THE EMPORIUM - Saving Bartholomew...

www.weareidp.com

THE EMPORIUMBARTHOLOMEW ROW

BIRMINGHAM

Design and Access StatementAugust 2015

Prepared by IDP Group Architects

1.0 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Team1.2 Statement1.3 Project Context1.4 Pre-Application Discussion1.5 Planning History

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL

2.1 Current Site Use2.2 Wider Context2.3 Immediate Context2.4 Planning Policy2.5 Future Use2.6 Site Analysis2.7 Site Heritage2.8 Existing Site Photos

3.0 - CONCEPT DESIGN

3.1 Precedent3.2 Design Principals3.3 Design Development3.4 Scale and Massing

4.0 - THE PROPOSAL

4.1 The scheme4.2 Appearance and Materials4.3 Landscape4.4 Access

5.0 - CONCLUSION

CONTENTS

Aerial view of the existing site as the Eastside Park was being developed.

www.weareidp.com

1.0 – INTRODUCTION1.1 PROJECT TEAM

Andrew Leaver, Zoe Mason, IDP GroupArchitects

Simon Linford, Linford CZeroDeveloper

Ken Fisher, Apec ArchitectsConservation Architect

Jim O’Donnell, Copeland Wedge AssociatesStructural Engineer

John Webb, Castle Construction ConsultantsProject Manager and Cost Consultant

John Hughes, ViridianM & E Consultant

Chris Stack, Phil Jones AssociatesTransport Planning Consultant

Preet Ghandi, ic:capitalFunding Representation

www.weareidp.com

1.0 – INTRODUCTION1.2 STATEMENT

This document has been prepared on behalf of. Czero by IDP Group toaccompany the application for full planning consent for theredevelopment of the existing Grade 2 Listed building cluster between7-12 Bartholomew Row, extending back to Fox Street. 7-8Bartholomew Row (the former Christopher Wray Showroom andworkshop), are intended to be demolished. A contemporary 15 storeytower is proposed in place of these buildings, also utilising a triangle ofexcess parkland on the fringe of the newly developed East Side Park.

Please see the adjacent list of additional drawings which have beenprepared as part of the application for planning consent.

The site is located in the centre of Birmingham on the fringe of thenewly landscape East Side Park, within walking distance of theUniversities, the Bullring and Birmingham New Street Station. The Sitesproximity to the proposed HS2 Masterplan has also been taken intoaccount.

This scheme seeks to bring the historic fabric of the complex of Grade2 Listed buildings in the centre of Birmingham back to life. The schemeconsists of the sensitive refurbishment of the old Christopher WrayLighting Factory and Emporium into ancillary student facilities, artiststudios and workshops, 4 No. duplex studio units and new office space,alongside a bold new tower of 166 No. high quality student studioapartments with associated communal spaces and a landscapedgarden terrace.

In addition, 329sqm of Leisure space is created at the ground floor ofthe tower, intended for a high quality food and drink offer, opening uponto the newly landscaped Eastside City Park, and a new ‘Ruin pub’opened in the basement of the existing Fox Street building. The newtower is designed to complement the materiality of the existing Listedbuildings and form part of the dialogue of the Masterplan around thepark, without overshadowing the existing buildings, but enhancing thecharacter that they bring to the area.

Please also refer to the Heritage Statement prepared by ApecArchitects also on behalf of CZero. Our design approach to the listedbuildings has been to reveal their character, enhance their quirks andbring them back into beneficial use through minimal and sensitiveinterventions that allows the collection of building to become thesocial heart of the overall development.

2192-03-01-000- Site Location Plan

2192-03-02-000- Existing Site Plan

2192-03-03-1LG- Existing Lower Ground Floor Plan2192-03-03-100- Existing Ground Floor Plan2192-03-03-101- Existing First Floor Plan2192-03-03-102- Existing Second Floor Plan

2192-03-03-0LG- Demolition Plan- Lower Ground Floor2192-03-03-200- Demolition Plan- Ground Floor2192-03-03-201- Demolition Plan- First Floor2192-03-03-202- Demolition Plan- Second Floor

2192-03-02-001- Proposed Site Plan2192-03-02-005- Proposed Landscape Plan

2192-03-03-0LG- Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan2192-03-03-000- Proposed Ground Floor Plan2192-03-03-001- Proposed First Floor Plan2192-03-03-002- Proposed Second Floor Plan2192-03-03-003- Proposed Third Floor Plan2192-03-03-004- Proposed Typical 4-14th Floor Plan2192-03-03-015- Proposed Roof Access Level Plan2192-03-03-016- Proposed Roof Plan

2192-03-05-001- Proposed Courtyard elevation2192-03-05-002- Proposed Fox Street elevation2192-03-05-003- Proposed Eastside Park elevation2192-03-05-004- Proposed Bartholomew Row elevation2192-03-05-013- Proposed Eastside Park elevation in context2192-03-05-014- Proposed Bartholomew Row elevation in context

2192-03-04-001-005- Proposed Sections A-A, B-B, C-C, D-D, E-E

Proposed Visuals

Associated Documents and Reports

www.weareidp.com

The area of the site is approximately 1,435sqm (15,446sqft). It sitsbetween Bartholomew Row and Fox Street, in the Eastside Quarter ofBirmingham city centre.

Eastside is the home of the Grade I Listed Curzon Street Station - theoriginal terminus for the Birmingham to London rail line, now proposedto act as one of the key accesses for the High Speed 2 terminus. Atpresent the site is within walking distance of New Street, Moor Streetand Snow Hill Stations.

Eastside is a central focus for regeneration activity in the city centre,the emergence of the area as a location for knowledge, skills andinnovation as it is home to a number of educational institutionsincluding Birmingham Metropolitan College, Ormiston Academy, theAston University campus and the Birmingham City University campus.The Bartholomew Row Site is within easy walking distance of all ofthese educational facilities, as well as the shops and amenities ofBirmingham City Centre.

Birmingham City University is gradually relocating to Eastside,providing a need for high quality student accommodation in the areawhich reflects the aspirations of the University.

The sites prominent location on the fringe of the newly developedEastside Park, visible from the main rail links into and throughBirmingham, and within the immediate the proximity of the proposedHS2 terminus has dictated the need for a high quality modern building,striking in design and appropriate to the area. In addition theimmediate adjacency of the existing Listed Buildings has required anelement of sensitivity in the design of the new tower.

This proposal seeks to add to the character of the area and put adisused, vacant, deteriorating building back into beneficial use.

