Places for the Future - let them know what you think.

Next Monday, we won't be having a meeting here at the Warehouse as usual, but will be at the Council House for the Sustainability Forum meeting looking at the Place for the Future planning document.

 You can respond to it online by following this link, but if you want to help give feedback in a room full of other people who are interested in sustainability, you need to register by emailingsustainabilityteam@birmingham.gov.uk

See you there.

Joe Peacock

Confusion reigns in the planning committee

Well, I've been to a few planning committee meetings in my time, but never anything quite like this.

All the councillors on the committee wanted to save the lovely Island House from demolition. There were some excellent speeches both from those who opposed it from the floor and from councillors, particularly Clancy, Smith and Henley. However, the planning officers seemed determined that there was nothing they could do. The hearing today was only over whether they should have to approve the method of demolition and then what is done afterwards.

There were proposals to say they should agree they need to approve it, but then not approve the conditions for 8 weeks to allow more time for building a case against demolition, but this was another of those cases where the council feared legal costs from a challenge by the developer, so they chickened out.

The biggest saving grace that should play in favour of saving this historic building is a section 106 agreement which the developer signed with the council that they had a duty to retain and renovate it. Follow this link to the consultation or search for 2012/00182/PA on the Birmingham City Council planning website - it is  now taking comments as to whether they should alter this agreement on retaining the building and will close on 6th Feb.

Scaffolding is going up around the building as I type, so who knows what will happen in the next few days. Will they just knock it down and pay whatever fine the council imposes? It probably wouldn't be a huge amount for a developer.

Accountability around planning in this country seems rather muddled and it seems agreements are struck behind closed doors that even democratically elected members are unable to do anything about. I hope that the developers don't just rise roughshod over public opinion and legal agreements, but nothing would shock me.

Joe Peacock

Planning - time for some sense

Tomorrow, the planning committee will hear an application to demolish one of the last buildings to survive the demolition job that has been BCC's "regeneration" of Eastside.

Flattening Island House for no good reason sends out totally the wrong signal. Eastside has been decimated already and it's time that Birmingham learned a lesson that flattening everything and starting again is not always the best way to go about making places better. We really should not allow one of the last buildings of note there to go, too.
The original Big City Plan had Island House as an important building leading on to the new city park, but things now seem to have changed - why? Is it something to do with HS2?
Luckily, people are kicking up a fuss about this one.

Digbeth Residents are up in arms about it, as are various conservation groups and also Occupy Birmingham, who've done the call to arms above. The hearing is at 11am tomorrow and people will be gathering outside the council house to protest. If you are able to come along and show support, that will be really great.
Only those who have registered to do so may speak at the planning committee meeting, but public may attend.

Joe Peacock

Highlights of 2011 Part 3

The campaign to save environmental protections within the planning system was taken up by many organisations this autumn and we played our part in pointing out the damage that will be done if developers just have free reign to build what they want where they want.

Friends of the Earth gave us the campaign slogan "Talk half as much rubbish" earlier in the year, but we found most people didn't associate David Cameron with their bins (strange as it may seem), so we put our focus on lobbying the council to halve the amount of rubbish. We got about 800 signatures on a petition for food waste collections and better recycling, as well as producing reports on the waste system and the damage done by the incinerator. We are now engaging with the Municipal Waste Review being conducted by the scrutiny committee to whom we'll give evidence in January.

This was the tenth year we've done a Santa Parade in Birmingham for Buy Nothing Day. This year we got a big piece on the radio about consumption and Christmas as well as press coverage and lots of people dancing round the streets with us :-) This video provides pictures from many of those ten years and the radio piece:

As part of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, we always put on events to raise awareness of what is happening amongst the public and politicians. This year it was a screening of the film Dirty Oil at the BMI, followed by a discussion.
The talks in Durban weren't as bad as we feared they might be, but still haven't done anything yet to prevent runaway climate change. Here's Andy Atkins of Friends of the Earth talking about it:

All that makes it even more important that our Final Demand campaign makes a big impact both on the way the energy market is run and the carbon emissions it's responsible for. We are hoping to get thousands of signatures to show the government that people really want a shift in power away from the Big 6 with people taking control over producing their own energy, not just pouring money into shareholders' pockets.

