the emporium - Saving Bartholomew Row

THE EMPORIUM
BARTHOLOMEW ROW
BIRMINGHAM
Design and Access Statement
August 2015
Prepared by IDP Group Architects
www.weareidp.com
CONTENTS
1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Project Team
Statement
Project Context
Pre-Application Discussion
Planning History
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Current Site Use
Wider Context
Immediate Context
Planning Policy
Future Use
Site Analysis
Site Heritage
Existing Site Photos
3.0 - CONCEPT DESIGN
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Precedent
Design Principals
Design Development
Scale and Massing
4.0 - THE PROPOSAL
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
The scheme
Appearance and Materials
Landscape
Access
5.0 - CONCLUSION
Aerial view of the existing site as the Eastside Park was being developed.
www.weareidp.com
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT TEAM
Simon Linford, Linford CZero
Developer
Andrew Leaver, Zoe Mason, IDP Group
Architects
Ken Fisher, Apec Architects
Conservation Architect
John Webb, Castle Construction Consultants
Project Manager and Cost Consultant
Jim O’Donnell, Copeland Wedge Associates
Structural Engineer
John Hughes, Viridian
M & E Consultant
Preet Ghandi, ic:capital
Funding Representation
Chris Stack, Phil Jones Associates
Transport Planning Consultant
www.weareidp.com
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.2 STATEMENT
This document has been prepared on behalf of. Czero by IDP Group to
accompany the application for full planning consent for the
redevelopment of the existing Grade 2 Listed building cluster between
7-12 Bartholomew Row, extending back to Fox Street. 7-8
Bartholomew Row (the former Christopher Wray Showroom and
workshop), are intended to be demolished. A contemporary 15 storey
tower is proposed in place of these buildings, also utilising a triangle of
excess parkland on the fringe of the newly developed East Side Park.
2192-03-01-000- Site Location Plan
Please see the adjacent list of additional drawings which have been
prepared as part of the application for planning consent.
2192-03-03-0LG- Demolition Plan- Lower Ground Floor
2192-03-03-200- Demolition Plan- Ground Floor
2192-03-03-201- Demolition Plan- First Floor
2192-03-03-202- Demolition Plan- Second Floor
The site is located in the centre of Birmingham on the fringe of the
newly landscape East Side Park, within walking distance of the
Universities, the Bullring and Birmingham New Street Station. The Sites
proximity to the proposed HS2 Masterplan has also been taken into
account.
This scheme seeks to bring the historic fabric of the complex of Grade
2 Listed buildings in the centre of Birmingham back to life. The scheme
consists of the sensitive refurbishment of the old Christopher Wray
Lighting Factory and Emporium into ancillary student facilities, artist
studios and workshops, 4 No. duplex studio units and new office space,
alongside a bold new tower of 166 No. high quality student studio
apartments with associated communal spaces and a landscaped
garden terrace.
In addition, 329sqm of Leisure space is created at the ground floor of
the tower, intended for a high quality food and drink offer, opening up
onto the newly landscaped Eastside City Park, and a new ‘Ruin pub’
opened in the basement of the existing Fox Street building. The new
tower is designed to complement the materiality of the existing Listed
buildings and form part of the dialogue of the Masterplan around the
park, without overshadowing the existing buildings, but enhancing the
character that they bring to the area.
Please also refer to the Heritage Statement prepared by Apec
Architects also on behalf of CZero. Our design approach to the listed
buildings has been to reveal their character, enhance their quirks and
bring them back into beneficial use through minimal and sensitive
interventions that allows the collection of building to become the
social heart of the overall development.
www.weareidp.com
2192-03-02-000- Existing Site Plan
2192-03-03-1LG- Existing Lower Ground Floor Plan
2192-03-03-100- Existing Ground Floor Plan
2192-03-03-101- Existing First Floor Plan
2192-03-03-102- Existing Second Floor Plan
2192-03-02-001- Proposed Site Plan
2192-03-02-005- Proposed Landscape Plan
2192-03-03-0LG- Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan
2192-03-03-000- Proposed Ground Floor Plan
2192-03-03-001- Proposed First Floor Plan
2192-03-03-002- Proposed Second Floor Plan
2192-03-03-003- Proposed Third Floor Plan
2192-03-03-004- Proposed Typical 4-14th Floor Plan
2192-03-03-015- Proposed Roof Access Level Plan
2192-03-03-016- Proposed Roof Plan
2192-03-05-001- Proposed Courtyard elevation
2192-03-05-002- Proposed Fox Street elevation
2192-03-05-003- Proposed Eastside Park elevation
2192-03-05-004- Proposed Bartholomew Row elevation
2192-03-05-013- Proposed Eastside Park elevation in context
2192-03-05-014- 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
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.3 PROJECT CONTEXT
The area of the site is approximately 1,435sqm (15,446sqft). It sits
between Bartholomew Row and Fox Street, in the Eastside Quarter of
Birmingham city centre.
Eastside is the home of the Grade I Listed Curzon Street Station - the
original terminus for the Birmingham to London rail line, now proposed
to act as one of the key accesses for the High Speed 2 terminus. At
present the site is within walking distance of New Street, Moor Street
and 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 and
innovation as it is home to a number of educational institutions
including Birmingham Metropolitan College, Ormiston Academy, the
Aston University campus and the Birmingham City University campus.
The Bartholomew Row Site is within easy walking distance of all of
these educational facilities, as well as the shops and amenities of
Birmingham City Centre.
Birmingham City University is gradually relocating to Eastside,
providing a need for high quality student accommodation in the area
which reflects the aspirations of the University.
The Quarters as illustrated by Birmingham Big City Plan
The sites prominent location on the fringe of the newly developed
Eastside Park, visible from the main rail links into and through
Birmingham, and within the immediate the proximity of the proposed
HS2 terminus has dictated the need for a high quality modern building,
striking in design and appropriate to the area. In addition the
immediate adjacency of the existing Listed Buildings has required an
element of sensitivity in the design of the new tower.