1.0 – INTRODUCTION1.3 PROJECT CONTEXT

Grade 1 Listed Curzon Street StationThe Quarters as illustrated by Birmingham Big City Plan

Eastside aerial view as illustrated by Birmingham Big City Plan

www.weareidp.com

Prior to this application being submitted the following discussion hastaken place with the Local Authority:

• 2nd March 2012- Meeting on site with Stephen King and LesleySheldrake.

• 7th August 2012- Meeting on site with Stephen King and Jim Wilson,to study the areas recommended for removal.

• 29th January 2013- Meeting with Lesley Sheldrake, Steven King andGlenn Howells Architects (GHA). Outline scheme involving buildingson adjacent site (Across Fox Street) presented.

• 19th March 2013- GHA proposals considered by the Big City PlanBoard. Feedback that listed buildings should be retained and heightand design of the new build needs careful assessment.

• 22nd May 2013- Meeting set up by GHA with Andrew Round, SimonDelahunty Forrest, Lesley Sheldrake and Azmat Mir to reviewscheme and consider the impact of HS2. Confirmed that the HS2exclusion zone was no barrier to the scheme.

• 19th November 2013- Pre app meeting with Stephen King, LesleySheldrake, Simon Delahunty-Forrest, and Simon Kirton fromEmission Zero Architects. Presented a scheme for the Wray sitealone. The scheme was considered to be much too massive andoverpowering

• 18th December 2013- Pre app meeting with Stephen King and LesleySheldrake.

• 24th Feb 2014- Meeting with Stephen King and Lesley Sheldrakefollowing feedback from English Heritage. Informed that preferencewas to keep as much of the significant listed building as possible, notlose the Malthouse. Adjacent height was a price worth paying forkeeping as much historic fabric as possible.

• 30th July 2014- Meeting with Lesley Sheldrake, Simon Delahunty-Forrest and IDP Architects, who had been appointed jointly with ICCapital to bring forward a higher quality scheme.

• 5th November 2014- Revised scheme from IDP presented to SimonDelahunty-Forrest and Lesley Sheldrake.

• February 2015- Revised design using a podium and tower rising to17 storeys is presented to the Planning board chaired by WaheedNazir. Feedback is that it is too tall.

• 31st March 2015- Meeting with Andrew Round, Simon DelahuntyForrest and Lesley Sheldrake. Waheed Nazir had engaged Andrewto assist closely, including with Property Services in relation to thedisposal of the triangle of parkland.

1.0 – INTRODUCTION1.4 PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION

Article in Birmingham Post, July 2015

The history of the site and the proposals has also been widelypublished online and in with opportunities for anyone to give theirfeedback. CZero has a genuine interest in the existing buildings, andconsiderable research into the history of the site has been carried out,with huge efforts currently being undertaken to restore the building asit stands now, disused and decaying for ten years.www.savingbartholomewrow.com summarises the wealth ofinformation on the site.

The building was showcased in the Birmingham Posts “Hidden Spaces”of Birmingham feature in December 2014, and was opened to thepublic for tours Birmingham’s Hidden Spaces Unlocked 2015. Theproposal was also documented in Birmingham Post in July this year.

• 6th May 2015- Subsequent meeting with Simon Delahunty Forrestand Lesley Sheldrake to review the 3D city model. Tower to bereduced in height by 4 storeys

• 24th June 2015- Meeting with Lesley Sheldrake and Simon D-F withrevised scheme at 164 studios 14 storey tower with reduced height,all concerns from last meeting addressed.

• 13th July 2015- The Conservation Heritage Panel were given a tour ofthe building. Following the site visit, the Design Team presented theproposals, which were well received. The comments made at thismeeting were observed, with a number of tests done on the designfollowing the meeting.

www.weareidp.com

Saving Bartholomew Row is a great challenge because the conservationdeficit is high, and the footprint on which a new building can be built inorder to cross subsidise that restoration cost is very small. The wholesite is 30m wide at the front and 40m deep between Bartholomew Rowand Fox Street. Only one strip of the site, along the edge of the Park,can be built on, following the demolition of the 20th Centrury ‘LightingShowroom’ and yard occupying 7-8 Bartholomew Row. This 40mx10mstrip is a very inefficient footprint for development, being not wideenough to have two rooms on either side of a corridor. In order toprovide sufficient floor area it would need to be about 20 storeys highwhich is even less buildable than it would be desirable.

In itself therefore the site cannot support a viable development, whichleave three options.

1. Get grant funding2. Find adjacent land that can be built on instead to provide the cross-

subsidy3. Demolish parts of the listed building to provide a larger footprint

for the new building

As the following timeline shows, these options have been explored andexhausted, with the final solution being to save all of the listed buildingby increasing the new build footprint with a small triangle of the parkwhich lies in between the southern wall of the site, and the pathwayinto the Park. Although not large in itself at 170m2, this strip improvesthe footprint sufficiently to enable the new building to be anacceptable height, with the angle also helping to give a moreinteresting building form.

Christopher Wray closes the factory and showroom after receiving an offer for compulsory purchase for thecreation of Masshouse. Following this, the building is not purchased, but it is Listed.

The property is marketed extensively following vacation by Christopher Wray’s lighting business. The BuildingsGrade II listing impacts the situation but a firm offer is received from David McLean Homes who weredeveloping Masshouse opposite the site. However this offer falls away in December 2004.

The property fails to sell at auction, this is blamed on the ‘partial’ listing. Donald Insall Associates (DIA)appointed to advise on de-listing. DIA advise that de-listing is unlikely, on the basis of historic significancerather than historical merit. Focus changed from being an attempt to de-list to being a Planning Statement toclarify how the buildings could be developed to assist with marketing the site.

The Conservation Officer from Birmingham City Council gets involved. An agreement is reached that someparts of the buildings are more important than others, which moves towards the publication of the DIA’sHistoric Building Report which identifies the ‘Special Interest’ and also the elements that detract from thespecial interest and therefore could be removed; the roof over loading bay between Building E and the southwall of No 9, the roof over the area between Buildings C and F, also between these wings, the high levelbridges and shack structure on Fox Street The shanty construction behind Buildings A and B; Building D andthe adjacent lower level roof The modern suspended ceilings, such as that which hides the upper parts of theMalt House building. The removal of all of these 20th century additions would open up the originalproportions and volumes of the historic spaces. DIA identify major opportunities for the future use of thebuildings, being re-building on the site of numbers 7 and 8 Bartholomew Row (i.e. the showroom and yard),and repairing, conserving and converting the “remarkable complex of historic buildings at 9-12 BartholomewRow”. They further add “That these two opportunities can be taken in developing a single scheme allows theregeneration of a significant site particularly given the local authority’s intention to develop the new EastsideCity Park to the immediate south of the buildings.”