This shot is from Bristol, but we are all ready to hit the streets of Birmingham next year and make a real difference to the carbon emissions of retailers by getting them to close the doors. We have the materials and just need an army of volunteers to go round speaking to shopkeepers. Let us know if you want to help.
The last slide is for our wonderful volunteers, without whom, none of this would happen:

Including Women Event and Neighbourhood Planning

Last week, I was invited along to an event organised by Including Women in Balsall Heath. Strangely, there were two men there, both called Joe and both with an interest in planning - what does that tell you? Anyway, I was asked to speak about our campaigns from global to local level.
I chose food, because we ran a campaign called Fix The Food Chain last year, which raised awareness of the links between what we eat, deforestation happening in South America, Global injustice and Climate Change. On the local level we have been supportive of grow-sites being developed on small pieces of derelict land in Birmingham, so that people can grow their own food, as well as attempting to protect small independent shops from supermarkets taking over the city.
Also speaking were Val from the History Society who spoke about how the neighbourhood has changed over the years and showing some really interesting pictures to illustrate it and Joe Holyoak who ran a session getting people to think about what they want to go into the neighbourhood plan.

It was great to hear people's views on what they would like to be done differently (even if not everything could be changed by the planning process) and, once again, it showed that the kinds of things we ask for in terms of safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists are actually what people with no environmental agenda also ask for.

I'll be really interested to see what comes out of the Balsall Heath neighbourhood plan. From what was said in this meeting, it's hard to imagine that it'll be as focused as the government wants on encouraging more development and more economic activity, but will be about stopping certain types of development, such as more big "shed" retail developments on the old Joseph Chamberlain site, which is positive as far as we're concerned.
I hope that mixed use and employment land is created within the plan for walkable spaces to provide something for an area with high density housing and high unemployment. I also hope that people learn about the good stuff that already exists within Balsall Heath that needs to be supported while they're having these conversations.

Joe Peacock

Super Stirchley fights back against ASDA

On Tuesday evening I went to a lively meeting at the British Oak pub in Stirchley where over 40 passionate local residents and shop-keepers came together under the banner "Super Stirchley".

They were there to discuss what can be done to stop a large ASDA supermarket being given planning permission and also how they can promote their vision of a vibrant and exciting high street.

Tom Baker of Loaf has been a real driving force behind this, but he is certainly not alone and it seems that there is a lot of strong feeling in Stirchley about the issue now. Hopefully, this time the council planning officers will listen to local people rather than big business (unlike in Moseley).

There are very strong reasons why this planning application should be refused:

Traffic and Transport

Another large supermarket will drastically increase traffic, impact on local air quality, safety of pedestrians, particularly local school children, and work to make the Pershore Road corridor a ‘smart route’. ASDA’s traffic data does not reassure me that there will not be a significant negative impact on the health of Stirchley. I therefore urge the council to do carry out a thorough, independent and transparent assessment of the traffic and transport issues.

Poor design

The design does not connect the store to the local high street, meaning it will have a negative impact on trade and attempts to rejuvenate the area. It is also well outside of Stirchley’s ‘retail core’ as identified in the Stirchley Framework SPD, and reiterated in the recent draft Birmingham Core Strategy. The loss of high street parking, the three-lane vehicular access from the Pershore road that crudely cuts through the established building line (contrary to the Birmingham UDP), and consequent poor pedestrian access to the site from the high street are also of concern.

Proof of Need

With the existing CO-OP and the approved and pending TESCO, there will already be considerable supermarket provision in Stirchley. The need for a third supermarket should be fully proven and independently scrutinised. The land could be used for more pressing requirements such as employment, housing or leisure as identified in the draft Core Strategy LDF (s10): “Outside the [retail] core encouragement will be given to conversion and redevelopment for high quality residential, office and non retail uses.”

The Local Economic Impact

Along with the loss of parking spaces, the high volume of car traffic will impede the local businesses’ ability to trade, not only in Stirchley, but also in Bournville, Cotteridge, Selly Park, and Kings Heath. I also fear a loss of skilled, entrepreneurial jobs in the local area as the National Retail Planning Forum conclude that on average a new large supermarket leads to 276 job losses within a 10-mile radius.

Shops in Stirchley will be collecting objections to the planning application, as will members of Super Stirchley at the CoCoMad festival this weekend. If you care about the future of Stirchley and keeping a thriving local high street there, please go to the council website and search for Planning application 2011/03485/PA (Land off Pershore Road/Fordhouse Lane Former Arvin Meritor Works Stirchley Birmingham B30 3BW). Object either using some of the points listed here, or your own objections before 7th July.

