where x = amount of f¨nknuttery and y = level of my interest

Last edited by SimonTheSoundMan; October 1st, 2017 at 11:42 PM.
SimonTheSoundMan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 11:48 PM   #57
SimonTheSoundMan
ENTJ 8w9
 
SimonTheSoundMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 11,985
Likes (Received): 1906

The fact this site was allowed, and even mentioned in, the tall building policy for Birmingham bemuses me.

__________________
y = 1/x ; where x = amount of f¨nknuttery and y = level of my interest

Kingsheathen, BhamJim liked this post
SimonTheSoundMan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2017, 11:55 PM   #58
citywatcher01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 894
Likes (Received): 532

sound like a very tax efficient arrangement. I agree with the above. it also seems strange not to allow a 30 storey complex here. yet potentially allow tall structures in low rise digbeth......
citywatcher01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 01:12 PM   #59
nigeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,158
Likes (Received): 2183

Investigative drilling being carried out on various parts of the car park yesterday.
Wonder if we'll get a start early in the new year on this one?
__________________

RalphGuy liked this post
nigeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:21 PM   #60
RalphGuy
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,703
Likes (Received): 4791

From what I've seen, Seven Capital don't mess about. They'd be on site at Connaught Square if the Council hadn't been fannying around.
__________________

Brum X, morestoreysplease liked this post
RalphGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DISCUSS: Best European Skyline By 2025 Union Man Skyscrapers 886 Yesterday 10:31 PM
MADRID TODAY - MONOGRAPH OF ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CITIES OF EUROPE Castor_Game Cityscapes and Skyline Photos 519 October 18th, 2018 10:48 PM
NOTIFICATIONS / NEWS - Updates and new information available in the "Forum Index" Newcastle Historian Newcastle Metro Area 55 August 11th, 2018 10:54 AM
FORUM INDEX - Newcastle Forum ALPHABETICAL SUBJECT INDEX to factual posts on this forum Newcastle Historian Newcastle Metro Area 79 March 13th, 2012 10:29 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us