Continued unsuccessful attempts to sell the buildings even with DIA’s report lead to an attempt byChristopher Wray’s agents to have the building compulsorily purchased by Advantage West Midlands on thegrounds that the listing has blighted it. Savills gives a site value to another potential purchaser of minus £2m.

PPS5 Statement completed by DIA, this argues for the complete demolition of the structures, which would bepermissible under ‘exceptional circumstances’ under PPS5, and if it can be shown that a designated assetcannot be used. Suggested that:

1.0 – INTRODUCTION1.5 PLANNING HISTORY

2002/3

2003/4

2005

2006/7

2008

2010/11

“The circumstances here can be considered to be exceptional; the buildings are in anexceptionally hostile location and blighted by heavy traffic and large scale development,and they are in a poor state of repair and would require refurbishment at a cost that wouldlie significantly beyond their end value. No use, charitable or commercial, has been foundduring the last eight years of marketing the buildings. Their demolition, whilst regrettable,would be the only way of bringing the site back into use.”

www.weareidp.com

CZero approach Christopher Wray’s agent on the basis that the building is worth nothing in its current state.Christopher Wray agrees to a deal with Czero “provided it means I will never have to come to Birminghamever again”. The previous eight years of fighting have taken their toll! Meetings with BCC Conservation andPlanning Officers establishing general principle of a mixed use scheme however it becomes clear that ascheme on the site alone is not going to be viable even with some demolitions. Glenn Howells Architects(GHA) appointed to look at how a larger scheme could encompass neighbouring land.

Discussions start with the Council’s Property Services Department (BPS) about possible acquisition of the sitebetween the Wray building and Millennium Point. This would be used for a larger development that would beable to cross subsidise the repair of the historic buildings.

Local conservation specialists ‘Apec Architects’ were appointed to review and update DIA’s Statement ofSignificance. Apec conclude as follows:


2012

2013

“Whist other buildings on the site contribute to the story of a three-centuryprogression from domestic into mixed-use and finally light-engineering, they are,by no means, a rare example of such a conglomeration within the centralBirmingham area. [contrary to DIA’s opinion] There is therefore a strong argumentthat the rear of the Georgian terrace should be given space to breathe. This wouldallow the most significant building to be viewed and fully appreciated. Subject tofurther research and investigation followed by a comprehensive and fullydocumented study and record of what exists, the sacrifice of some buildings oflesser importance may be justified in order to safeguard the future of the Georgianhouses by focusing limited financial resources on the most significant elements ofthe site. […] Ultimately, the survival of the possibly unique, early Georgian housesneeds to be ensured by a proactive approach. The buildings are suffering from dryrot, and procrastination will put at further risk a significant heritage asset.”

GHA draw up a scheme encompassing the Wray site and adjacent site, keeping the most significant buildings,but losing the central later Victorian workshop ranges. This allowed a six storey residential building to sit apartfrom the most significant buildings, with courtyards, open space, and new routes through to Eastside Park.Proposals well received although Conservation concerned about losing too much of the historic building.Various meetings with BCC Property Services (backed by major development partner) for joint venturedevelopment of Wray building and the adjoining land. Partner also concluded that development of the sitealone was not viable hence need for the adjacent site.

Proposal was for private residential on a rental basis. GHA proposals considered by the Big City Plan Board inMarch and further developed through the year, all based on inclusion of the neighbouring land. Main concernis the loss of listed building. Adjacent land is scheduled for disposal and marketed but then in September 2013BCC withdraws the site from sale. This marked the end of a wasted year working on the combined sites, andthe end of the involvement of the development partner.GHA scheme using adjoining Fox Street land

Possible acquisition of site between Site and Millennium Point

www.weareidp.com

A new scheme is developed for the Wray site alone, comprising student accommodation with a minimumrequirement of 200 rooms above a commercial/leisure use on the ground floor fronting the Park. Keyargument presented was that the Malthouse would have to be lost because the amount of footprint availablefor the new building was insufficient to give the 200 rooms necessary to cross subsidise the restoration workand give a viable scheme.

The scheme was considered to be much too massive and overpowering. Need for English Heritage’s input intothe assessment of harm, particularly the proposed loss of the Malthouse. The argument being considered wasparticularly whether impacting the setting of the listed buildings by building a very high building next to themwas more harmful than the loss of historic buildings. The planning argument being put forward was to justifythe demolitions under the NPPF, arguing that there is harm, but the most significant elements of the buildingwould be retained and hence the harm is outweighed by the benefit.

The team were encouraged to ensure that as much of the listed building as possible, including BartholomewRow, be converted into valuable space in order to minimise the additional new build floor space needed. Atriangle of land adjoining the site, but forming part of the Park, had been identified as a possible swap foradditional public open space within the development, which would give an increased footprint on which tobuild the new building, which might then allow more historic building to be saved for the same height. Theproposed scheme included this land although no formal discussions had been held with the Council in termsof how it might be acquired.

English Heritage site visit. Further historical analysis of the Georgian buildings commissioned and undertakenby Apec Architects. This discovers that this building is much more significant than previously thought, and isprobably the only surviving example of a house of this age in Birmingham City Centre. Statement ofSignificance reissued. Planning officer conclusion that preference is to keep as much of the significant listedbuilding as possible (as defined by DIA) and not lose the Malthouse. Adjacent height was a price worth payingfor keeping as much historic fabric as possible. This was a clear steer for the design team.

Negotiations take place with Birmingham City Council over the triangle as this was now essential for thescheme to work. Letter of Intent signed by Birmingham property Services for the sale of the triangle in July2014.

IDP Architects appointed. Scheme developed using the triangle, converting all the listed buildings, opening upinternal spaces, and a new build element at 10 stories. The circulation core goes into one of the internalcourtyards to maximise the use of new build footprint. Pre application meeting presenting new design.

Ken Fisher of Apec Architects proposes that rather than convert the most significant Georgian buildings tostudent houses they might be gifted as restored shells to the Birmingham Conservation Trust. Trustees verykeen in principle and arrange December site visit. This is shown to be helpful to the viability of the scheme.IDP alter drawings to remove the Georgian buildings.