Digbeth's Future

Last Thursday, I went along to an event at the Eastside Projects called “Imagine the Digbeth Summit ...” and found it a really inspiring evening.

There was a real sense of the people there having a shared vision for what Digbeth and Eastside could and should be like and a real sense that people want to get together to help achieve this and stop the kinds of unsuitable development that we all think blights the area, too. The issue of cheap car parking taking over and the need for green spaces, community facilities and re-claiming public areas ran through much of what was said.

5 of us gave short presentations on what we're doing in the area and a little bit about what our vision is. First there was the Pigeon Project who I'd heard about before, but never fully understood what they did. It really is about pigeons and I'll be popping over there soon to have a look having heard what they say about the project.

I went next to introduce the work on Birmingham Friends of the Earth, including information about our building and the history of that, events such as Buy Nothing Day, In Town Without My Car Day and our opposition to the incinerator and airport runway extension. I wasn't sure what reaction to expect, but put in a mixture of the light-hearted side of campaigning and the more serious issues we campaign on and got some very positive feedback.

After that, Jayne Bradley spoke about Edible Eastside and also her thoughts on future developments around the canals. She is planning to get a garden going where people can learn about growing food in an urban environment. This is similar to what we had been hoping to get going with grow-sites, although we remain frustrated in our attempts to find land for this.

Next was Nicky Getgood of Digbeth is Good, who has been organising guerilla picnics under the title Reclaim the Spaces. Nicky has been passionate about Digbeth and promoting the best bits of the area for some time and this is a great idea. Certain parts of Digbeth have become almost "no-go zones" for a lot of people, so she wants to have picnics in these places to show that it is up to people to take them back.

Finally, we heard from Val of the Digbeth Residents Association who also showed her passion for the area and a real will to get things done. Tree planting was mentioned as was better use of public spaces and engaging businesses as well as residents in the group.

We had a question & answer session afterwards in which we heard more about future plans for bringing people together for a Digbeth Summit. This was linked to the need to develop Neighbourhood Plans that has been part of the government's Localism Bill. If Digbeth can bring people together to be ahead of the game in developing these, it will show that we have a vision that is far better than the council have produced in their many documents for the "regeneration" of Eastside, with which the whole room was unimpressed to put it mildly.

I await with great interest to see what comes out of these ideas for a Digbeth Summit and can't wait to get involved in more fascinating discussions over the future of the area.

Joe Peacock

FoE Localism Bill Meeting at the House of Commons

While we do like to do teleconferencing when possible, there are some times you have to travel to meetings and so two of us went down to the House of Commons on Thursday for a meeting on the Localism Bill. Neither of us were experts on the bill to start with, but were able to use the journey down to London to read up on it using these useful briefings.

We arrived in plenty of time so were able to sit by the Thames enjoying the sunshine and listening to the endless roar of traffic all round us and planes overhead thinking how lucky we are in Birmingham not to have this (for the moment at least).

Going into the Commons was rather like going into an airport (I haven't for a few years, but remember what it was like), although we didn't have to take our shoes off thankfully. Once you're through all the scanners they let you wander about quite freely, though, and we made our way through imposing corridors until we made it to the room where the meeting was to take place.

MP Nic Dakin was hosting the event for us and has also helped introduce some of the amendments we want to see to the bill. We were promised that other MPs would be there, but apart from Gerald Kaufman, who popped in for a while, none of the Birmingham MPs made it along. We had been hoping to speak to Jack Dromey, MP for Erdington, as he has been doing some work on the bill, but neither he nor his PA turned up as they had promised to do.

This was disappointing, but overall the meeting was very interesting and it was great to meet and hear from representatives of other groups who represent local communities and defend their rights in planning decisions all over the country. The Rights and Justice team at FoE really are committed to working on equalities and the things that matter to those whose voices are not usually heard all over the country, yet their work may not be recognised as much as the higher profile campaigners working on climate, food and energy issues.

Detailed notes of the meeting were taken and will be sent round to all attendees soon and can be passed on to MPs and other interested parties, so I'll just make a few comments on what interested me in the course of the discussion.