This proposal seeks to add to the character of the area and put a
disused, vacant, deteriorating building back into beneficial use.
Eastside aerial view as illustrated by Birmingham Big City Plan
www.weareidp.com
Grade 1 Listed Curzon Street Station
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.4 PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
Prior to this application being submitted the following discussion has
taken place with the Local Authority:
• 2nd March 2012- Meeting on site with Stephen King and Lesley
Sheldrake.
• 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 and
Glenn Howells Architects (GHA). Outline scheme involving buildings
on adjacent site (Across Fox Street) presented.
• 19th March 2013- GHA proposals considered by the Big City Plan
Board. Feedback that listed buildings should be retained and height
and design of the new build needs careful assessment.
• 22nd May 2013- Meeting set up by GHA with Andrew Round, Simon
Delahunty Forrest, Lesley Sheldrake and Azmat Mir to review
scheme and consider the impact of HS2. Confirmed that the HS2
exclusion zone was no barrier to the scheme.
• 19th November 2013- Pre app meeting with Stephen King, Lesley
Sheldrake, Simon Delahunty-Forrest, and Simon Kirton from
Emission Zero Architects. Presented a scheme for the Wray site
alone. The scheme was considered to be much too massive and
overpowering
• 18th December 2013- Pre app meeting with Stephen King and Lesley
Sheldrake.
• 24th Feb 2014- Meeting with Stephen King and Lesley Sheldrake
following feedback from English Heritage. Informed that preference
was to keep as much of the significant listed building as possible, not
lose the Malthouse. Adjacent height was a price worth paying for
keeping as much historic fabric as possible.
• 30th July 2014- Meeting with Lesley Sheldrake, Simon DelahuntyForrest and IDP Architects, who had been appointed jointly with IC
Capital to bring forward a higher quality scheme.
• 5th November 2014- Revised scheme from IDP presented to Simon
Delahunty-Forrest and Lesley Sheldrake.
• February 2015- Revised design using a podium and tower rising to
17 storeys is presented to the Planning board chaired by Waheed
Nazir. Feedback is that it is too tall.
• 31st March 2015- Meeting with Andrew Round, Simon Delahunty
Forrest and Lesley Sheldrake. Waheed Nazir had engaged Andrew
to assist closely, including with Property Services in relation to the
disposal of the triangle of parkland.
www.weareidp.com
• 6th May 2015- Subsequent meeting with Simon Delahunty Forrest
and Lesley Sheldrake to review the 3D city model. Tower to be
reduced in height by 4 storeys
• 24th June 2015- Meeting with Lesley Sheldrake and Simon D-F with
revised 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 of
the building. Following the site visit, the Design Team presented the
proposals, which were well received. The comments made at this
meeting were observed, with a number of tests done on the design
following the meeting.
Article in Birmingham Post, July 2015
The history of the site and the proposals has also been widely
published online and in with opportunities for anyone to give their
feedback. CZero has a genuine interest in the existing buildings, and
considerable research into the history of the site has been carried out,
with huge efforts currently being undertaken to restore the building as
it stands now, disused and decaying for ten years.
www.savingbartholomewrow.com summarises the wealth of
information on the site.
The building was showcased in the Birmingham Posts “Hidden Spaces”
of Birmingham feature in December 2014, and was opened to the
public for tours Birmingham’s Hidden Spaces Unlocked 2015. The
proposal was also documented in Birmingham Post in July this year.
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.5 PLANNING HISTORY
Saving Bartholomew Row is a great challenge because the conservation
deficit is high, and the footprint on which a new building can be built in
order to cross subsidise that restoration cost is very small. The whole
site is 30m wide at the front and 40m deep between Bartholomew Row
and 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 ‘Lighting
Showroom’ and yard occupying 7-8 Bartholomew Row. This 40mx10m
strip is a very inefficient footprint for development, being not wide
enough to have two rooms on either side of a corridor. In order to
provide sufficient floor area it would need to be about 20 storeys high
which is even less buildable than it would be desirable.
2002/3
Christopher Wray closes the factory and showroom after receiving an offer for compulsory purchase for the
creation of Masshouse. Following this, the building is not purchased, but it is Listed.
2003/4
The property is marketed extensively following vacation by Christopher Wray’s lighting business. The Buildings
Grade II listing impacts the situation but a firm offer is received from David McLean Homes who were
developing Masshouse opposite the site. However this offer falls away in December 2004.
2005
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 significance
rather than historical merit. Focus changed from being an attempt to de-list to being a Planning Statement to
clarify how the buildings could be developed to assist with marketing the site.
In itself therefore the site cannot support a viable development, which
leave three options.
2006/7
The Conservation Officer from Birmingham City Council gets involved. An agreement is reached that some
parts of the buildings are more important than others, which moves towards the publication of the DIA’s
Historic Building Report which identifies the ‘Special Interest’ and also the elements that detract from the
special interest and therefore could be removed; the roof over loading bay between Building E and the south
wall of No 9, the roof over the area between Buildings C and F, also between these wings, the high level
bridges and shack structure on Fox Street The shanty construction behind Buildings A and B; Building D and
the adjacent lower level roof The modern suspended ceilings, such as that which hides the upper parts of the
Malt House building. The removal of all of these 20th century additions would open up the original
proportions and volumes of the historic spaces. DIA identify major opportunities for the future use of the
buildings, 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 Bartholomew
Row”. They further add “That these two opportunities can be taken in developing a single scheme allows the
regeneration of a significant site particularly given the local authority’s intention to develop the new Eastside
City Park to the immediate south of the buildings.”
