Category: Community

Comments sent 29/11/19 to Birmingham planning, application number 2018/10368/PA. Deadline for comments: Sunday 1 December 2019.

—

To comment: go to the council planning portal at https://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/ApplicationSearch.aspx  and put in the planning application number in the search box, making sure there are no extra spaces at the end, or you'll get no results.

1. Commercial outline plans: 2018/10370/PA
2. Residential outline plans: 2018/10368/PA

And if like me, you can't submit through the portal's form, then you can email comments (with name, planning number, etc) to : planningandregenerationenquiries@birmingham.gov.uk

—

I've previously written in response to this application with concerns about flooding – the site is almost all paved and housing crammed in. Flooding is a problem in this area and surface drainage is going to worsen. I would like reassurances that this has been thoroughly considered and checked, as the site currently drains though the empty land. Also, there is a lack of green spaces on this estate, tree planting (there were trees on this land previously), and grassy play areas for children, etc. All these would help with drainage and also improve the environment for residents.

A major concern is the social housing element being less than 9%. I want the council to enforce its own targets of 35%. We actively want Stirchley to provide social housing – and not just fodder for landlords and the wealthy. Developers need to be held to account by the council on this front and provide homes for nurses, teachers and other key workers who are being priced out of the city.

87 new homes is really cramming housing into this space and the outline plans look like very basic designs. I would like the council to hold the developer to account for sustainable, eco-friendly homes, and not just give permission for the most basic, cheapest option. The design aesthetics seem to be the lowest common denominator of generic housing estate (similar to the bland Hazelwells) – which at a time when Stirchley is improving its offering and developing its independent unique character is a missed opportunity. We would like the council to push back for better, more sustainable options for the future residents of this area.

With so many new residential properties being built locally, and Seven Capital prioritising more supermarket type retail – why is there no facility for more doctors surgeries, nursery schools, leisure and community facilities, etc, that will service this massive influx? The choice in the outline plans is either retail or residential but Stirchley needs a more rounded offering that will benefit its communities.

Seven Capital has repeatedly said it is engaging with local stakeholders. It has not. Its representatives have not shown up to any Neighbourhood Forum meetings, despite repeat invitations. I am very concerned that they are operating as a self-interest company and not listening to any concerns, except via planning which is reactive not proactive, and capitalises on local comment fatigue with each amendment.

Finally, the fact that the residential element is a separate application means it is (a) getting lost as people comment on the commercial element, and (b) not being considered in conjunction with the commercial element – surely these adjacent areas need planning and comments to be considered in conjunction together.

Regarding the commercial plot – now that Morrisons is taking over the Coop site, is there a need for a supermarket anchor store here? Surely a second supermarket would be better at the other end of Stirchley High Street, where the Magnet is. Also, a retail estate is not a great place to walk through for residents at night to get to Stirchley and back. A proper set of shops (as was partly there before) would be more in keeping with Stirchley's architectural and independent character.

On the plus side, I'm happy that a gym is planned – we need more social, sports and leisure facilities – not more supermarkets.

Side gripe – the planning portal is difficult to manage. Even a space at the end of the application number will return no results. Also, I did reply to the first residential plans but was not emailed about the amendments. I was only advised of the commercial update. Finally, when I submitted my comments (which took an hour), the ‘requested URL was rejected’ and I was given a support number.

It is pretty unacceptable – how many other comments and objections are being lost as a result? The portal is not fit for purpose and seems to actively encourage people not to find planning or comment.

You have until this Thursday 9 May to submit comments on the preliminary planning application by Seven Capital. Link: https://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/ApplicationSearch.aspx

Search ref number: 2018/10370/PA

As someone with an ongoing interest in Stirchley's development and being part of SuperStirchley's Lidl campaign, I have submitted my comments (once a-bloody-gain) on the outline plans for Stirchley retail park. Please feel free to borrow and reword if you agree with any of them.

++

Here we go again – will you listen to Stirchley community’s comments this time or ignore as previously? Will you be too scared to push back against Seven Capital and large-scale developers with unsuitable plans for fear of expensive legal appeals, as you did with Lidl? We are relying on you but we will be watching. You should know that Seven Capital has not, as it claims on its material, sought out engagement with local stakeholders; it has arranged but then cancelled an appearance at a Forum meeting. It says a lot about how much they care what they put into this space which may have a huge effect on Stirchley high street.

Here are my concerns:

Impact on community facilities – Yes to the gym. It's the least you can do after we lost one to Lidl's aggressive landbanking. Yes to more things that help the national agenda against obesity and costly health issues. But can it be a council one to offer affordable health benefits. We want a Northfield gym/pool to replace the Fitness First and the old baths (especially now Tiverton has closed). The University pool is great but wait-listed.

Community facilities – No to a drive-through. We need to give young people proper facilities to use. We deserve replacement of both the indoor bowls, which decamped to Kings Heath thanks to Tesco, and the bowling alley we lost in the Lidl debacle. We deserve to get our assets of community value back.

Intensity of development re supermarket density. Give us yet another supermarket if you must, despite that fact there are existing in the area and many others within easy reach. But make it a Clean Kilo with no plastic impacts, or something that won't kill off the Coop in a race to the bottom on prices. Some people find the Coop expensive but others value Stirchley's Coop for their ethics and support of community projects, and their historic legacy of being on this site for a century.

Design and appearance – a plea for better architecture than that which is proposed. The site is next to the historic British Oak and community church, and brick terraces. A modern drive-through and supermarket next to it is not in keeping with the aesthetic and some of the buildings that were demolished on that strip. Stirchley high street shops are predominantly brick-built, individual units offering businesses that can react to community needs – such as, double use as co-working spaces, offering activity-based clubs (carving, drawing, meeting spaces) that build community. More of these and less of the big single-use retail monoliths with grey frontages that are born to die in a future of online shopping or provide a hiding place for crime (such as the nearby Farmfoods development). Look at the research into how retail parks must change to adapt to future high street needs. There is an opportunity here that the community wants you to consider – not just design and form but future function.

Loss of view/access – Give us our road back so the community can see through the estate and flow from the park through to Stirchley once again.

Traffic / highway matters– Give people a reason to visit on foot – people have suggested a plinth for changing artworks, or other public art that would fit with Stirchley’s unique and creative character. The triangle of land opposite the Oak needs to be open space with access (traffic crossings or even pedestrianisation as suggested in previous plans). This would fit with…

Clean air promises (highway matters) – live up to them by creating cycle routes through that will connect the Rea Cycle Route and potentially a route up to the new Bristol Road cycle route. Add planting and trees – there were trees before by the Working Man's Club. Make car parks freely available for use by high street shoppers, to increase footfall and keep cars off the high street.

Highway matters – we are already clogged and a pinch point for an access to a retail park. Supermarkets and drive-ins encourage more cars and will just add to the problem. People are shopping online more and more and cars are polluting and create health issues. Give a parking space for those who have to drive but don't actively encourage cars to drive to Stirchley.

Comments are here but there are also active conversations on Stirchley's Facebook and on Twitter generally.