City skyscraper rejected amid housing concerns

The plans proposed 550 build-to-rent flats, but councillors raised concerns over a lack of affordable homes

Plans have been rejected for a new housing development - complete with a 41-storey skyscraper - after Birmingham councillors expressed concerns about a lack of affordable homes.

The proposal included three buildings in total for land at Bristol Street, Bromsgrove Street and Essex Street in the centre of the city.

The project involved 550 build-to-rent homes, but in a meeting on Thursday, a Birmingham City Council planning committee refused permission, describing provision as "pretty poor".

The plans had been deferred in September after members were left unsatisfied with the housing mix, particularly the number of one-bedroom flats and the affordable housing offer.

A council officer's report, issued before the meeting, outlined how it was not advisable to amend the housing mix to include more two and three-bedroom properties as this would have "adverse consequences" on the scheme's ability to offer more affordable housing.

Speaking at the meeting, councillor Colin Green said he was still concerned at the housing mix that was detailed in revised plans considered on Thursday.

Councillor David Barker also remained unsatisfied with the proposals.

He added for such a large development he did not think it was "particularly well-designed".

'High quality' and 'distinctive'

Concerns were also raised about the development's impact on "designated heritage areas", including The Rotunda and St Martin's Church - and the Grade II listed Wellington Hotel.

Councillor Jane Jones criticised the project for its impact on some existing buildings on Bristol Street that would be demolished if the plans went ahead.

The council officer's report, however, added that the benefits of providing new homes and affordable accommodation would outweigh any potential harm to neighbouring assets.

City planning officials argued the design of the proposed development was “high-quality” and “distinctive”, with the report praising a “refreshingly bold and unique” architectural style.

However, committee members were not convinced.