You would have thought that if a bill is going to give more power to local people to make decisions, that should be good. Unfortunately, with this government things are never that simple as there are many things in it which could be very damaging to local democracy, communities' quality of life and the environment, especially when considered along with the measures announced by the chancellor in the budget, which seem to be a green light for development at any cost.

At the moment, we have some very good guidance on planning decisions in Regional Spatial Strategies, Local Development Frameworks and other pieces of legislation, but the danger is that all this could be thrown out and replaced with much looser guidelines. Originally they were proposing that a neighbourhood plan could be drawn up by a group of as little as 3 people, but this has now been increased to 20. There is still a lack of any guarantee of a right to be heard or any scrutiny over the work of neighbourhood forums/parish councils who will come up with the plans in terms of sustainability, equality or human rights legislation.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the current approach to consultation, so we do need to look at what is a better way and draw one up using our experience. This would include ways of protecting the rights of everyone to an oral hearing, looking at the way these things are publicised, ensuring that people can feel that they will make a difference and then see that difference. Sustainable development must be protected and there must be a clear definition of what this is that will be clear to everyone.

You can read more about the localism bill here and if you are concerned about what it will do after reading this, please contact your MP to express your worries, either in writing or by going along to one of their surgeries, which you can look up here. If you want to get involved in the work we do on planning, please get in touch.

Joe Peacock

Tesco Taking Over

A new Tesco store has been approved for construction in Moseley, in the face of overwhelming opposition from local residents. Despite more than 2000 signatures gathered on petitions against the new store, and an initial rejection from the local council planning committee, the new development will be built on the derelict Meteor Ford site, and will consist of a Tesco store, sheltered housing and a medical centre.

An article in the local press gave a very one-sided look at the impact of Tesco stores, ignoring all the evidence of trade being taken away from local shops, the benefits of spending money with local businesses where that money is then recycled into the local community and not mentioning the business practices they use which trample over small producers and farmers

Residents are primarily opposed to the new store because of fears that it will divert trade away from local independent businesses. The developers claim that the store is needed to win back a market share in the surrounding areas of Hall Green, Kings Heath and Small Heath. This is unlikely however, as the store will not be large enough to detract from large supermarkets in the area, but still large enough to draw business away from Moseley High Street. Again, developers claim that the types of businesses in Moseley are generally high end shops and so will not be in direct competition with Tesco. However, the examples they cite as high end shops are all food retailers, and it is hard to believe that a supermarket primarily selling food will not be in direct competition with independent food outlets such as sandwich shops and bakeries.

Furthermore, the location of the new store is on the outskirts of Moseley as opposed to in the centre, which poses the problem of convenience. As it is based away from the main shopping area in Moseley, shoppers are less likely to utilise the Tesco for goods which were not available in the High Street. It is more likely that they will simply fulfil all of their shopping needs at Tesco, which will definitely take business away from local retailers.

The other major concern is that of increased traffic congestion around the site. The proposed plans have allowed for 103 parking spaces, which for a store of this size is relatively low. Add to that visitors to the health centre and residents, and the amount of parking really seems inadequate. The new store will most likely attract interest from outside of Moseley, such as commuters passing by and residents from other constituencies. All of these factors will lead to increased traffic passing through Moseley, as well as inevitable congestion due to the lack of parking.

Delivery vehicles will be accessing the site via a residential road, which will cause additional traffic problems, but more significantly will increase the levels noise disturbance experienced by residents, particularly during out of hours deliveries. Certain plans have been put into place to make the roads more suitable for increased traffic and encourage public transport and walking to the site. However, due to the size of location of the store, it seems unlikely that many shoppers will use alternatives to simply driving there.

Just five years ago there were only three major Tescos in Birmingham. Now, including Tesco Express shops, there are 33 stores across the city. Changes in legislation in recent years has made it easier for companies to expand, due to it now being much more difficult for councils to turn down planning applications unless they directly affect other planned building developments. It a disgrace that despite Moseley residents clearly not wanting a large supermarket in their area, and doing everything they could to stop it, the plans will go ahead. The developers have "apologised" for bullying the council into getting their way, but this is no consolation to the people who will be affected. Big supermarkets are rarely stopped and are forcing more and more independent retailers to close, leaving empty retail units all over town.