2008
Continued unsuccessful attempts to sell the buildings even with DIA’s report lead to an attempt by
Christopher Wray’s agents to have the building compulsorily purchased by Advantage West Midlands on the
grounds that the listing has blighted it. Savills gives a site value to another potential purchaser of minus £2m.
1. Get grant funding
2. Find adjacent land that can be built on instead to provide the crosssubsidy
3. 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 and
exhausted, with the final solution being to save all of the listed building
by increasing the new build footprint with a small triangle of the park
which lies in between the southern wall of the site, and the pathway
into the Park. Although not large in itself at 170m2, this strip improves
the footprint sufficiently to enable the new building to be an
acceptable height, with the angle also helping to give a more
interesting building form.
2010/11
PPS5 Statement completed by DIA, this argues for the complete demolition of the structures, which would be
permissible under ‘exceptional circumstances’ under PPS5, and if it can be shown that a designated asset
cannot be used. Suggested that:
“The circumstances here can be considered to be exceptional; the buildings are in an
exceptionally 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 would
lie significantly beyond their end value. No use, charitable or commercial, has been found
during 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
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.5 PLANNING HISTORY
2012
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 Birmingham
ever again”. The previous eight years of fighting have taken their toll! Meetings with BCC Conservation and
Planning Officers establishing general principle of a mixed use scheme however it becomes clear that a
scheme 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.
2013
Discussions start with the Council’s Property Services Department (BPS) about possible acquisition of the site
between the Wray building and Millennium Point. This would be used for a larger development that would be
able to cross subsidise the repair of the historic buildings.
Local conservation specialists ‘Apec Architects’ were appointed to review and update DIA’s Statement of
Significance. Apec conclude as follows:
Possible acquisition of site between Site and Millennium Point
“Whist other buildings on the site contribute to the story of a three-century
progression from domestic into mixed-use and finally light-engineering, they are,
by no means, a rare example of such a conglomeration within the central
Birmingham area. [contrary to DIA’s opinion] There is therefore a strong argument
that the rear of the Georgian terrace should be given space to breathe. This would
allow the most significant building to be viewed and fully appreciated. Subject to
further research and investigation followed by a comprehensive and fully
documented study and record of what exists, the sacrifice of some buildings of
lesser importance may be justified in order to safeguard the future of the Georgian
houses by focusing limited financial resources on the most significant elements of
the site. […] Ultimately, the survival of the possibly unique, early Georgian houses
needs to be ensured by a proactive approach. The buildings are suffering from dry
rot, 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 apart
from 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 venture
development of Wray building and the adjoining land. Partner also concluded that development of the site
alone was not viable hence need for the adjacent site.
GHA scheme using adjoining Fox Street land
www.weareidp.com
Proposal was for private residential on a rental basis. GHA proposals considered by the Big City Plan Board in
March and further developed through the year, all based on inclusion of the neighbouring land. Main concern
is the loss of listed building. Adjacent land is scheduled for disposal and marketed but then in September 2013
BCC withdraws the site from sale. This marked the end of a wasted year working on the combined sites, and
the end of the involvement of the development partner.
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.5 PLANNING HISTORY
2013
(END)
A new scheme is developed for the Wray site alone, comprising student accommodation with a minimum
requirement of 200 rooms above a commercial/leisure use on the ground floor fronting the Park. Key
argument presented was that the Malthouse would have to be lost because the amount of footprint available
for the new building was insufficient to give the 200 rooms necessary to cross subsidise the restoration work
and give a viable scheme.
The scheme was considered to be much too massive and overpowering. Need for English Heritage’s input into
the assessment of harm, particularly the proposed loss of the Malthouse. The argument being considered was
particularly whether impacting the setting of the listed buildings by building a very high building next to them
was more harmful than the loss of historic buildings. The planning argument being put forward was to justify
the demolitions under the NPPF, arguing that there is harm, but the most significant elements of the building
would 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 Bartholomew
Row, be converted into valuable space in order to minimise the additional new build floor space needed. A
triangle of land adjoining the site, but forming part of the Park, had been identified as a possible swap for
additional public open space within the development, which would give an increased footprint on which to
build the new building, which might then allow more historic building to be saved for the same height. The
proposed scheme included this land although no formal discussions had been held with the Council in terms
of how it might be acquired.
Acquisition of a ‘triangle’ of land from adjacent Eastside Park
English Heritage site visit. Further historical analysis of the Georgian buildings commissioned and undertaken
by Apec Architects. This discovers that this building is much more significant than previously thought, and is
probably the only surviving example of a house of this age in Birmingham City Centre. Statement of
Significance reissued. Planning officer conclusion that preference is to keep as much of the significant listed
building as possible (as defined by DIA) and not lose the Malthouse. Adjacent height was a price worth paying
for 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 the
scheme to work. Letter of Intent signed by Birmingham property Services for the sale of the triangle in July
2014.
2014
Early IDP concept sketch from Fox Street
www.weareidp.com
IDP Architects appointed. Scheme developed using the triangle, converting all the listed buildings, opening up
internal spaces, and a new build element at 10 stories. The circulation core goes into one of the internal
courtyards 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 to
student houses they might be gifted as restored shells to the Birmingham Conservation Trust. Trustees very
keen 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.
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.5 PLANNING HISTORY
2014
Advice from Birmingham Property Services, that the request for the triangle to be designated as surplus and
hence saleable to us had not been accepted, but that the importance of the disposal to the scheme had
probably been misunderstood. Major setback once again.
Further pre application meeting and scheme development. Scheme becoming less viable as time passes with
tender price inflation and introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy on student accommodation in
Birmingham City Centre. Build cost per m2 now expected to be £1600, where it was £1400 two years earlier.
2015
Scheme develops using a podium and tower configuration.
