Farmers Bridge a new development?

[Heartland]

It seems there are those developers who are covid19 free and are using their time to dream up new schemes to change the canalside of Birmingham. This time it is in Scotland Street at what is or was the Groundwork building recently advertised to be let.

 

This former converted Victorian building is set for a change if the developers of London get their way, for more residential property.

 

The artist impression ignores the former toll house and even the lock, in what is an insult to those interested in canal history or even waterways.

 

  

[Momac]

If you think it is inappropriate  object to the planning application if you give valid reasons.

You could ask the planning authority if they are requiring an environmental impact assessment to support any planning application.

[Heartland]

Yes, that is true. but at present there is the issue of the artist view, which seems to move away from a reasonable portrayal of what may be suggested to what is perhaps in the realms of fantasy

 

[TheBiscuits]

Looking at those two pictures, I don't think it's quite as bad as you are making out.

 

The left hand side of the development is obviously replacing the modern roof on the Groundworks building with two modern stories - the grey and glass box.

 

This means that the toll house and nearly all the lock are out-of-shot on the artists impression, so that viewpoint must be from the footbridge.  The bridge and the lock are in that plain concrete look not as a proposed alteration, but just as placeholders for the existing structures that are not part of the development. 

[Captain Pegg]

So, what’s objectionable, the conversion of the building or the artist’s impression?

 

The building has already been significantly altered by the addition of cladding and a pitched roof where the new development proposes to add the new build section on top of the two storey portion of the original building. In the view below taken prior to that work it looks like something from the 1930s.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farmers_Bridge_top_lock,_1987_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1725220.jpg

 

As for the impression, I assume the brief was to show the building, not the canal.

JP

 

[Ray T]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/518327668562070/permalink/1045657075829124/

[TheBiscuits]

 

Edited pic from Google streetview.

 

The red boundary box shows the viewpoint I think the artist used, and outside the box are all the bits you seem concerned about.  The only notable missing bit of the impression is the tailgate on the lock, but the original even includes the gate recess!

 

[Rob-M]

There is an extensive heritage report in the planning application that assesses the impact on the toll house, bridge and cranes.

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

There is an extensive heritage report in the planning application that assesses the impact on the toll house, bridge and cranes.

Cranes? Like the one that’s rotting away on the far side of Cambrian Wharf?

[Momac]

Must admit it seems okay to me and if the building is otherwise not wanted why not modernise it for residential use ?

 

 

[Rob-M]

30 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Cranes? Like the one that’s rotting away on the far side of Cambrian Wharf?

Yes, seems they are of historical significance even though they aren't in correct locations. One is by the Flapper and I'm not sure where the other one is.

[Graham Davis]

3 hours ago, Heartland said:

It seems there are those developers who are covid19 free and are using their time to dream up new schemes to change the canalside of Birmingham. This time it is in Scotland Street at what is or was the Groundwork building recently advertised to be let.
AND?

SO THEY ARE PROPOSING A SMALL CHANGE TO THE GROUNDWORKS BUILDING BY ALTERING THE ROOF STRUCTURE.

 

This former converted Victorian building is set for a change if the developers of London get their way, for more residential property.

SO ACTUALLY YOUR OBJECTION APPEARS TO BE ABOUT LONDON DEVELOPERS AND THEM NOT BEING LOCAL. 
OR PERHAPS YOU WOULD RATHER IT GOING TO RUIN INSTEAD OF BEING USED FOR MUCH NEEDED RESIDENTIAL USE.

 

The artist impression ignores the former toll house and even the lock, in what is an insult to those interested in canal history or even waterways.

NO THEY DON'T! THE ARTISTS IMPRESSION IS OF THE AREA BEYOND THE TOLL HOUSE, AND IT DOES SHOW A RUDIMENTARY LOCK.
IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO READ THE PLANNING APPLICATION BUT HAVE JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION.

 

[matty40s]

27 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

It seems there are those developers who are covid19 free and are using their time to dream up new schemes to change the canalside of Birmingham. This time it is in Scotland Street at what is or was the Groundwork building recently advertised to be let.
AND?