The hope is that this doesn’t discourage protest against future developments of a similar nature. Councillors voted equally for and against the plans, and it was only due to this tied situation that a further vote had to be cast and the decision went ahead. So don’t be disheartened, some people are listening, the core strategy consultation has included a number of anti-supermarkets comments, so let's hope these are now included to protect our local businesses.

Joe Osborne

Birmingham's vision

Over the past few months I have been on a training course with Common Purpose about leadership and the Total Place concept for Birmingham, showing how we need to work together to achieve the Birmingham 2026 vision. There have also been seminars and talks where this has been discussed alongside the reality of public service cuts in the offing, such as Monday's event at the MAC.

The vision is a good one as far as we're concerned, with really good aspirations for Birmingham to become a greener, more sustainable city. Birmingham also has a Climate Change Action Plan, which begins to show how the council is going to achieve the ambitious target it has for cutting CO2 emissions by 60% by 2026. Yesterday I went along to the first ever cabinet committee meeting on Climate Change and sustainability, where they talked about this plan and the progress that has been made in moving towards the goals it contains.

All of this sounds very positive and should be cause for celebration, but at the moment, with so many public sector jobs under threat and funding cuts for many really good projects already starting to bite or in the pipeline, it is quite hard to be quite that positive about delivery. Birmingham is a city with many talented and dedicated people who really want to make a difference, but the concern is that if all the regional agencies and support mechanisms for local authorities are removed, a large vacuum will be left and all the energy will disappear into it.

Total Place is potentially a good concept, but most of the talk amongst the participants on the course has been about how many people are losing their jobs. There are inspiring ideas and there is a real desire amongst most of the people there to be recognised as public servants who really are serving the public, not being bashed for doing "non-jobs" by politicians (who probably want public attention deflected away from them after their expenses scandals last year).

The most important thing is that the leadership at the council take on real responsibility for the actions happening and I was encouraged by at least one councillor at the meeting yesterday saying that he would do exactly that. It is also up to all of us to show leadership and to remind the politicians of what we've told them when consulted in the preparation of all these visions.

Policy on the ground has to match up to the visions, meaning local business is supported (while large supermarkets and chainstores aren't given planning permission) and people are given the employment opportunities, independent retail outlets and leisure facilities they need locally to reduce the need to travel. If developments such as Tesco in Yardley Wood or Moseley and Asda in Weoley Castle are granted permission, this sets the city on the wrong course, as does the refusal of planning permission to put solar panels on St Mary's church.

Let's get everything joined up and make sure a vision of a sustainable city does come to life. Cuts are on the way, so are massive challenges to stop the big society becoming hugely disappointed with promises not materialising into action.

Joe Peacock

Points to include in the objection to Moseley Tesco

We thought it would be a good idea to make it easier for people to make objections to the planning application to the Tesco store in Moseley, which is potentially very damaging to the sustainability of the independent shops in the area. Therefore, we have put together a few points that you could use, but objections must be in before tomorrow 1st April.

• site is not large enough to 'claw back' significant amounts of trade from Kings Heath as the retail assessment says. Much more likely to divert trade from the supermarkets in Moseley centre whose parking is further away.
• It's an edge of centre site because it's separated from the centre by a busy junction. People will not walk down to the centre to use the other shops. So a store of this size here (and with parking) is likely to divert trade from Moseley's main shopping area and its diversity of shops, which will damage the viability of the existing centre.

• there is not enough space for parking on the site for all the uses envisaged. This will cause illegal parking problems and congestion.

• Lack of space means deliveries will need to be very early and therefore in a large lorry, which will cause noise problems

• Because deliveries require a large lorry, the plans feature widened roadspace at the junctions, which is contrary to guidance for residential areas and will endanger pedestrians.

• It will increase traffic considerably at what is already a very congested and problematic junction (Oxford and Wake Green rds), and this in turn is likely to affect the very busy junction with the Alcester Road.

Go to www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningonline - click access planning online, and copy in the application number 2009/05931/PA into the 'application number search' and click 'search'. It'll bring up one reference, click on the application number link and you'll get the details including a bit that says "add comments here" click that and write your comments. You don't have to use these, but they are here to give you some ideas.

So, get objecting now and save the Moseley area from this unwanted development.

HS2 Station - A new Masshouse Circus? Opinion piece

Whilst looking over the plans for the proposed HS2 station at Curzon Street, I thought there seemed to be benefits, but also a few quite glaring and serious issues with the current design and its location as it stands.

