Corstorphine & Wright towers return to Planning Committee after legal threat from campaign groups

The Ringway Centre by James Roberts

Source: Mac McCreery

James Roberts’ Ringway Centre, on Birmingham’s Smallbrook Queensway

Birmingham council is calling on members of its planning committee to stick by their decision to demolish James Roberts’ brutalist Ringway Centre in the face of a threatened legal challenge from campaigners.

In September last year, Corstorphine & Wright Architects narrowly won approval for its proposals to replace the six-storey 1960s landmark on Smallbrook Queensway with up to 1,750 new homes delivered in towers of up to 56 storeys.

The decision came despite appeals from Stirling Prize-winning architects Níall McLaughlin, Peter St John, and Steve Tompkins to save the Ringway Centre, which is locally listed but currently also subject to a Certificate of Immunity from Listing that has just over three years left to run.

The 230m-long curving groundscraper was completed some years before Roberts’ other central Birmingham landmark, the Rotunda, which was granted grade II status in 2000. Proposals for retaining the Ringway Centre and converting it for housing use were floated at the end of 2022.

This week councillors are being asked again for their opinions on the Corstorphine & Wright scheme after lawyers representing campaign group Save Smallbrook – which brings together organisations including the Twentieth Century Society, Brutiful Birmingham and Birmingham Modernist Society – warned city bosses that errors related to the approval gave rise to two grounds of challenge.

Cornerstone Barristers KC Estelle Dehon said it had been wrongly stated at September’s planning committee meeting that government heritage adviser Historic England had no objection to the proposals, when the organisation had expressed concerns. She also argued that the planning officers’ report that recommended the scheme for approval had failed to give full consideration to housing and communities secretary Michael Gove’s July decision to block Pilbrow & Partners’ redevelopment of Marks & Spencer’s flagship Oxford Street store because of its climate impact.

Dehon called on Birmingham city council to bring the Ringway Centre application back before planning committee members so it could be determined “with access to full information”.

The council has agreed to revisit the decision. But a report to Thursday’s planning committee meeting discounts Save Smallbrook’s key concerns and urges councillors to again approve the application.

Planning officers argue that the issues raised by Dehon do not amount to a legal error.

The Ringway Centre

The Ringway Centre

They said that the committee member who told the meeting Historic England had not objected to the Corstophine & Wright scheme had been “factually correct”, because the heritage body had not formally objected. Officers said this was not a statement that needed to be corrected during the meeting.

In relation to Gove’s M&S decision, officers said that despite the communities secretary’s words, a “strong presumption” in favour of the repurposing and reuse of buildings had not been created. They added that the retail giant was also challenging the secretary of state’s decision in the High Court and that Gove had overruled the advice of a planning inspector in reaching his conclusion.

“The High Court has already allowed the challenge to proceed to full hearing on this point,” officers said. “In other words, the court recognises that it is arguable that the secretary of state may have got it wrong in suggesting there is a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reuse of existing buildings.”

Officers said their “firm view” was that Corstorphine & Wright’s Ringway Centre application should be granted.

Ringway Centre Birmingham (Image - Elain Harwood)

Source: Elain Harwood

“The council did not falter in its decision-making on 28th September 2023,” they said. “Nevertheless, if a presumption in favour of re-using the building is established in the High Court the application should still be recommended for approval.”

Conditions for approval stipulate the delivery of 20% affordable housing onsite, which is less than Birmingham council’s target of 35%. However, the report to planning committee acknowledges that as little as 4.4% affordable housing – equating to 71 three-bedroom homes – could be delivered if developer CEG cannot secure additional funding via the West Midlands Combined Authority.

Mary Keating, of the Brutiful Birmingham group, said councillors needed to weigh up whether 4.4% affordable housing was sufficient to balance out the “major heritage loss” and “massive carbon footprint” the development would entail.

“The heritage credentials of the existing building are acknowledged nationally,” she said. “The C20 Society have designated Smallbrook as No.1 on their 20 buildings at risk for 2023-24. By the developers’ own calculation 187m kg of CO2 will be released. This is equivalent to driving an average car 33,000 times continuously around the world.

SBQ Counter Proposal 1

Source: Michael Dring

Counter proposals to repurpose the Ringway Centre feature new towers cantilevered over the existing building

“For the sake of Birmingham’s residents, who need suitable affordable homes, its heritage and its mission to reach zero carbon by 2030 we urge them to vote against the application. There are other options available and we are very happy to share our counter proposal with them.”

An eight-page assessment by planning consultant Turley that looked at the feasibility of retaining the Ringway Centre was submitted to Birmingham council in support of the Corstorphine & Wright scheme ahead of September’s committee meeting.

The document was written as a direct response to Gove’s M&S decision and claimed retention of the Ringway Centre would not be viable as it would require works such as recladding, installing new fire-safety measures and repositioning floor plates.

Birmingham council’s planning committee meets at 11am on Thursday to reconsider the Smallbrook Queensway application.