Increased demand for student studios increases potential values and enables tower height to reduce a
little. Working with planning department’s 3D visualisation model enables the impact of the tower to be
considered in the context of surrounding tall buildings. Planners advise that houses should go back into the
scheme so they are shown as residential conversions – maximise developable space. Negotiations with
Property Services regarding the Triangle accelerate.
Current scheme for 166 studios and maximum height 15 storeys published. Building opened to the public as
part of Associated Architects and Birmingham Post’s “Hidden Spaces” exposition. Converting the Georgian
houses to offices considered to be a less intrusive and higher value option than residential conversion.
Positive feedback for proposals.
Early concept sketch of IDP proposal for planning application
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.1 CURRENT SITE USE
The site (outlined in red on the adjacent plan) is located in the Eastside
Quarter 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 into
disrepair for the last ten years.
The Site accommodates approximately 1,435sqm of land, most of
which 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 Christopher
Wray Lighting Works Factory and Emporium closed over a decade ago.
In recent years the building has been showcased in the Birmingham
Posts “Hidden Spaces” of Birmingham feature, and was opened to the
public for tours Birmingham’s ‘Hidden Spaces Unlocked 2015’. Previous
uses 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 and
Student Accommodation, as well as private residences, a hotel, office
buildings and limited retail units. Adjacent to the site also is East Side
City Park and Millennium Point.
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.1 CURRENT SITE USE
RESIDENTI
AL
www.weareidp.com
VACANT
SITE
BIRMINGHA
M CITY
UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE
STUDENT
HALLS
COLLEGE
MILLENNIU
M POINT
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.2 WIDER CONTEXT
The site is located in the centre of Birmingham on the fringe of the
newly landscaped East Side Park, within walking distance of the
Universities, the Bullring and retail core and Birmingham New Street,
Moor Street and Snow Hill Stations.
Site
Amenity Area
Transport Hub
ASTON
UNIVERSITY
SNOW HILL
STATION
BCU
EAST
SIDE
PARK
BUSINESS
DISTRICT
PROP. HS2
STATION
RETAIL
CORE
NEW ST.
STATION
www.weareidp.com
MOOR ST.
STATION
B.C
FOOTBALL
CLUB
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.3 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
Site
Amenity Area
Transport Hub
ASTON
UNIVERSITY
BCU
COLLEGES
THINKTANK
BCU
EXCHANGE
SQUARE
SITE
EAST
SIDE
PARK
PROP. HS2
STATION
RETAIL
CORE
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.3 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
Given the prominence of this site, after much discussion with BCC, it
has been determined that a tower of 15 storeys maximum, is
appropriate on this site.
Although much of the immediate context consists of 4-5, and 6-9
storey buildings, there are a number of feature buildings of over 10 or
15 storeys high.
≤ 4 Storeys
4-10 Storeys
10+ Storeys
THINKTANK
EXCHANGE SQUARE
SITE
HOTEL
www.weareidp.com
BCU
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.4 PLANNING POLICY
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.’
www.weareidp.com
The 15 storey height of ‘The Emporium’ tower is not at all out of
context, with 14-17 storey buildings across Park Street and Etna Street.
The height and orientation of the tower also form a dialogue across
East Side Park to the new developments on the other side.
Site
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.4 PLANNING POLICY
Throughout the Design Process the following policies have been
analysed and considered;
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out government's
planning policies for England and how these are expected to be
applied. In this instance, most key to the scheme are the following
policies:
7. Requiring good design:
• 56. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the
built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable
development, is indivisible from good planning, and should
contribute positively to making places better for people.
• 57. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high
quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual
buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development
schemes.
• 62. Local planning authorities should have local design review
arrangements in place to provide assessment and support to ensure
high standards of design.
• 66. Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly
affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of
the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in
developing the design of the new development should be looked on
more favourably.
A number of pre-application meetings have taken place with the local
planning authority to discuss the design concept, in addition much
design consultation has taken place on site, with the scheme also
widely 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 historic
environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect,
decay or other threats. In developing this strategy, local planning
authorities should take into account:
• opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the
historic environment to the character of a place.
www.weareidp.com
• 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should
require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage
assets affected,
• including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail
should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more
than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal
on their significance.
• 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on
the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should
be given to the asset’s conservation.
• 137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for
new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage
Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better
reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of
the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the
significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
• 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the
significance of the historic environment gathered as part of planmaking or development management publicly accessible.
In this instance, the developer has taken steps to prevent any further
decay to the Listed Buildings as the design process has been taking
place. In addition the proposed development and the history of the site
have been made publicly available online, in print and through various
open events and consultations, including with the Conservation and
Heritage Panel.
Birmingham UDP
The Birmingham UDP (Unitary Development Plan) contains policies and
proposals that currently guide development and land use across the
City and is the existing Development Plan for Birmingham. Once
approved, the UDP will replaced by the Birmingham Development Plan
(See below) and other key planning policy documents currently being
prepared.
3.14. The Design of New Development:
A high standard of design is essential to the continued improvement of
Birmingham as a desirable place to live, work and visit. The design and
landscaping of new developments will be expected to contribute to the
enhancement 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 and
the relationship between buildings, streets, squares, parks, nature
conservation areas, waterways and other spaces that make up the
public domain.
• B- developers will be expected to demonstrate that the scheme has
been considered as part of its context.
• E- Development has a large impact on issues such as global
warming, resource depletion and pollution. Developments, including
new and refurbished buildings, should therefore be designed in a
way which reduces such harmful impacts and respects the principles
of 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 an
attractive place after dark. At a basic level, well-designed lighting
helps to improve pedestrian safety, road safety and legibility.
The Good Design Principals have been considered at length throughout
the design process, in particular the massing has been rigorously tested
and the local characteristics, in particular of the existing building and
the relationship to the park, have been the main focus of the design.