The station is proposed to be built in the Eastside area alongside the current Birmingham to London railway line and places the terminal building adjacent to Moor Street Station on Moor Street Queensway. Undoubtedly Eastside is the best location in the city centre for any new high speed station, given there is available land, access to the proposed high speed route and it is an area in need of further investment. The general location may be convenient for these purposes, but unfortunately the proposed positioning could have bad consequences for the area in terms of urban planning and investment potential. Looking at the plans, the station cuts a swathe through the area, which looks to cut off several streets linking the Northern Eastside area to the Southern Digbeth area, and thus creating a significant barrier between these areas. Many will remember the much loathed Masshouse Circus that once corralled the city core and restricted development and people's movements across into the Digbeth area, and how this was removed in favour of an open boulevard which was to allow the expansion of the city into the area beyond. It strikes me that the new station design is likely to resurrect this physical barrier, curtailing people's movements and cutting off potential economic opportunities for both existing and future business in Digbeth. What streets remain will cross the station underneath, which when added to the existing railway bridges will mean for a dark and foreboding environment to greet anyone wishing to venture beyond. So in this design, are we simply recreating Masshouse Circus, albeit in railway form?

In addition, the proposed station's position also swallows up a great deal of development land, much of which already has development proposals and planning approvals. Most notable of these is BCU's Media Campus, which was due to be approved for detailed planning permission very soon and BCU are already very committed to this project. The station would also slice through Park Street gardens (which is also a graveyard) cutting the far end of the proposed Eastside City Park off from the Bullring area and causing a further barrier.

The main design mantra behind city centre transport hubs is that high density development should cluster around them, thus generating a critical mass of use around the hub to support it, and affording easy access and maximum benefit to these surrounding uses. Currently as the station would take up so much of the development land in the area, there would be little left for the development of these high density building clusters. Plus, as the station is slated to take up so much room, we'll be left with the barren wasteland of Eastside for the next 10 years or more before the new HS2 line becomes operational.

So is there another option? Where in Eastside could we put a 400m long high speed station without carving up the urban fabric, without displacing current developments, without losing a mass of development land, and without leaving the area undeveloped for 10 years or more? Well the proposed Eastside City Park is around 500m long, is linear in form, and follows the right geometry for the incoming railway. No, I'm not suggesting dropping a station right on top of where the park would go, I'm thinking of placing it underneath. Much like Gare Montparnaise in Paris, which has Jardin Atlantique above it, the station would sit in a sunken box below ground level with the new park above, perhaps with sculptural lanterns and elements of glass floor to let daylight down onto the platforms below (we don't want another dark New Street Station). Access by trains to the main line could be via a short tunnel under the canal, ring road and container terminal. The concourse could pop out on Moor Street Queensway to integrate with the City Park Gate development. It would be a short walk to Moor Street Station, and if the Metro were routed via Priory Queensway, Moor Street Queensway and under the Bullring tunnel, all four of Birmingham's city centre stations would be linked together for easy transfers. A secondary entrance could even pop out into the old Curzon Street station building to allow easy access to the wider Digbeth area too.
Above: Location of Curzon Park Station.

Above: Map showing re-routing of metro.

So would this new Curzon Park Station be preferable to that proposed by the government? Well, it would allow development to continue around Eastside, not cut through a graveyard, not form a new barrier to access and development, and still ensure a city centre terminus for HS2, and one merged with a beautiful park. Yes, it would no doubt delay the City Park a little, but the basic 'box' and park above could be constructed early on and then fitted out later. It may also cost more money, but then again what's an extra few million when you're spending £30bn on a rail route? On the opening of the station passengers would be greeted by the sight of a beautiful park flanked by successful and established development all around, ready to be connected to London and Europe.

So I'm putting out the idea for comment. Any thoughts on a Curzon Park Station?

Ben Mabbett

Big Decision For Renewables in Moseley Tomorrow

The planning committee of Birmingham City Council will meet tomorrow morning to decide on the installation of a photovoltaic array on the roof of St. Mary’s Church in Moseley.

SusMo has been rallying support for this as it is a crucial part of the plan for spending the money they recently won in the Green streets challenge to bring energy savings and sustainability to the area.