SO THEY ARE PROPOSING A SMALL CHANGE TO THE GROUNDWORKS BUILDING BY ALTERING THE ROOF STRUCTURE.

 

This former converted Victorian building is set for a change if the developers of London get their way, for more residential property.

SO ACTUALLY YOUR OBJECTION APPEARS TO BE ABOUT LONDON DEVELOPERS AND THEM NOT BEING LOCAL. 
OR PERHAPS YOU WOULD RATHER IT GOING TO RUIN INSTEAD OF BEING USED FOR MUCH NEEDED RESIDENTIAL USE.

 

The artist impression ignores the former toll house and even the lock, in what is an insult to those interested in canal history or even waterways.

NO THEY DON'T! THE ARTISTS IMPRESSION IS OF THE AREA BEYOND THE TOLL HOUSE, AND IT DOES SHOW A RUDIMENTARY LOCK.
IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO READ THE PLANNING APPLICATION BUT HAVE JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION.

Cant beat a good Graham rant on a Sunday.?

[Captain Pegg]

<<CRASH!!!!>>
 

Did someone lob a brick in to the debate there?

 

Come on Graham, Ray is a champion of the BCN and much published author on its history. Exactly what’s he guilty of here? Seeing a development with a canal-centric view, on a forum about canals?

 

It’s also clear that he often posts in order to spark debate about what he loves.

 

I think he deserves better than that.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[OldGoat]

Looking at planning applications is (quite often) a pain. In a rural area (as I am), things as usually much simpler. I digress...

I've just spent 1/2 an hour delving through the quantities of documents and suspect that the whole process has been engineered to hide - by  a process of obfuscation - the real enormaty of 'a blot on a well loved face' by such efforts.

The applicationappears to inply adding a single story addition, however, delving further, the real purpose is to replace the current inoffensive block with  an ediface of SIX STORIES high (ker-ching for the developers).

As a vistor I love the open space at Old Turn - and I guess other visitors and the locals do as well, judging by the number of folks walking the towpaths in the daytime. Contrast that with the cut down past the Sea Life centre, which is dark, dank and empty.

 

I wonder whether many of us waterborne visitors venture of the towpaths and see what's behind the first layer of buildings. Some of the strets are quite pleasant and others are excelently delightful (all with the context of an urban environment.

 

I've seen photos of current developments (on here) further down the Farmers Bridge flight and what was a not-too-oppresive-view, given that most of the bulidings seemed semi-derilect, is now hemmed in by relatively high blocks of flats / whatever.

 

Now, as a visitor and waterborne one as well, I'm not entitled to a view (sic), but it does seem a shame not only to bury the canal but also to deprive folks with a pleasant walk / ride out of the city.

 

 

[Mike Tee]

Its difficult to really check the whole thing just doing a drive past on Google Maps, but the building doesn't look to be in that bad a condition - the brief planning info shown looks like they want to flatten everything on site and build 45 flats with (!) 12 car parking spaces - this includes demolishing 4 (or was it 5?) Grade II objects.

Let's hope B'ham planning people will only allow them to convert the existing building into (rough guess) about 25-30 flats  leaving the car park as is (would give way more than 12 spaces), and probably more importantly would not disturb (much) the existing Grade II bits.

Being a realist, I expect the mighty £££££ will win. Hope I'm wrong.

[matty40s]

25 minutes ago, Mike Tee said:

Its difficult to really check the whole thing just doing a drive past on Google Maps, but the building doesn't look to be in that bad a condition - the brief planning info shown looks like they want to flatten everything on site and build 45 flats with (!) 12 car parking spaces - this includes demolishing 4 (or was it 5?) Grade II objects.

Let's hope B'ham planning people will only allow them to convert the existing building into (rough guess) about 25-30 flats  leaving the car park as is (would give way more than 12 spaces), and probably more importantly would not disturb (much) the existing Grade II bits.

Being a realist, I expect the mighty £££££ will win. Hope I'm wrong.