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.4 PLANNING POLICY
3.20. Conservation of the Built Environment
Redundant historic buildings offer a range of opportunities for
conversion to new uses and can be an important focus for wider urban
regeneration schemes.
The Restoration and Reuse of the existing Listed Buildings on the site has
been key to the design of the development as a whole.
3.25 Listed Buildings
Any development affecting a listed building should preserve or enhance
its character.
The retention, restoration, maintenance and continued use of the
existing buildings has driven the design process. The new use for the
buildings is intended to compliment the existing forms of the building,
without having a detrimental effect on the character or appearance of
the building. The setting of the listed buildings is intended to be
enhanced by the new tower adjacent.
8.23 Houses in Multiple Paying Occupation
This policy applies to dwellings which are either let in one or more
separate tenancies, or are occupied by persons who do not form a
single household. The following criteria will be referred to in
determining 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 contains
premises in similar use, account will be taken of the cumulative effect
of such uses upon the residential character and appearance of the area.
Given the sites proximity to the University, its use as student
accommodation seems fitting, it is also within walking distance of many
existing shops, cafes, bars, restaurants.
www.weareidp.com
The Birmingham Development Plan 2031
The Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) will set out the statutory
framework to guide decisions on development and regeneration in
Birmingham up to 2031. The draft Birmingham Development Plan was
submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 1st July 2014
and hearings took place in October 2014.
PG3- Place making
All new development will be expected to be designed to the highest
possible standards, contributing to a strong sense of place.
The design of the scheme responds to site conditions and the local area
context, in particular the heritage assets, as required by PG3. Every
consideration has been given to designing out crime and making
provision for people with disabilities (including in the existing buildings
as far as possible).
GA1- City Centre
New development must support and strengthen the distinctive
character of the areas surrounding the City Centre Core raising their
overall quality, offer and accessibility. The City Centre is formed by
seven Quarters with the Core at its heart. Eastside - Maximising its role
as an area for learning and technology
realising its extensive development opportunities and the integration
of any proposals for HS2 station.
The sites location in close proximity to the Universities has lead to the
proposed use of student accommodation. Students will be within short
walking distance of educational, retail and leisure facilities.
TP12 Historic environment
The historic environment, consisting of archaeological remains, historic
buildings, townscapes and landscapes, including locally significant
assets and their settings in addition to designated and statutorily
protected features, will be valued, protected, enhanced and managed
for its contribution to character, local distinctiveness and sustainability.
The protection and enhancement of the historic fabric of the existing
buildings on the site has played a crucial role in the development of the
scheme. A considerable amount of research has been conducted into
the history of the site in during the design process.
TP32 Student accommodation
Proposals for purpose built student accommodation provided on
campus will be supported in principle subject to satisfying design and
amenity considerations.
The Birmingham Big City Plan 2011
The Big City Plan will form part of the Local Development Framework as
a Development Plan Document.
Building Heights
Tall buildings provide the opportunity to manage and create an
identifiable skyline memorable for its key buildings. High Places, a
tall buildings policy document produced in 2003, defined tall buildings
as anything over 15 storeys in height. The focus for these buildings is
the central ridge, which includes the city’s highest point and runs west
to east through the city centre.
Though the building is below 15 storeys, the site is within the central
ridge and the height has been determined following much discussion
with the Local Authority.
Heritage
The city’s heritage is its roots, its authenticity and its individuality.
The scheme has maximised the existing setting; the historic fabric has
been designed into the scheme, and used to encourage and inspire high
quality modern design within the tower that enhances the heritage
assets and their setting.
Eastside
Eastside is a central focus for regeneration activity in the city centre
that has brought about the removal of the ‘concrete collar’ at
Masshouse and the emergence of the area as a location for
knowledge, skills and innovation.
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.5 FUTURE USE
Proposals have been considered in the context of the Curzon HS2
Masterplan, recognising the need for active frontage and a backdrop to
Curzon Square, the building is to be read in the round and have a
prominence when considered with the adjacent Hive building.
The Site
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.6 SITE ANALYSIS
The following opportunities were identified for the site, the ways in
which these opportunities have been fully maximised is also described
below;
• Distinguishing historic character of the Existing Grade 2
Listed Building cluster
The existing buildings and viability of the site for
future use has been studied extensively, with
the final proposed scheme being one which not
only retains as much of the existing buildings as
possible, but makes use of the intricate variety
of spaces, retaining and enhancing their
character.
• Three key frontages, two of which are onto the Park.
The existing buildings occupy most of the length of
the frontages onto Bartholemew Row and Fox
Street, these have been retained and refurbished.
The new tower which dominates the South
Elevation has been designed to compliment the
existing building and to be a high quality, striking,
contemporary design.
• Key views from main roads and across the open space of
the newly landscaped park.
The tower in particular will be visible from some of
the main roads through Birmingham and across the
park, the design of which has been carefully
considered.
• Views from the main railway link into Birmingham, part of
the proposed HS2 link.
Again the tower tower in particular will be
visible from the railway, the design of which has
been carefully considered.
• Connectivity with other new University buildings across
the park.
The tower has been orientated with the park to
create a dialogue with the high rise buildings across
the park. The ‘ends’ of the tower have been
recessed in a contrasting cladding with a projecting
frame, adding further interest to the design of the
elevation and a language which works with the
long design of the park.
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.6 SITE ANALYSIS
The topographical survey has been analysed in the assembly of the
drawings. The site remains level on its axis between Bartholomew Row
and Fox Street, and falls from the far side toward the park by
approximately 1130mm on the Bartholomew Row Side and 1600mm
on the Fox Street side.
In addition, the following environmental constraints have been
identified;
• Sun Paths around the Site
• Noise pollution from surrounding roads
WINTER SUN
SUMMER SUN
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.6 SITE ANALYSIS
Existing Vehicular Routes and bus routes are as illustrated in the
adjacent diagram.
