A judge will rule on whether Birmingham City Council acted lawfully in ignoring heritage campaigners’ comments when it approved a Glancy Nicholls-designed 51-storey housing skyscraper
The High Court has allowed the fresh ‘ground’ to be added to a judicial review of the local authority’s decision to grant consent to the £100 million One Eastside scheme planned for the city.
It means that, at a fresh hearing, the court will decide whether the council acted lawfully in failing to report an objection to the scheme by the Victorian Society to members of the planning committee.
The judicial review will also look at several existing grounds including an alleged failure to properly consult Historic England; an alleged failure to properly understand and apply Historic England’s advice; and an alleged failure to apply the correct legal and policy tests on heritage issues.
It will also consider claims of unlawfulness through failure to give adequate reasons and failure to produce an adequate screening opinion under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017.
A statement by barristers’ chambers Francis Taylor Building said: ‘Mrs Justice Lang held that Ground 7 [relating to the Victorian Society’s comments] was arguable and had merit.
‘She held that the expertise and views of the Victorian Society were important and … said they “should not be brushed aside”. [The society’s] views about the harm to heritage assets, which went beyond the concerns raised by Historic England and were expressed as a formal objection, should have been drawn to the attention of members of the planning committee.’
The council’s planning committee initially approved the 667-home Glancy Nicholls scheme – for local developer Court Collaboration – in December 2019.
This decision was subject to conditions including no objection being received from Historic England. When the heritage watchdog’s comments were received, they did not contain a formal objection but raised concerns with the way heritage impacts were dealt with by the council. The application went back to the planning committee in April this year with planning officers warning councillors of a ‘heightened risk of legal challenge’.
In January – between the two committee meetings – the Victorian Society emailed the council saying that although it had not been consulted on the application, ‘we have recently become aware of it and wish to comment’.
It said: ‘The site is close to a number of heritage assets from our period of interest, including notably the Grade I-listed Curzon Street Station, Grade I-listed Victoria Law Courts, Grade II*-listed former Methodist Central Hall, the Grade II-listed Birmingham Children’s Hospital, the Grade II-listed 7-12 Bartholomew Row, the Grade II-listed Woodman Public House, as well as other designated heritage assets in and around the Steelhouse Lane Conservation Area.
‘A tower of the scale and height proposed will have a negative impact on the listed Victorian and Edwardian buildings’
‘While we have no objection to the principle of redevelopment of this site, in our view a tower of the scale and height proposed in this location will have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the listed Victorian and Edwardian buildings named above.’
The Victorian Society’s comments were not included in the planning report to councillors for the April meeting. Planning officers recommended that Historic England’s comments need not change the committee’s original decision, and councillors voted to approve the scheme again.
This decision was challenged by rival developer LaSalle Investment Management, which owns the nearby Allegro tower, and will now proceed to a judicial review at an undecided date.
If the court upholds the council’s decision, Glancy Nicholls will build a 51-storey tower, a second block of up to 16 floors and a two-level pavilion on the corner of Jennens Road and James Watt Queensway.
The 160m-tall scheme would create one and two bed apartments for private rent, along with internal and external amenity spaces.
Article originally appeared on Architects’ Journal
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