A report to the committee by the planning officer has recommended refusal, but this withholds crucial information, and seems to entirely ignore Birmingham City Council’s own Sustainability Strategy and Action Plan, as well as the government’s Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. Under the heading of ‘Policy Context’, the report fails to mention a letter of support from Birmingham City Council’s head of Climate Change and Sustainability, Sandy Taylor. Furthermore, under the heading of ‘Sustainability’, the report states the project as ‘Neutral’ – failing to note the array’s expected contribution of 8000kWh of electricity. SusMo has written to all members of the Planning Committee to alert them to these omissions.

With regards to the listed status of the building, it is significant that the National Trust has recognised the threat that climate change poses to our national heritage, and that there will be none left to conserve if climate change is not tackled. The National Trust first installed solar panels on the roof of one of its Grade I listed buildings in 2008, and recommended that owners of other Grade I listed buildings follow suit, where appropriate. Indeed, solar panels are particularly appropriate, given that their installation is a simple and easily reversible procedure which causes no damage to the roof that they are installed on.

For a current example, there is a photovoltaic array on St. James’ Church, Piccadilly.

It is also notable that the Moseley Society, which for decades has guarded the character of the Moseley Conservation Area, is in favour of the application. In total, 22 messages of support were received, and just two objections – one of which came from the Chantry Road residents’ association, which did not consult all residents before forwarding their objection. However, no objections were received from residents on Oxford Road, which is the vantage point from which the panels will be seen most frequently.

For reference, the panels, which are dark blue and low profile, will not be visible from the pavements of St. Mary's Row as they will be hidden by the parapet. Some panels will be visible from the end of Oxford Road but most will be hidden by trees when they are in full leaf.

If the Planning Committee refuses planning permission at its meeting on Thursday, not only will Moseley lose all the benefits that the project would bring to the parish and the wider community, but also, the £30,000 contribution towards the cost of the project from the British Gas Green Street project will be lost, as it has a tight timescale.

The Planning Committee meets on 4 February at 11:00 in Committee Rooms 3 and 4, Council House. The St. Mary’s photovoltaic array is Item 15 on the agenda.

It would seem very strange indeed to reject such a project the day after Birmingham City Council announced it was signing up to 10:10.

(Information from Susmo: susmo@moseleyforum.org.uk)

Digbeth: Past, Present & Future

I went along to the Digbeth: Past, Present & Future discussion at Ikon Eastside on 6 October, as BFoE has long been involved in the area both from a campaigning front and the fact that BFoE's building 'The Warehouse' has been located there for 32 years (well the building has been there much longer, but BFoE have been in there for 32 years).

The event was very well attended, with only a handful of seats left. The event started off with the showing of a short film made up of old archive film footage of Digbeth through the years, which included:
Holiday crowds leaving the bus station and Moor Street station (1956)

The opening of Midland Red Bus Station (now Digbeth Coach Station) (1958)

An escaped bull from the slaughterhouse running through the streets of Digbeth (1963)

Deritend flats due for demolition (1965)

Birds Ltd leaving the Custard Factory (1965)

The Irish Protest march (1969)

National Front Rally and rival protests by the anti-fascists (1978)

Closure of the Typhoo Tea factory (1978)

It was very interesting, and sometimes amusing, to see the old Digbeth and how it has gradually transformed over the decades.

Following on from this was an open discussion with the panel made up of Nicky Getgood (of the Digbeth is Good blog) who was chairing the discussion, Adam Crossley (of Digbeth Residents Association), Joe Holyoak (architect, urban designer and vocal supporter of Digbeth's heritage and future), Jonathan Watkin (Director of Ikon Gallery), Dave Harte (Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications at Birmingham City University), and James Hall (Architect for BCU's BIAD building from Associated Architects). Philip Singleton (Assistant Director Planning & Regeneration at Birmingham City Council) was also due to be in attendance, but cancelled at the last minute due to a double booking.

The debate flowed quite seamlessly between issues of urban planning policy, creative industries, Digbeth as a digital district, art, education, communities, music, entertainment, voluntary and social groups, and generally back through and around all of these subjects and the issues surrounding them on multiple occasions. Personally, I thought this highlighted the complex interconnected web of people and uses that makes up Digbeth, and that each subject can't be considered on its own when it comes to the area's future. As well as the discussion amongst the panel, the audience also contributed a great deal, both vocally and through Twitter, with a projector and screen rigged up to show a live feed of people in the audience tweeting their questions, comments, facts and associated links. I thought this was a very innovative approach to engaging the audience, and seemed to work well, allowing the less physically vocal members to contribute to the debate, or simply to add links to facts and points of interest elsewhere on the web that were mentioned in the debate. Many of these items were brought into the discussion, I think these will be added to the Ikon website along with the film footage at some point soon.