I read it that they are only demolishing the lower canal front conference room  building , retaining the existing historic bit and building up from that, adding a new building to the right.

 

[TheBiscuits]

26 minutes ago, Mike Tee said:

this includes demolishing 4 (or was it 5?) Grade II objects.

Er no.  It "affects the setting" of 5 Grade II listed structures - because you can see the proposed building from them. 

 

I don't think anyone was suggesting demolishing them!

[Momac]

The images show the existing building  extended up with the horrible upper rendered section replaced or possibly over clad.

Look at the lintels over the ground floor windows - they remain in the proposed solution.

 

[Mike Tee]

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Er no.  It "affects the setting" of 5 Grade II listed structures - because you can see the proposed building from them. 

 

I don't think anyone was suggesting demolishing them!

Ah !!! Ok - I still find it 'wrong' to extend both up and out, when the present building looks fine to me, as is.

As matty40 points out, not demolishing, it just sounded to me in the photo'd sign that they were basically changing the whole site. I do think that increasing the size of the present building, both up and out,will really change the general area, and not for the good.

We have had a development in the 'village' (old part of Milton Keynes) I live in, where they demolished a bungalow, and are in the process of putting up three 2 storey houses, and the site is the highest point in the area, so it really dominates the skyline. (Right by Bowlers Bridge). I think this proposal in Birmingham will have a similar (to me negative) impact.

[matty40s]

Last time we came past Cambrian Wharf it looked really sorry, and empty, word has it the whole area is up for redevelopment including getting rid of the pub,  so CRT are not encouraging moorers.

Edited May 3, 2020 by matty40s

[Momac]

5 minutes ago, Mike Tee said:

I think this proposal in Birmingham will have a similar (to me negative) impact.

Others may think its an improvement .

You may object in writing to the local authority planners and it will be considered. But it is local support that would really be required .

 

A proposed development at the edge of the Village where I  live was refused in large part due to the combined multiple objections from the local community. Some technical objections were included such as flood risk which was found to have been incorrectly assessed.

Flood risk  may be significant in the case you mention here  if the overall building footprint is being increased . I would be surprised if that  has been overlooked. You may vie the full planning application online on the planning portal.

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Others may think its an improvement .

You may object in writing to the local authority planners and it will be considered. But it is local support that would really be required .

 

A proposed development at the edge of the Village where I  live was refused in large part due to the combined multiple objections from the local community. Some technical objections were included such as flood risk which was found to have been incorrectly assessed.

Flood risk  may be significant in the case you mention here  if the overall building footprint is being increased . I would be surprised if that  has been overlooked. You may vie the full planning application online on the planning portal.

 

It isn’t necessarily that it’s an improvement, although it can’t really be much worse if it’s a conversion.

 

I think the notion it will be taller is mistaken. The road is lower than the canal here so I suspect the six storeys are from the opposite aspect to the canal and are as existing.

Buildings are better used than unused. Listed or otherwise.

 

JP

[OldGoat]

29 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

It isn’t necessarily that it’s an improvement, although it can’t really be much worse if it’s a conversion.

 

I think the notion it will be taller is mistaken. The road is lower than the canal here so I suspect the six storeys are from the opposite aspect to the canal and are as existing.

Buildings are better used than unused. Listed or otherwise.

 

JP

I spent the late afternoon googling down the cut ('cos that area is of interest to me AND it's a natural conduit for boats / walkers / walkers and some wildlife). There are several 5 and six storey buldings en route - thus planners / buliders could / can say - "well it's not out of place in that area". After all they're only concerned in getting the aplication through the process (and getting their fees - oooh!). 

If they don't get permission because of the height, you can your bottom dollar that when Cambrian Wharf is redeveloped, another developer will be allowed a girt big tower block on that site 'cos there are other girt big blocks nearby (some of which give Brum a bit of cache).

 

I don't envy the planners - pulled every which way by developers and 'the locals'. The centre of Brum has some super buildings - in terms of innovation recently - part of which are the canals, which give the public an area of relative calm...

[Tim Lewis]

As a matter of interest I recently found this in an IWA Magazine from 1969