The proposal to demolish the Ringway Centre – the curved 1960s building that runs the length of Smallbrook Queensway – and replace it with three tower blocks has led to a public campaign against it since the summer of last year. The developers, Commercial Estates Group (CEG), submitted a very lengthy and detailed proposal to the Council in 2022 but it has not yet been discussed by the Council’s Planning Committee. [Link 1]
There are four key issues. One is to save this unique part of Birmingham’s modernist architectural heritage. “The Ringway Centre, by James Roberts (1962), on Smallbrook Queensway is one of the few Brutalist buildings left in the City. Importantly it demonstrates the unique Birmingham Brutalist style developed here in the 1960s.” [Link 1]
The second concerns environmental damage. “At this time of climate emergency, it is widely-recognised best practice to retain and reuse our existing buildings, as the hidden “embodied carbon” in construction can be up to 75% of the complete carbon footprint. The environmental (carbon) cost of keeping the building and retrofitting to a low-energy standard, would likely be a small fraction of the demolition and energy-hungry proposal.“ [Link 1] 14 years of bulldozing and construction would completely undermine BCC’s commitment to a net zero city by 2030.
The third issue is about opposing yet more building of towers of expensive apartments in the city centre which only the well-off can afford, further increasing the social divide in the city as the less well-off are pushed out into estates in the suburbs. Far better to convert the Ringway property to social housing to shorten the city’s huge waiting list.
And there is a fourth crucial issue, democracy: how will the decision be made and what more can we do to campaign against it? That is the focus of this article.
The four multi-millionaire businessmen who want to demolish the Ringway Centre
Commercial Estates Group (CEG) is a property group with offices in London, Leeds, Birmingham and Cornwall. In Birmingham they are the owners of the Smallbrook Queensway buildings and also Alpha Tower and Tricorn House. Their website states that “Currently, our portfolio covers six million sq ft valued at around £800 million. Our rental income is £50 million, with an estimated rental value of around £80 million.” Figures for December 2021 state a profit of £15 million.
CEG is owned by its four directors: Jaysal Atara, Nicholas Peters, Gerard Versteegh and Andrew Woods. The largest shareholder in CEG – it owns two-thirds of the shares – is a company called Dooba Finance, which is also owned by the same four directors. Dooba Finance appears to be based in Sweden (Dooba Finance AB), though it is also stated to be based in Malta.
“Re-Imagining Smallbrook Ringway: A Counter-Proposal for Adaptive Re-use”
The campaign’s counter-proposal, prepared by Brutiful Birmingham, Birmingham Modernist Society, Zero Carbon House with the support of C20 Society, was launched on December 19, 2022. [Link 2].
Retrofitting the Ringway Centre to bring it up to twenty-first century standards will conserve its original carbon cost and vastly reduce the carbon emissions of the necessary work compared with demolition and rebuilding. The chart demonstrates the difference in carbon emissions over 60 years between total demolition and rebuild as described in the planning application for the Ringway Centre (A) and the alternative plan we described in our last column (November 24) (B / C). The difference between (B) and (C) is that further reductions can be made with renewables supplying up to 90% of the ongoing energy required by the building once in use. The difference is dramatic. It is worth noting that glass buildings higher than 20 storeys use 250% more electricity per square metre. When you see the scale of this difference, surely retrofitting becomes the obvious choice. Developers may extol the zero carbon credentials of their new buildings to justify their plans, but a retrofit can be designed to be just as energy efficient as a new build.
It is clear from the chart that the alternative plan ticks a wide range of environmental boxes. Also, in retaining the building and respecting its original design, the heritage value of both the building and its wider context of Smallbrook Queensway is retained. The significance of the Ringway Centre as a heritage asset is highlighted by Councillor Davis, chair of the council’s heritage strategy group, in a recent letter to members of the planning committee, in which he urges them to reject the planning application.