2013(END)

2014

Early IDP concept sketch from Fox Street

Acquisition of a ‘triangle’ of land from adjacent Eastside Park

www.weareidp.com

Advice from Birmingham Property Services, that the request for the triangle to be designated as surplus andhence saleable to us had not been accepted, but that the importance of the disposal to the scheme hadprobably been misunderstood. Major setback once again.

Further pre application meeting and scheme development. Scheme becoming less viable as time passes withtender price inflation and introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy on student accommodation inBirmingham City Centre. Build cost per m2 now expected to be £1600, where it was £1400 two years earlier.

Scheme develops using a podium and tower configuration.

Increased demand for student studios increases potential values and enables tower height to reduce alittle. Working with planning department’s 3D visualisation model enables the impact of the tower to beconsidered in the context of surrounding tall buildings. Planners advise that houses should go back into thescheme so they are shown as residential conversions – maximise developable space. Negotiations withProperty Services regarding the Triangle accelerate.

Current scheme for 166 studios and maximum height 15 storeys published. Building opened to the public aspart of Associated Architects and Birmingham Post’s “Hidden Spaces” exposition. Converting the Georgianhouses to offices considered to be a less intrusive and higher value option than residential conversion.Positive feedback for proposals.


2014

2015

Early concept sketch of IDP proposal for planning application

www.weareidp.com

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.1 CURRENT SITE USE

The site (outlined in red on the adjacent plan) is located in the EastsideQuarter of Birmingham City Centre, adjacent to Eastside City Park,between Bartholomew Row and Fox Street. The existing buildings(hatched in red on the adjacent plan) have sat empty and falling intodisrepair for the last ten years.

The Site accommodates approximately 1,435sqm of land, most ofwhich is currently occupied by the existing buildings and courtyards,with a triangle of approximately 180sqm of excess parkland.

The site as existing is not in use. The last use on site, the ChristopherWray Lighting Works Factory and Emporium closed over a decade ago.In recent years the building has been showcased in the BirminghamPosts “Hidden Spaces” of Birmingham feature, and was opened to thepublic for tours Birmingham’s ‘Hidden Spaces Unlocked 2015’. Previoususes on the site include housing, a Malthouse, warehouse and shops.This will be covered in the section on Site Heritage.

The local area is made up of University and college Buildings andStudent Accommodation, as well as private residences, a hotel, officebuildings and limited retail units. Adjacent to the site also is East SideCity Park and Millennium Point.

www.weareidp.com

RESIDENTIAL

VACANT SITE

BIRMINGHAM CITY

UNIVERSITY

STUDENT HALLS

MILLENNIUM POINT

COLLEGECOLLEGE

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.1 CURRENT SITE USE

www.weareidp.com

ASTONUNIVERSITY

RETAILCORE

BUSINESSDISTRICT

NEW ST.STATION

SNOW HILLSTATION

MOOR ST.STATION

B.CFOOTBALL

CLUB

EASTSIDEPARK

PROP. HS2STATION

BCU

The site is located in the centre of Birmingham on the fringe of thenewly landscaped East Side Park, within walking distance of theUniversities, the Bullring and retail core and Birmingham New Street,Moor Street and Snow Hill Stations.

Site

Amenity Area

Transport Hub

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.2 WIDER CONTEXT

www.weareidp.com

PROP. HS2STATION

EASTSIDEPARK

BCU

BCU

THINKTANK

RETAILCORE

ASTONUNIVERSITY

COLLEGES

Site

Amenity Area

Transport Hub

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.3 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

www.weareidp.com

EXCHANGESQUARE

SITE

Although much of the immediate context consists of 4-5, and 6-9storey buildings, there are a number of feature buildings of over 10 or15 storeys high.

≤ 4 Storeys

4-10 Storeys

10+ Storeys

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.3 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

Given the prominence of this site, after much discussion with BCC, ithas been determined that a tower of 15 storeys maximum, isappropriate on this site.

THINKTANK

BCU

HOTEL

www.weareidp.com

EXCHANGE SQUARESITE

Birmingham City Council’s Big City Plan includes a Building Height Strategy. Tall Buildings are intended to be limited to the New Height Ridge Zone, in which the site sits. ‘The quality of design must reflect and justify their dominant position in the built environment.’ Site

The 15 storey height of ‘The Emporium’ tower is not at all out ofcontext, with 14-17 storey buildings across Park Street and Etna Street.The height and orientation of the tower also form a dialogue acrossEast Side Park to the new developments on the other side.

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.4 PLANNING POLICY

www.weareidp.com

Throughout the Design Process the following policies have beenanalysed and considered;

National Planning Policy Framework 2012The National Planning Policy Framework sets out government'splanning policies for England and how these are expected to beapplied. In this instance, most key to the scheme are the followingpolicies:

7. Requiring good design:• 56. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the

built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainabledevelopment, is indivisible from good planning, and shouldcontribute positively to making places better for people.

• 57. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of highquality and inclusive design for all development, including individualbuildings, public and private spaces and wider area developmentschemes.

• 62. Local planning authorities should have local design reviewarrangements in place to provide assessment and support to ensurehigh standards of design.

• 66. Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directlyaffected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account ofthe views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this indeveloping the design of the new development should be looked onmore favourably.

A number of pre-application meetings have taken place with the localplanning authority to discuss the design concept, in addition muchdesign consultation has taken place on site, with the scheme alsowidely published online and in print.

12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment• 126. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a

positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historicenvironment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect,decay or other threats. In developing this strategy, local planningauthorities should take into account:

• opportunities to draw on the contribution made by thehistoric environment to the character of a place.

Birmingham UDPThe Birmingham UDP (Unitary Development Plan) contains policies andproposals that currently guide development and land use across theCity and is the existing Development Plan for Birmingham. Onceapproved, the UDP will replaced by the Birmingham Development Plan(See below) and other key planning policy documents currently beingprepared.

3.14. The Design of New Development:A high standard of design is essential to the continued improvement ofBirmingham as a desirable place to live, work and visit. The design andlandscaping of new developments will be expected to contribute to theenhancement of the City’s environment.• A- the City Council has set out a series of general good design

principles (Impact, local characteristics, scale, movement, use,safety and landscaping). These are concerned with the design of andthe relationship between buildings, streets, squares, parks, natureconservation areas, waterways and other spaces that make up thepublic domain.

• B- developers will be expected to demonstrate that the scheme hasbeen considered as part of its context.

