As Birmingham’s skyline continues to rapidly evolve, proposals for enormous skyscrapers are sometimes met with mixed emotions. The past 12 months have seen numerous plans for new towers being given approval, with developers often eager to draw attention to the potential housing and regeneration benefits that their schemes could provide.
However, there were also a handful of times in 2024 where those behind certain projects failed to get the green light for their huge developments. One particularly striking example back in April last year was when plans for a “bonkers” 42-storey tower in the city centre, at the site of a former hospital, were refused.
The proposals for 80 Broad Street would have seen the new skyscraper attached directly to a Grade II listed building while also ‘oversailing’ directly over it. A council officer’s report, published before a planning committee meeting at the time, suggested this would ‘significantly overwhelm’ the three-storey listed building, which is now vacant and unused.
READ MORE: The enormous Birmingham skyscrapers set to forever change city’s skyline
The historic building currently in Broad Street was once the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital and was most recently used as a bar, restaurant and nightclub. Councillor Gareth Moore was firmly against the plans, saying: “It’s utterly bonkers, the idea you can stick a tower block over a Georgian mansion is just ridiculous.
“It’s a listed building, the idea it was even dreamt up is quite frankly ludicrous”. Councillor Lee Marsham was also critical, adding: “I feel like this application, they’ve just plonked something on top of it and hoped it works.
“I actually think the broad aim of regenerating that site is one we should be doing, I just don’t think this is it”. The agent for the applicants addressed the meeting, saying they faced a “challenging time frame” when it came to the submission of the planning application.
“We are keen to engage with the council on the future of 80 Broad Street,” he continued. “We understand the reaction and concerns expressed in the officer’s report.
CGI of proposals to build a new 42-storey apartment building and refurbish 80 Broad Street in Birmingham
(Image: Marrons)
“We believe there is an opportunity to redevelop 80 Broad Street, which can preserve setting and bring the listed building back to a positive use whilst providing public benefits in an area where regeneration is encouraged”. Charlotte El Hakiem, planning director at Marrons, who led the application, also previously argued that the proposal would allow for the “retention and careful repurposing of a grade II-listed building” while also providing “much-needed housing”.
“Beyond the tangible housing benefits, the proposal promises to significantly enhance the city’s public realm, improve connectivity, and invigorate the local economy through the creation of flexible community spaces and on-site amenities,” she added. However, the planning application ended up being unanimously refused at the meeting.
‘Monolithic block’
Proposals for a different skyscraper in the heart of Birmingham also failed to win over councillors back in November despite being recommended for approval. The plans for three buildings, including a 41-storey tower, would have provided 550 build-to-rent homes on land at Bristol Street, Bromsgrove Street and Essex Street.
The design of the scheme was praised in a council officer’s report, with the council leisure services describing the architectural style as “refreshingly bold and unique”. However, Coun Jane Jones said she was worried about the heritage aspect of the proposals, particularly the buildings which would be demolished to make way for them.
Coun Colin Green added he was concerned about the housing mix and previously argued that the number of one-bedroom apartments was too high. Meanwhile Coun Martin Brooks, former chair of the committee, said: “I have some concerns myself – it seems this scheme is a very monolithic block on Bristol Street.
“I don’t like the tower block right opposite the Wellington [Hotel], I think it’s not ideal – I’m not over the moon about it”. Area planning manager Nick Jackson responded to concerns by arguing the design of the proposed development was “high-quality” and “distinctive”.
A visualisation of the proposed development. Taken from design and access statement prepared by stephenson hamilton risley STUDIO on behalf of Ryland Estates Investments Ltd.
The council officer’s report also acknowledged that the plans, if approved, would cause low levels of harm to a number of ‘designated heritage assets’ in the area – including The Rotunda and St. Martin’s Church. It also described the potential harm to the nearby Wellington Hotel as a “moderate level” but “less than substantial”.
“However, in my view, I consider there are enough benefits associated with this proposal to outweigh the heritage harm, with particular reference to the delivery of homes and affordable homes,” the report argued. These benefits would have included housing, temporary construction jobs and an enhanced “ecological and biodiversity offer,” it added.
On other buildings in Bristol Street which would have been completely or partly lost if the development was given the green light, the report said: “Taking a balanced judgement, I do not consider the high level of harm (complete loss) of the non-designated heritage assets, to outweigh the identified significant public benefits of the proposal given their limited heritage value”.
An update, issued before the meeting in November, added that it was the view of council officers that the housing mix could be supported in the inner central area “given the flatted, build-to-rent nature of the development”. The document went on: “Furthermore, it is evident that amending the mix to include greater numbers of two and three-bed units would have adverse consequences for the ability to support an increased affordable housing offer.”
Committee members ultimately voted to reject the planning application however, with the council later saying that the reasons for refusal would be set out at a future meeting.