For further information on the existing situation, sustainable access,
policy, proposed development including the servicing strategy, trip
generation and management of student move in/out periods, please
refer to the Transport Statement, prepared by Phil Jones Associates
and 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
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.7 SITE HERITAGE
The Site has an interesting and varied history which as resulted in an
series of interlocking spaces set within a cluster of Listed Buildings,
dating from various time periods. Please see the diagrams overleaf for
a summary of the ages of the buildings.
Most recently used as Christopher Wray’s Lighting Factory and
Emporium, the buildings between Bartholomew Row and Fox Street
represent a fascinating, and largely unknown, piece of history. While on
the face of it these rather dilapidated buildings appear of limited
architectural interest, they are of historic interest and this is largely
why they are listed. Their historic interest is related to their almost
continuous alteration since their construction as houses in the mid
18th century to their final 20th century factory uses, which, in some
ways, reflects in microcosm the development of Birmingham itself.
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.7 SITE HERITAGE
The First Developments
Bartholomew Row was developed from the mid 18th century following
the construction of the St Bartholomew’s Chapel in the late 1740s.
Certainly by 1779 the site of the Christopher Wray works was
developed with six houses part of a larger terrace facing St
Bartholomew Churchyard.
Fox Street seems to have developed in a rather ad hoc way following
construction of Bartholomew Row, but certainly the 1788 map by
Thomas Hanson (Map 1) shows a mix of buildings here, but Fox Street
unnamed.
The houses on Bartholomew Row seem to have been quite small and
paired with a central tunnel entrance to access their rear
gardens/areas, with doors to the street. Of all the surviving fabric of the
site, only the ground floor of number 9 retains the latter feature.
Indeed only number 9 and 10 Bartholomew Row (Building B) survive at
all 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 the
19th century, William Spurrier had acquired both 9 and 10
Bartholomew Row and the land behind to Fox Street. He had built a
malt house on Fox Street by 1800 and along with this had constructed a
warehouse and shops by 1823 (Map 2). It is not clear exactly what
comprised the ‘malt house’, but it seems most likely that the two
storey block immediately to the rear of 9-10 Bartholomew Row was
this building (Building E1). It has a vaulted brick fireproof floor and
could certainly date to the turn of the 18th/19th centuries. Certainly
the 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 reduce
the southern arch opening into the site which, prior to this, had been
much wider and clearly designed for access by wider, taller vehicles.
www.weareidp.com
Thomas Hanson's 1778 map of Birmingham
1828 Piggot Smith map
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.7 SITE HERITAGE
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 the
Piggot Smith map of circa 1855 (Map 3). This map also proves the
existence of the structures to the rear of 9 and 10 (Building E), the
disposition of the tunnel/passage entrance to the rear, and the
surviving area to the south of the rear early 19th century warehouse
wing and passage entrance to it off Fox Street. Also of interest are
back-to-back houses, one side facing Fox Street and the other facing a
courtyard behind the Bartholomew Row buildings. These back-to-backs
seem to have been an early 19th century feature in Fox Street, as they
were developed both sides of it.
By the mid 19th century, the title to the 9/10 Bartholomew Row and
the Fox Street premises behind (numbers 16/17 Fox Street) were taken
over by John Thompson.
The 1836 directory states that 11 Bartholomew Row was a house, shop
and premises and similar separately at 12 Bartholomew Row.
Numbers 11 and 12 (Building A) were re-built, presumably by the late
1860s (the plot remains unfilled in Piggot Smith’s map of 1863). The
use of the rear premises as a malt house remained in 1864, but this use
was changed by the 1871 directory, when 9/10 Bartholomew Row was
separately owned by Samuel Brigg as two houses, workshops and
premises, while 16/19 Fox Street (Building E3) – ie including the land
behind 7/8 Bartholomew Row – was operated as stables, workshops
and premises by Joshua Bowater. His enterprise evidently flourished
and by 1876 he occupied 16-20 Fox Street. It was presumably during
this period that the surviving characteristic stucco-finished front to Fox
Street with double arched opening at ground level was created.
1855 Piggot Smith map
www.weareidp.com
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.7 SITE HERITAGE
The Later 19th Century Onwards
By the time of the first edition Ordnance Survey plan was produced in
1889 (Map 4), the space behind 11 and 12 Bartholomew Row (Building
A) was an open area, although the houses, obviously, had been rebuilt. Presumably this area was used by Bowater or others – the area
had a brick wall to the street with a small gate. This arrangement
seems to have existed for a short time only – perhaps the map was
plotted while construction was underway, as by 1905 the surviving two
storey factory blocks (Buildings C and F) had been constructed on it
and the area formerly occupied by extensions behind the Bartholomew
Row buildings. This development seems to have been the responsibility
of Henry Austin Aquila, who made ginger beer here. It was presumably
he who also formed the entry at ground level through 11 Bartholomew
row, 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 by
1876. By the time of the 1905 (Map 5) map, he occupied the whole of
the plot facing both Bartholomew Row and Fox Street. Jenkinsons were
superseded by Landon Brothers by 1910, and by 1928 occupied the
entire site. It was they who were taken over by Christopher Wray to
form the surviving complex of buildings.
1889 First Edition Ordnance Map
1905 Ordnance Map
While, prior to the war, areas around Fox Street and Bartholomew Row
had been cleared, the buildings at 7/8 Bartholomew Row and those to
the rear on Fox Street survived and are shown on the 1937 Ordnance
map (Map 6). By 1952 (Map 7), however, the church and the buildings
north of 12 Bartholomew Row were lost, as were 7 and 8 Bartholomew
Row, to be replaced by a building subsequently re- modelled by
Christopher Wray as a showroom.
Christopher Wray’s occupation of the buildings ceased in the summer
of 2005 and the buildings have been empty and unused ever since.