• E- Development has a large impact on issues such as globalwarming, resource depletion and pollution. Developments, includingnew and refurbished buildings, should therefore be designed in away which reduces such harmful impacts and respects the principlesof a sustainable environment.

• G- The image of the City at night, and particularly of the City Centre,should have the highest quality if Birmingham is to be seen as anattractive place after dark. At a basic level, well-designed lightinghelps to improve pedestrian safety, road safety and legibility.

The Good Design Principals have been considered at length throughoutthe design process, in particular the massing has been rigorously testedand the local characteristics, in particular of the existing building andthe relationship to the park, have been the main focus of the design.

• 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities shouldrequire an applicant to describe the significance of any heritageassets affected,

• including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detailshould be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no morethan is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposalon their significance.

• 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development onthe significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight shouldbe given to the asset’s conservation.

• 137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities fornew development within Conservation Areas and World HeritageSites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or betterreveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements ofthe setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal thesignificance of the asset should be treated favourably.

• 141. Local planning authorities should make information about thesignificance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible.

In this instance, the developer has taken steps to prevent any furtherdecay to the Listed Buildings as the design process has been takingplace. In addition the proposed development and the history of the sitehave been made publicly available online, in print and through variousopen events and consultations, including with the Conservation andHeritage Panel.


www.weareidp.com

3.20. Conservation of the Built EnvironmentRedundant historic buildings offer a range of opportunities forconversion to new uses and can be an important focus for wider urbanregeneration schemes.

The Restoration and Reuse of the existing Listed Buildings on the site hasbeen key to the design of the development as a whole.

3.25 Listed BuildingsAny development affecting a listed building should preserve or enhanceits character.

The retention, restoration, maintenance and continued use of theexisting buildings has driven the design process. The new use for thebuildings is intended to compliment the existing forms of the building,without having a detrimental effect on the character or appearance ofthe building. The setting of the listed buildings is intended to beenhanced by the new tower adjacent.

8.23 Houses in Multiple Paying OccupationThis policy applies to dwellings which are either let in one or moreseparate tenancies, or are occupied by persons who do not form asingle household. The following criteria will be referred to indetermining planning applications:• The effect of the proposal on the amenities of the surrounding area,and on adjoining premises;• The size and character of the property;• The floorspace standards of the accommodation;• The facilities available for car parking;• The amount of provision in the locality.

Where a proposal relates to a site in an area which already containspremises in similar use, account will be taken of the cumulative effectof such uses upon the residential character and appearance of the area.

Given the sites proximity to the University, its use as studentaccommodation seems fitting, it is also within walking distance of manyexisting shops, cafes, bars, restaurants.

The protection and enhancement of the historic fabric of the existingbuildings on the site has played a crucial role in the development of thescheme. A considerable amount of research has been conducted intothe history of the site in during the design process.

TP32 Student accommodationProposals for purpose built student accommodation provided oncampus will be supported in principle subject to satisfying design andamenity considerations.

The Birmingham Big City Plan 2011The Big City Plan will form part of the Local Development Framework asa Development Plan Document.

Building HeightsTall buildings provide the opportunity to manage and create anidentifiable skyline memorable for its key buildings. High Places, atall buildings policy document produced in 2003, defined tall buildingsas anything over 15 storeys in height. The focus for these buildings isthe central ridge, which includes the city’s highest point and runs westto east through the city centre.

Though the building is below 15 storeys, the site is within the centralridge and the height has been determined following much discussionwith the Local Authority.

HeritageThe city’s heritage is its roots, its authenticity and its individuality.

The scheme has maximised the existing setting; the historic fabric hasbeen designed into the scheme, and used to encourage and inspire highquality modern design within the tower that enhances the heritageassets and their setting.

EastsideEastside is a central focus for regeneration activity in the city centrethat has brought about the removal of the ‘concrete collar’ atMasshouse and the emergence of the area as a location forknowledge, skills and innovation.

The Birmingham Development Plan 2031The Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) will set out the statutoryframework to guide decisions on development and regeneration inBirmingham up to 2031. The draft Birmingham Development Plan wassubmitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 1st July 2014and hearings took place in October 2014.

PG3- Place makingAll new development will be expected to be designed to the highestpossible standards, contributing to a strong sense of place.

The design of the scheme responds to site conditions and the local areacontext, in particular the heritage assets, as required by PG3. Everyconsideration has been given to designing out crime and makingprovision for people with disabilities (including in the existing buildingsas far as possible).

GA1- City CentreNew development must support and strengthen the distinctivecharacter of the areas surrounding the City Centre Core raising theiroverall quality, offer and accessibility. The City Centre is formed byseven Quarters with the Core at its heart. Eastside - Maximising its roleas an area for learning and technologyrealising its extensive development opportunities and the integrationof any proposals for HS2 station.

The sites location in close proximity to the Universities has lead to theproposed use of student accommodation. Students will be within shortwalking distance of educational, retail and leisure facilities.

TP12 Historic environmentThe historic environment, consisting of archaeological remains, historicbuildings, townscapes and landscapes, including locally significantassets and their settings in addition to designated and statutorilyprotected features, will be valued, protected, enhanced and managedfor its contribution to character, local distinctiveness and sustainability.


www.weareidp.com

Proposals have been considered in the context of the Curzon HS2Masterplan, recognising the need for active frontage and a backdrop toCurzon Square, the building is to be read in the round and have aprominence when considered with the adjacent Hive building.

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.5 FUTURE USE

www.weareidp.com

The Site

The following opportunities were identified for the site, the ways inwhich these opportunities have been fully maximised is also describedbelow;

• Distinguishing historic character of the Existing Grade 2Listed Building cluster

The existing buildings and viability of the site forfuture use has been studied extensively, withthe final proposed scheme being one which notonly retains as much of the existing buildings aspossible, but makes use of the intricate varietyof spaces, retaining and enhancing theircharacter.

• Three key frontages, two of which are onto the Park.The existing buildings occupy most of the length ofthe frontages onto Bartholemew Row and FoxStreet, these have been retained and refurbished.The new tower which dominates the SouthElevation has been designed to compliment theexisting building and to be a high quality, striking,contemporary design.

• Key views from main roads and across the open space ofthe newly landscaped park.

The tower in particular will be visible from some ofthe main roads through Birmingham and across thepark, the design of which has been carefullyconsidered.

• Views from the main railway link into Birmingham, part ofthe proposed HS2 link.

Again the tower tower in particular will bevisible from the railway, the design of which hasbeen carefully considered.

• Connectivity with other new University buildings acrossthe park.