It is time to listen to what the growing body of research into the huge carbon cost of redevelopment tells us. As Julia Barfield said at the public inquiry into the demolition and replacement of the M&S building: “Are we acting as if there is a [climate] emergency? … this project is definitely not acting like there is an emergency. It misunderstands the urgency of our situation.” She could be speaking of the Ringway Centre plans.
The fate of the Ringway Centre has sparked a huge amount of national and international publicity from mentions on the BBC to articles in newspapers and architectural journals. You too can have your say by responding to the planning application (2022/08496/PA).
“Democracy demolished as objections hit a brick wall”
That is the title of Mary Keating’s article in the Birmingham Post on 26 January 2023. She is the chair of Brutiful Birmingham. Her article describes CEG’s “consultation process” in 2022, Birmingham Council’s planning process and the Council’s response to the campaigners’ alternative proposal in 2023. It is worth quoting in full. [Link 3]
Do we live in an open and democratic city? Campaigning against plans to demolish the Ringway Centre in Smallbrook Queensway and build three huge glass towers has revealed serious flaws in the planning system which we had believed to be a democratic process. We knew it was opaque but our experience reveals it to be a brick wall for all but the developers.
The opportunity to have a conversation or even get a meaningful response to letters and enquiries is almost non-existent. They simply disappear into a black hole. On the other hand, the city is content to have detailed and ongoing conversations with the developers. Despite requests we have had no opportunity to present a counter proposal that retains the heritage building and cuts the carbon impact by at least 50%
But, I hear you say, we have a consultation process. Everyone can have their say. Well, yes and no. Turley, the planning consultants, managed the consultation process, consisting of a “Live webinar including a presentation of proposals and Q&A session with the technical team (33 people registered, 4 attendees and 47 views post-event on the project website)”. 4 attendees and 47 viewers when such a major project is being unveiled is a mockery. This, together with an online questionnaire where the only response possible was contained in a drop-down menu, was a brilliant example of a carefully managed process designed to provide the “correct” answers. What a travesty. This major, nationally recognised, Birmingham building deserves a robust and open consultation with Birmingham citizens and businesses and that surely adds up to more than four people.
Having learned from previous campaigns, we marshalled our forces well. The Birmingham Modernists designed the counter proposal, Zero Carbon House provided detailed analysis of the carbon implications of the development and the Twentieth Century Society provided a comprehensive heritage statement. The proposal was endorsed by three winners of the Stirling prize, a prestigious architectural award, and by major national organisations as well as local experts. It received national and local publicity. We sent it with an open letter to Ian Ward, leader of the council, and to mayor Andy Street. We expected considered replies. The response from Ian Ward was dismissive and it took six weeks for Andy Street to respond at all. We are informed that Mr Street is arranging a meeting with the developers. In the spirit of fairness and democracy we have requested a meeting too. That we were not automatically invited to discuss our counter proposal speaks volumes for who holds the power in the city.
There are the options for those who want to object to a planning application. You can object in writing or you can request the opportunity to address the Planning Committee when the plans come up for discussion. The latter allows you three minutes to make your case and no pictures or diagrams are allowed. How on earth can we present a detailed objection in three minutes?
We believe that a considerable number of written objections to this application have been received but we don’t know how many and what the objections are. We have made a freedom of information request to view them but have to wait until 1st February at the earliest. The process is opaque. Who addresses the objections? How do the people of Birmingham find out? How are the planning committee informed? How can we check that valid concerns have been addressed?
We have major concerns that the carbon impact of the proposal has not been properly addressed. John Christophers from Zero Carbon House spent five days scrutinising the 120 documents contained in the planning application for information on the carbon impact of the proposal. He discovered documents referred to but not available and crucial information glossed over. Documents continued to be added up to two days before the deadline for objections on 22nd December. This indicates a complete lack of respect and further undermines the process.
The omissions are very worrying. John Christophers states that “Data is lacking on carbon impact especially embodied carbon and whole life carbon of the proposals”. He is surprised that the application states that the CO2 emissions from this major development are “not significant”. The UK has a commitment to 68% carbon reduction by 2030 – only seven years away. Whatever is planned this calculation needs to be factored in now not in seven years. The area will be a building site for fourteen years. We know that the demolition of an existing building and reconstruction are responsible for 49% of UK CO2 emissions and that glass towers over 20 floors use 250% more energy. However you do the sums, the figures don’t add up.