1937 Ordnance Map
www.weareidp.com
1952 Ordnance Map
2.0 – CONTEXTUAL APPRAISAL
2.8 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
Fox Street Elevation
Bartholomew Row Elevation
Basement to Building E2
www.weareidp.com
Basement to Building E1
Second Floor of Building E2
Courtyard between Buildings C and E
Second Floor of Building C
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.1 PRECEDENT
Manhattan Condo, Foster & Partners
Broadcasting Tower, Leeds
www.weareidp.com
East Side Locks, Birmingham
Leventis Art Gallery, Nicosia
Manor Wharf Student Accommodation, Salford
Axis, Manchester
Mansion House Roof Terrace, London
Park Tower, Belgium
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.2 DESIGN PRINCIPALS
A NEW TOWER TO FRAME THE PARK AND THE LISTED BUILDINGS
OBSERVE THE SCALE OF THE EXISTING BARTHOLOMEW ROW
COLOUR PALLETTE TO RELFLECT AND CONTRAST WITH CONTEXT
The existing Grade 2 Listed Buildings have been retained as far as
possible in the design, with their interesting historical features drawn
on and enhanced. The existing massing has been mirrored to some
extent in the new tower, though it stands ten storeys taller, this frames
the cluster of existing buildings.
The existing Grade 2 Listed Georgian townhouses on Bartholomew Row
are to be conserved and repaired where required. Their proportions in
scale are to be gently reflected in the new tower at the lower few
storeys (Ground – Second), from this point the Bartholomew Row
façade will set back and the tower will rise to 15 Storeys.
Contemporary Aluminium cladding in a copper hue will clad the tower,
the tones will compliment those of the existing brickwork of the Listed
buildings and the copper effect render on the BCU building adjacent to
the site. The sleek finish will contrast with the rougher nature of the
existing brickwork.
The new development is intended to be contemporary and contrast
with the existing buildings. The intention is not to overshadow but to
compliment the structures.
The front façade of the lower part of the new tower will be set back
from Bartholomew Row on an angle perpendicular to the tower facing
the park, allowing the side elevation of the Georgian townhouses to be
read.
In addition, the ends of the towers facing the park and Bartholomew
Row will be recessed behind a projecting frame of the copper cladding,
and be a pale silver-gold colour to contrast with the longer facades and
to emphasis the orientation of the new building.
www.weareidp.com
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THE
ORIGINAL SITE BOUNDARY
REMOVAL OF THE 20th CENTURY
‘SHANTY’ DEVELOPMENT
NEW TOWER BLOCK IN PLACE OF
DEMOLISHED SHOW ROOM AND
WORKSHOP
NEW TOWER UTILISING ADDITIONAL
‘TRIANGLE’ OF PARKLAND
NEW TOWER ANGLED TO FACE THE
PARK, TOWER SET BACK ON
BARTHOLOMEW ROW SIDE
The history of the site and that of
the individual buildings has been
thoroughly researched (See Section
2). Experimentation throughout the
design process has determined the
most appropriate design proposal
concerning what can be lost of the
existing buildings to make a viable
scheme, and what should be
retained in terms of historical
interest.
‘The sacrifice of some buildings of
lesser importance may be justified
in order to safeguard the future of
the Georgian houses’
(APEC, Conservation Architects).
The existing buildings to be retained
are to be refurbished, retaining as
much as possible and enhancing the
individual character of each space.
Where the showroom and workshop
is proposed to be demolished, a new
tower is proposed, however due to
the narrow footprint, a viable
solution is not possible without
taking the tower to too great a
height.
An additional ‘triangle’ of land
adjacent to the site is proposed to
be used as additional footprint for
the new tower. The land is surplus to
the newly landscaped Eastside Park,
never having been part of the
Masterplan for the park. The
additional footprint allows the tower
to be brought down to a more
appropriate height, as discussed
during the pre-application meetings
with Birmingham City Council.
The form of the new tower has been
angled to align with the park and
create a relationship with the
University Buildings across the park.
The tower has also been set back
from the 4th floor upwards on the
Bartholomew Row side, allowing the
frontage of the tower to align with
the existing Georgian Townhouses.
Where the new building faces away
from the existing buildings, a new
feature glazed link will connect the
them.
www.weareidp.com
The latest 20th Century ‘shanty’
additions to the site are proposed to
be demolished, opening up the rear
of the Georgian Townhouses and the
alleyway between the buildings, and
making the end block of the site
available for new development.
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Key Design Drivers
• Open Space across the park, the road network and round
the bend of Park Street means the new tower is in a very
prominent site;
• 1- The towers relationship with the existing
buildings is key on the Bartholomew Row
elevation, on which the tower has been set back
allowing the lower storeys of the new building
to align horizontally with the Georgian
Townhouses, from which the frontage has been
set back to allow the side elevation to be read,
and skewed to show the new buildings
relationship with the park
• 2- Though the New building is more prominent
from this view point than the existing Georgian
Townhouses, the set back and the skew has
given them their own standing on the elevation
• 3- The view across the park is mostly of the new
building, the orientation of the tower and the
change in elevational treatment at each end is
intended to enhance the buildings relationship
with the park
• Pedestrian connectivity is already present to the South of
the site across the park, however this is to be enhanced
with the highly glazed leisure units in the ground floor of
the new building.
• An active frontage is to be provided to the alleyway to the
North of the site between the site and the university
building, allowing this alleyway to be safely opened up.
• The exposed position of the tower means that most
elevations are key and highly visible. The design alters
around the sides of the tower, with each end being
recessed in a lighter hue, with a projecting surround.