The tower has been orientated with the park tocreate a dialogue with the high rise buildings acrossthe park. The ‘ends’ of the tower have beenrecessed in a contrasting cladding with a projectingframe, adding further interest to the design of theelevation and a language which works with thelong design of the park.

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.6 SITE ANALYSIS

www.weareidp.com

The topographical survey has been analysed in the assembly of thedrawings. The site remains level on its axis between Bartholomew Rowand Fox Street, and falls from the far side toward the park byapproximately 1130mm on the Bartholomew Row Side and 1600mmon the Fox Street side.

In addition, the following environmental constraints have beenidentified;

• Sun Paths around the Site

• Noise pollution from surrounding roads

WINTER SUN

SUMMER SUN


www.weareidp.com

Existing Vehicular Routes and bus routes are as illustrated in theadjacent diagram.

For further information on the existing situation, sustainable access,policy, proposed development including the servicing strategy, tripgeneration and management of student move in/out periods, pleaserefer to the Transport Statement, prepared by Phil Jones Associatesand submitted as part of this application.

• Primary Road

• Secondary Road

• Minor Road

• Bus Route

• Bus Stop (Approximate Location)

• 5 minute walk radius


www.weareidp.com

The Site has an interesting and varied history which as resulted in anseries of interlocking spaces set within a cluster of Listed Buildings,dating from various time periods. Please see the diagrams overleaf fora summary of the ages of the buildings.

Most recently used as Christopher Wray’s Lighting Factory andEmporium, the buildings between Bartholomew Row and Fox Streetrepresent a fascinating, and largely unknown, piece of history. While onthe face of it these rather dilapidated buildings appear of limitedarchitectural interest, they are of historic interest and this is largelywhy they are listed. Their historic interest is related to their almostcontinuous alteration since their construction as houses in the mid18th century to their final 20th century factory uses, which, in someways, reflects in microcosm the development of Birmingham itself.

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.7 SITE HERITAGE

www.weareidp.com

The First Developments

Bartholomew Row was developed from the mid 18th century followingthe construction of the St Bartholomew’s Chapel in the late 1740s.Certainly by 1779 the site of the Christopher Wray works wasdeveloped with six houses part of a larger terrace facing StBartholomew Churchyard.

Fox Street seems to have developed in a rather ad hoc way followingconstruction of Bartholomew Row, but certainly the 1788 map byThomas Hanson (Map 1) shows a mix of buildings here, but Fox Streetunnamed.

The houses on Bartholomew Row seem to have been quite small andpaired with a central tunnel entrance to access their reargardens/areas, with doors to the street. Of all the surviving fabric of thesite, only the ground floor of number 9 retains the latter feature.Indeed only number 9 and 10 Bartholomew Row (Building B) survive atall from this original period of construction of the whole of the street.Number 9 also retains what seems to be a small original, or early,extension to the rear. Certainly number 10 also had such an extension,but this no longer survives.

The Late 18th Century Developments

It would seem that by the end of the 18th century/beginning of the19th century, William Spurrier had acquired both 9 and 10Bartholomew Row and the land behind to Fox Street. He had built amalt house on Fox Street by 1800 and along with this had constructed awarehouse and shops by 1823 (Map 2). It is not clear exactly whatcomprised the ‘malt house’, but it seems most likely that the twostorey block immediately to the rear of 9-10 Bartholomew Row wasthis building (Building E1). It has a vaulted brick fireproof floor andcould certainly date to the turn of the 18th/19th centuries. Certainlythe building onto Fox Street behind 9 and 10 Bartholomew Row(Building E3) was very heavily re-modelled in the mid/late 19th century,when it was stucco rendered. Part of this re-modelling was to reducethe southern arch opening into the site which, prior to this, had beenmuch wider and clearly designed for access by wider, taller vehicles.

Thomas Hanson's 1778 map of Birmingham


www.weareidp.com

1828 Piggot Smith map

The Buildings in the Mid 19th Century

The mid 19th century saw numbers 11 and 12 Bartholomew Row(Building A) demolished and later re-built. This is illustrated on thePiggot Smith map of circa 1855 (Map 3). This map also proves theexistence of the structures to the rear of 9 and 10 (Building E), thedisposition of the tunnel/passage entrance to the rear, and thesurviving area to the south of the rear early 19th century warehousewing and passage entrance to it off Fox Street. Also of interest areback-to-back houses, one side facing Fox Street and the other facing acourtyard behind the Bartholomew Row buildings. These back-to-backsseem to have been an early 19th century feature in Fox Street, as theywere developed both sides of it.

By the mid 19th century, the title to the 9/10 Bartholomew Row andthe Fox Street premises behind (numbers 16/17 Fox Street) were takenover by John Thompson.

The 1836 directory states that 11 Bartholomew Row was a house, shopand premises and similar separately at 12 Bartholomew Row.Numbers 11 and 12 (Building A) were re-built, presumably by the late1860s (the plot remains unfilled in Piggot Smith’s map of 1863). Theuse of the rear premises as a malt house remained in 1864, but this usewas changed by the 1871 directory, when 9/10 Bartholomew Row wasseparately owned by Samuel Brigg as two houses, workshops andpremises, while 16/19 Fox Street (Building E3) – ie including the landbehind 7/8 Bartholomew Row – was operated as stables, workshopsand premises by Joshua Bowater. His enterprise evidently flourishedand by 1876 he occupied 16-20 Fox Street. It was presumably duringthis period that the surviving characteristic stucco-finished front to FoxStreet with double arched opening at ground level was created.

1855 Piggot Smith map


www.weareidp.com

The Later 19th Century Onwards

By the time of the first edition Ordnance Survey plan was produced in1889 (Map 4), the space behind 11 and 12 Bartholomew Row (BuildingA) was an open area, although the houses, obviously, had been re-built. Presumably this area was used by Bowater or others – the areahad a brick wall to the street with a small gate. This arrangementseems to have existed for a short time only – perhaps the map wasplotted while construction was underway, as by 1905 the surviving twostorey factory blocks (Buildings C and F) had been constructed on itand the area formerly occupied by extensions behind the BartholomewRow buildings. This development seems to have been the responsibilityof Henry Austin Aquila, who made ginger beer here. It was presumablyhe who also formed the entry at ground level through 11 Bartholomewrow, as he also occupied this building at that time.