As I said, a great number of issues were covered in the discussion, but there was a great deal of debate around the physical form of Digbeth. The lack of a coherent planning policy for the area was brought up, and the absurdity of the conservation area guidelines (which include the banning of trees and greenery, as well as resistance to opening up the canals and River Rea to the wider urban environment), and the fact that planning policy was tossed aside when the 'vanity' scheme that is The Beorma Tower turned up. A great deal of concern was also raised about the wholesale levelling of buildings to make way for new large monolithic developments which lost the character and plot history of the area, some of which had gone ahead, and some of which have now stalled, leaving a barren wasteland of rubble in their wake with seemingly no redevelopment in sight. Especially highlighted for critisism were the Bradford Street area and the Eastside/City Park area, the latter also attracting comments about the forcing out of local businesses and residents such as Rosa's Cafe, Los Canarios and Fred Grove in order to make way for new architecturally annonymous large scale development that has still yet to happen. This despite the showing of a flashy computer generated fly-through of the Eastside redevlopment and city park set to suitably upbeat marketing music and regularly pointing out large sums of money that are to be spent - I got the impression the audience was distinctly unimpressed with this, and it also received a few derogatory comments from the panel too!

There seemed to be a lot more support for the incremental organic development of Digbeth, more in line with Professor Michael Parkinson's report (rather than Big City Plan), with a greater emphasis on keeping the historic grain, concentrating on smaller developments and reusing buildings. On the last point, ideas were also forthcoming on putting artists and other creative and small businesses in touch with landlords of vacant buildings to see about leasing these on a short term basis for affordable rents. Such an initiative could help prevent the sorry story that comes from the government's ending of tax relief on empty buildings, which results in it being cheaper to demolish a vacant building than to pay the business rates on it (but that's another issue I won't get started on right now!).

We were also given a presentation from James Hall of Associated Architects on the new Birmingham City University BIAD (Birmingham Institute of Art & Design) building. Comments were made that this should help to connect the wider Digbeth area with the Eastside/City Park area (which is currently severed by the railway line) in both a physical sense and as a means of fostering links with Digbeth's vibrant creative scene.

Talk also turned to the creative sector, and with the council seemingly wanting to make Digbeth the 'creative district'. Whilst there are a great number of creative industries and organisations now resident in Digbeth (I for one was certainly surprised to hear that Digbeth now has more art galleries than any other area outside of London), it seems that people were generally happier to be to amongst the current melting pot rather than be pushed into a prescribed 'creative quarter'. To me the council's approach is again tied to it's often two dimensional planning use zoning, which lacks the dynamism of a place like Digbeth that ebbs and flows at a far greater rhythm than planning policy ever does.

Tying into the whole creative sector was the council's efforts to enable 'Digital Digbeth' through the provision of a very high speed data connection. The council seems to be making big moves with this plan, and people seemed broadly supportive, although they thought it should be accessible to all areas of the city rather than a specific area, and should be about providing the infrastructure rather than prescribing a use for it. However, it does sound like Digbeth will be just the first trial area.

Topping off the discussion were the ongoing issues of the lack of life's basic necessities, such as a grocery store and a cash machine, as well as noise complaints about live music venues from a seemingly vocal minority, and the risk that this may put the brakes on Digbeth's reputation for live entertainment and nightlife which is an integral part of it's vibrancy.

Overall I thought it was an excellent evening, with a great panel, well attended, with an innovative use of Twitter, and resulted in a very wide reaching, but focused discussion that I feel contributed a wealth of information to the debate about Digbeth's future. It was just a pity Philip Singleton of Birmingham City Council wasn't in attendance, he missed a great opportunity to engage with a talented and passionate group of people who had a Typhoo Tea Factory full of great ideas to progress Digbeth in a way that respects it's past and nurtures it's future. Perhaps those passionate Digbethites should make their own plan, if we can have 'BCC-DIY', a community version the Birmingham City Council website, why can't we have a community plan for the future of Digbeth?
'Digbeth-DIY' anyone?