• As mentioned previously, the tower has been orientated
with the park, to create a relationship with the buildings
to the adjacent end.
www.weareidp.com
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Tower footprint ‘cranked’ to face
park, shown in the break in the
copper cladding, paler cladding
emphasises recess
Tower angled to face Eastside Park
and University Buildings across the
park
Each end of the tower is recessed
with a paler cladding, edges
projecting
Tower set back above 3 Storeys,
Bartholomew Row elevation aligns with
Georgian Townhouses
Third floor Roof Terrace
Existing Georgian Townhouses Retained and
Refurbished – See APEC Drawings
Courtyard opened up to rear of Georgian
Townhouses where 20th Century ‘shanty’ infill
development removed
Existing Buildings Retained and
Refurbished
Alleyway opened up between Fox Street
buildings where 20th Century ‘shanty’ infill
development removed
www.weareidp.com
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.4 SCALE AND MASSING
Throughout the design process, the massing has been experimented
with in terms of scale and form, in close liaison with the Local Planning
Authority and the city wide massing model.
As the desire was to keep the height as low as possible the eventual
massing of a wide, narrow tower, occupying the footprint of the
demolished Christopher Wray Showroom and the triangle of unwanted
parkland proved to be the most efficient. The overall height has been
kept to a minimum at 14 storeys with relatively low floor to floor
heights.
www.weareidp.com
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.4 SCALE AND MASSING
The scale and massing of the scheme is intended to fit with the taller
buildings in the context of the site without overpowering the existing
Grade 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 tower
chamfered to connect to the existing buildings. A new contemporary
glass lobby will connect the new to the old on Fox Street.
3.0 – CONCEPT DESIGN
3.4 SCALE AND MASSING
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Ground Floor Plan
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed First Floor Plan
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Second Floor Plan
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Second Floor Plan
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Fourth – 14th Floor Plan
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Bartholomew Row Elevation
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Eastside Park Elevation
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Fox Street Elevation
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Courtyard Elevation
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Bartholomew Row Elevation in context
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
Proposed Eastside Park Elevation in context
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.1 THE SCHEME
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.2 APPEARANCE AND MATERIALITY
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.3 LANDSCAPE
There are no existing trees within the site curtilatage and no trees will
be affected by the proposed scheme, therefore no method statement
has been provided in relation to trees. The ‘triangle’ of land adjoining
the site, but forming part of the Park, is currently excess to the parks
requirements and is therefore being used to grow surplus planting
which can then replace any shrubbery in the park as required. Upon
preparation of the land for site use, it is proposed that any planting
which can be salvaged will be offered back for use in the park or
carefully retained for use on the garden terrace of the new tower.
Please see ‘Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Report’ for further
detail.
‘Triangle’ of land to be acquired from adjacent Eastside Park
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.3 LANDSCAPE
There roof terrace on the third floor has been designed to
accommodate students in groups when socialising or individuals
desiring privacy or outdoor study space. The smaller areas for quiet use
have been separated with planting in raised timber planters (low level
to prevent students using them as a step to climb over the balustrade).
A mix of planting is proposed, but particularly lavender to compliment
the existing planting in Eastside Park.
Parapet
The decking is set back from the parapet edge to prevent antisocial
behaviour at the edges of the terrace, with a gravel surround.
Paving
Low level lighting to be set into planters and bollard lights will
illuminate the space for use in the evenings. Fittings will have louvres to
angle the light down in order to mitigate any light spillage and
pollution.
Gravel Border
Glass Balustrade
Artificial Grass
Bollard Light
Decking
Common
Room
Activity
Space
Social Space
Glass balustrade to perimeter of terrace
Mansion House Roof Terrace, London
www.weareidp.com
Work
Space
Third Floor Roof Terrace
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.3 LANDSCAPE
New Leisure Units relationship to the landscaped Eastside Park
www.weareidp.com
4.0 – THE PROPOSAL
4.4 ACCESS
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 area
at Bartholomew Row. No car parking provision is proposed. It is
considered that the sites excellent connectivity on foot/cycle and
public transport would negate the need for students, visitors or
employees to use a car, in common with other city centre locations.
Short and long term car parking is available at Millennium Point
nearby if required.
20 cycle parking spaces are to be provided in the basement of the
development to serve the student accommodation and other land
uses.
Students/parents will be instructed to use Fox St/Etna St/ Grosvenor
St (see 4.2.1) at the start of the academic year for drop offs. Arrivals
will be at staggered times to manage arrivals and departures and
make best use of available on carriageway parking. This measure and
the mechanism for its delivery are outlined within the Travel Plan that
accompanies this document.
All refuse collections and deliveries will be undertaken from Fox Street
where access to the developments bin store will be provided.
Please refer to the transport statement for further details and swept
path analysis.
Key
•
Pedestrian Access
•
Cycle Store
•
Vehicular drop off zones
•
Refuse Collection
•
Bin Store
www.weareidp.com
5.0 – CONCLUSION
Great care has been taken in the design of this scheme to analyse and
understand the context of the existing Grade 2 Listed buildings and
how to treat them. The majority of these existing buildings are
intended to be retained, enhanced and put back into good use,
maximising the Listed features. The 20th Century developments of
lesser historical value, which actually detract from the buildings of
greater importance are to be removed. This will open up the
courtyards between the existing buildings and expose the features of
the rear of the Georgian Townhouse which have been concealed.
The new building will compliment the existing buildings in tone while
adding a contemporary ‘beacon’ building to the area. The new tower
has been designed so as to stand its ground as a contemporary
building, without being so elaborate as to overshadow the existing
Listed Buildings. The height of the tower has been discussed at length
and tested to reach the most appropriate conclusion. The materials
and 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 and
innovation. Additional active frontages to all sides of the development
are intended to bring life to the alleyway between the University
building and the Listed Buildings, to add valuable use to and maximise
footfall through Eastside Park and Park Street. The increased activity
that the new HS2 terminal will bring in the future means that this site is
in urgent need of refurbishment and development which reflects it’s
prominence in Birmingham City Centre.
www.weareidp.com