The later 19th century saw a change of use in 9/10 Bartholomew Row(Building B) with a glass gilder, Jenkinson and Co, taking it over by1876. By the time of the 1905 (Map 5) map, he occupied the whole ofthe plot facing both Bartholomew Row and Fox Street. Jenkinsons weresuperseded by Landon Brothers by 1910, and by 1928 occupied theentire site. It was they who were taken over by Christopher Wray toform the surviving complex of buildings.

While, prior to the war, areas around Fox Street and Bartholomew Rowhad been cleared, the buildings at 7/8 Bartholomew Row and those tothe rear on Fox Street survived and are shown on the 1937 Ordnancemap (Map 6). By 1952 (Map 7), however, the church and the buildingsnorth of 12 Bartholomew Row were lost, as were 7 and 8 BartholomewRow, to be replaced by a building subsequently re- modelled byChristopher Wray as a showroom.Christopher Wray’s occupation of the buildings ceased in the summerof 2005 and the buildings have been empty and unused ever since.

1937 Ordnance Map

1889 First Edition Ordnance Map 1905 Ordnance Map

1952 Ordnance Map


www.weareidp.com

Basement to Building E2 Basement to Building E1 Second Floor of Building E2 Second Floor of Building C

Bartholomew Row Elevation Fox Street Elevation Courtyard between Buildings C and E

2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL2.8 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

www.weareidp.com

Manhattan Condo, Foster & Partners East Side Locks, Birmingham Leventis Art Gallery, Nicosia Axis, Manchester Park Tower, Belgium

Broadcasting Tower, Leeds Manor Wharf Student Accommodation, Salford Mansion House Roof Terrace, London

3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN3.1 PRECEDENT

www.weareidp.com

A NEW TOWER TO FRAME THE PARK AND THE LISTED BUILDINGS

The existing Grade 2 Listed Buildings have been retained as far aspossible in the design, with their interesting historical features drawnon and enhanced. The existing massing has been mirrored to someextent in the new tower, though it stands ten storeys taller, this framesthe cluster of existing buildings.

The new development is intended to be contemporary and contrastwith the existing buildings. The intention is not to overshadow but tocompliment the structures.

COLOUR PALLETTE TO RELFLECT AND CONTRAST WITH CONTEXT

Contemporary Aluminium cladding in a copper hue will clad the tower,the tones will compliment those of the existing brickwork of the Listedbuildings and the copper effect render on the BCU building adjacent tothe site. The sleek finish will contrast with the rougher nature of theexisting brickwork.

In addition, the ends of the towers facing the park and BartholomewRow will be recessed behind a projecting frame of the copper cladding,and be a pale silver-gold colour to contrast with the longer facades andto emphasis the orientation of the new building.

OBSERVE THE SCALE OF THE EXISTING BARTHOLOMEW ROW

The existing Grade 2 Listed Georgian townhouses on Bartholomew Roware to be conserved and repaired where required. Their proportions inscale are to be gently reflected in the new tower at the lower fewstoreys (Ground – Second), from this point the Bartholomew Rowfaçade will set back and the tower will rise to 15 Storeys.

The front façade of the lower part of the new tower will be set backfrom Bartholomew Row on an angle perpendicular to the tower facingthe park, allowing the side elevation of the Georgian townhouses to beread.

3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN3.2 DESIGN PRINCIPALS

www.weareidp.com

3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

www.weareidp.com

EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THEORIGINAL SITE BOUNDARY

The history of the site and that ofthe individual buildings has beenthoroughly researched (See Section2). Experimentation throughout thedesign process has determined themost appropriate design proposalconcerning what can be lost of theexisting buildings to make a viablescheme, and what should beretained in terms of historicalinterest.

NEW TOWER BLOCK IN PLACE OFDEMOLISHED SHOW ROOM ANDWORKSHOP

The existing buildings to be retainedare to be refurbished, retaining asmuch as possible and enhancing theindividual character of each space.Where the showroom and workshopis proposed to be demolished, a newtower is proposed, however due tothe narrow footprint, a viablesolution is not possible withouttaking the tower to too great aheight.

NEW TOWER ANGLED TO FACE THEPARK, TOWER SET BACK ONBARTHOLOMEW ROW SIDE

The form of the new tower has beenangled to align with the park andcreate a relationship with theUniversity Buildings across the park.The tower has also been set backfrom the 4th floor upwards on theBartholomew Row side, allowing thefrontage of the tower to align withthe existing Georgian Townhouses.Where the new building faces awayfrom the existing buildings, a newfeature glazed link will connect thethem.

REMOVAL OF THE 20th CENTURY‘SHANTY’ DEVELOPMENT

‘The sacrifice of some buildings oflesser importance may be justifiedin order to safeguard the future ofthe Georgian houses’(APEC, Conservation Architects).

The latest 20th Century ‘shanty’additions to the site are proposed tobe demolished, opening up the rearof the Georgian Townhouses and thealleyway between the buildings, andmaking the end block of the siteavailable for new development.

NEW TOWER UTILISING ADDITIONAL‘TRIANGLE’ OF PARKLAND

An additional ‘triangle’ of landadjacent to the site is proposed tobe used as additional footprint forthe new tower. The land is surplus tothe newly landscaped Eastside Park,never having been part of theMasterplan for the park. Theadditional footprint allows the towerto be brought down to a moreappropriate height, as discussedduring the pre-application meetingswith Birmingham City Council.

3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

www.weareidp.com

Key Design Drivers

• Open Space across the park, the road network and roundthe bend of Park Street means the new tower is in a veryprominent site;

• 1- The towers relationship with the existingbuildings is key on the Bartholomew Rowelevation, on which the tower has been set backallowing the lower storeys of the new buildingto align horizontally with the GeorgianTownhouses, from which the frontage has beenset back to allow the side elevation to be read,and skewed to show the new buildingsrelationship with the park

• 2- Though the New building is more prominentfrom this view point than the existing GeorgianTownhouses, the set back and the skew hasgiven them their own standing on the elevation

• 3- The view across the park is mostly of the newbuilding, the orientation of the tower and thechange in elevational treatment at each end isintended to enhance the buildings relationshipwith the park

• Pedestrian connectivity is already present to the South ofthe site across the park, however this is to be enhancedwith the highly glazed leisure units in the ground floor ofthe new building.

• An active frontage is to be provided to the alleyway to theNorth of the site between the site and the universitybuilding, allowing this alleyway to be safely opened up.

• The exposed position of the tower means that mostelevations are key and highly visible. The design altersaround the sides of the tower, with each end beingrecessed in a lighter hue, with a projecting surround.

• As mentioned previously, the tower has been orientatedwith the park, to create a relationship with the buildingsto the adjacent end.

3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN3. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

www.weareidp.com

Existing Buildings Retained and Refurbished

Existing Georgian Townhouses Retained and Refurbished – See APEC Drawings

Tower set back above 3 Storeys, Bartholomew Row elevation aligns with Georgian Townhouses

Third floor Roof Terrace

Each end of the tower is recessed with a paler cladding, edges projecting

Tower angled to face Eastside Park and University Buildings across the park

Tower footprint ‘cranked’ to face park, shown in the break in the copper cladding, paler cladding emphasises recess

Courtyard opened up to rear of Georgian Townhouses where 20th Century ‘shanty’ infill development removed

Alleyway opened up between Fox Street buildings where 20th Century ‘shanty’ infill development removed

Throughout the design process, the massing has been experimentedwith in terms of scale and form, in close liaison with the Local PlanningAuthority and the city wide massing model.

As the desire was to keep the height as low as possible the eventualmassing of a wide, narrow tower, occupying the footprint of thedemolished Christopher Wray Showroom and the triangle of unwantedparkland proved to be the most efficient. The overall height has beenkept to a minimum at 14 storeys with relatively low floor to floorheights.

3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN3.4 SCALE AND MASSING

www.weareidp.com

The scale and massing of the scheme is intended to fit with the tallerbuildings in the context of the site without overpowering the existingGrade 2 Listed buildings. The tower is angled away from the existing


www.weareidp.com

Listed buildings to face the park, with the nearside of the towerchamfered to connect to the existing buildings. A new contemporaryglass lobby will connect the new to the old on Fox Street.


www.weareidp.com

4.0 – THE PROPOSAL4.1 THE SCHEME

www.weareidp.com


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Ground Floor Plan


www.weareidp.com

Proposed First Floor Plan


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Second Floor Plan


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Second Floor Plan


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Fourth – 14th Floor Plan


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Bartholomew Row Elevation


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Eastside Park Elevation


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Fox Street Elevation


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Courtyard Elevation


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Bartholomew Row Elevation in context


www.weareidp.com

Proposed Eastside Park Elevation in context


www.weareidp.com


www.weareidp.com

4.0 – THE PROPOSAL4.2 APPEARANCE AND MATERIALITY

www.weareidp.com

4.0 – THE PROPOSAL4.3 LANDSCAPE

There are no existing trees within the site curtilatage and no trees willbe affected by the proposed scheme, therefore no method statementhas been provided in relation to trees. The ‘triangle’ of land adjoiningthe site, but forming part of the Park, is currently excess to the parksrequirements and is therefore being used to grow surplus plantingwhich can then replace any shrubbery in the park as required. Uponpreparation of the land for site use, it is proposed that any plantingwhich can be salvaged will be offered back for use in the park orcarefully retained for use on the garden terrace of the new tower.Please see ‘Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Report’ for furtherdetail.

‘Triangle’ of land to be acquired from adjacent Eastside Park

www.weareidp.com


There roof terrace on the third floor has been designed toaccommodate students in groups when socialising or individualsdesiring privacy or outdoor study space. The smaller areas for quiet usehave been separated with planting in raised timber planters (low levelto prevent students using them as a step to climb over the balustrade).A mix of planting is proposed, but particularly lavender to complimentthe existing planting in Eastside Park.

The decking is set back from the parapet edge to prevent antisocialbehaviour at the edges of the terrace, with a gravel surround.

Low level lighting to be set into planters and bollard lights willilluminate the space for use in the evenings. Fittings will have louvres toangle the light down in order to mitigate any light spillage andpollution.

Mansion House Roof Terrace, London Third Floor Roof Terrace

CommonRoom

Social Space

Activity Space

WorkSpace

Glass balustrade to perimeter of terrace

www.weareidp.com

Parapet

Gravel Border

Glass Balustrade

Artificial Grass

Paving

Bollard Light

Decking


New Leisure Units relationship to the landscaped Eastside Park

www.weareidp.com

4.0 – THE PROPOSAL4.4 ACCESS

www.weareidp.com

Pedestrian access to the site will be via three entrances off Fox Street.Arrivals by car would be to the Fox Street frontage, or the turning areaat Bartholomew Row. No car parking provision is proposed. It isconsidered that the sites excellent connectivity on foot/cycle andpublic transport would negate the need for students, visitors oremployees to use a car, in common with other city centre locations.Short and long term car parking is available at Millennium Pointnearby if required.

20 cycle parking spaces are to be provided in the basement of thedevelopment to serve the student accommodation and other landuses.

Students/parents will be instructed to use Fox St/Etna St/ GrosvenorSt (see 4.2.1) at the start of the academic year for drop offs. Arrivalswill be at staggered times to manage arrivals and departures andmake best use of available on carriageway parking. This measure andthe mechanism for its delivery are outlined within the Travel Plan thataccompanies this document.

All refuse collections and deliveries will be undertaken from Fox Streetwhere access to the developments bin store will be provided.

Please refer to the transport statement for further details and sweptpath analysis.

Key

• Pedestrian Access

• Cycle Store

• Vehicular drop off zones

• Refuse Collection

• Bin Store

5.0 – CONCLUSION

www.weareidp.com

Great care has been taken in the design of this scheme to analyse andunderstand the context of the existing Grade 2 Listed buildings andhow to treat them. The majority of these existing buildings areintended to be retained, enhanced and put back into good use,maximising the Listed features. The 20th Century developments oflesser historical value, which actually detract from the buildings ofgreater importance are to be removed. This will open up thecourtyards between the existing buildings and expose the features ofthe rear of the Georgian Townhouse which have been concealed.

The new building will compliment the existing buildings in tone whileadding a contemporary ‘beacon’ building to the area. The new towerhas been designed so as to stand its ground as a contemporarybuilding, without being so elaborate as to overshadow the existingListed Buildings. The height of the tower has been discussed at lengthand tested to reach the most appropriate conclusion. The materialsand detailing are to be of a high quality.

The development will add to the character of the existing buildings,and to the emerging character of the area as for knowledge, skills andinnovation. Additional active frontages to all sides of the developmentare intended to bring life to the alleyway between the Universitybuilding and the Listed Buildings, to add valuable use to and maximisefootfall through Eastside Park and Park Street. The increased activitythat the new HS2 terminal will bring in the future means that this site isin urgent need of refurbishment and development which reflects it’sprominence in Birmingham City Centre.

Date post:	30-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangtram
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times