The glossy pictures of three glass towers of 44, 48 and 56 storeys are another sleight of hand. The planning application is for the demolition of the whole site and the building of just one tower. Outline planning permission is sought for the remainder of the site. This means that not only will the development create huge disruption to the local area and countless small businesses for fourteen years, but that two of those featured shiny glass towers, when built, could look quite different.
As a partnership with Zero Carbon House, the Birmingham Modernists and the Twentieth Century Society, we have offered an alternative vision. If the process is at all democratic, we have a right to be heard. The clock is ticking. Will the excuse be that there is no time for us to be allowed a hearing before a date is set for the Planning Committee‘s discussion of these disastrous plans?
Public meetings and street demonstrations
Mary Keating’s article was followed by a public meeting on the future of Smallbrook Ringway on 28 February 2023, chaired by Birmingham Civic Society,. It was reported in the Birmingham Post on Thursday 9 March.
“It was a rare opportunity for the airing of a public voice in Birmingham. We suspect a first, set against a planning process that is far from transparent, which allows individual written objections, not readily available to the general public. We had to make a freedom of information request to receive copies of the close on 150 objections challenging the CEG plans.”
“There was a major concern that emerged across a number of questions and statements in the meeting that the needs of Birmingham citizens are not at the forefront of these developments. A question was asked about how many affordable flats would be available. Would the 35% target be reached? How shocking that a statement in the planning application indicates that the developers feel that it is not economically viable to offer affordable housing. Another revealing discovery was that, like many areas of Birmingham, current public realm will be privatised.“
Later this year campaigners took to the streets with placards – at Gay Pride on May 27, a demonstration on ‘Housing Need Not Greed’ at the Ringway Centre on July 6, and a couple of days later a rally in the same place organised by XR with a focus on the environmental threat of demolition.
The City Council’s Planning Committee – how it works
“The agenda for Planning Committee meetings is available five working days in advance and sets out the matters to be discussed. If you are interested in a particular item that is being considered at the meeting and you wish to speak, you must contact the Planning department no later than noon on the Friday before the meeting takes place. You can do this by completing the online request form, which can be accessed at the following link,” www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningspeakers
“Speaking at a planning committee meeting allows members of the public and applicants to comment directly on planning applications to the councillors who make the decisions.
You are able to speak if you:
Object to/represent a group of people who object to a planning application which is recommended for approval.
Support/represent a group of people who support a planning application which is recommended for refusal.
Have submitted a planning application that is recommended for refusal.
Have submitted a planning application that an objector is speaking to the committee against.”
Members of the public who wish to view the Committee Meeting online can do so by following the link provided on CMIS: https://birmingham.cmis.uk.com/birmingham/Committee/Regulatory/tabid/135/ctl/ViewCMIS_CommitteeDetails/mid/520/id/4/Default.aspx
The Committee has adopted a procedure to allow interested parties (including members of the public) to speak at meetings in connection with Planning Applications providing that prior notice has been given. Notes setting out the procedure for Public Speaking Rights are available on the Council’s web site at http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningspeakers. Any queries in connection with Public Speaking Rights procedures should be directed to the Planning Department via www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningspeakers
The Planning Committee is composed of 15 Councillors, with Labour having a large majority:
Labour (10): Martin Brooks (Chair) (Harborne), Akhlaq Ahmed (Hall Green North), Jack Deakin (Allens Cross), Diane Donaldson (Bromford & Hodge Hill), Mahmood Hussain (Birchfield), Jane Jones (Stockland Green), Lee Marsham (Nechells), Shehla Moledina (Balsall Heath West), Yvonne Mosquito (Bordesley & Highgate), Lauren Rainbow (Quinton). Conservative (3): Gareth Moore (Erdington), Rick Payne (Kingstanding), David Barrie (Sutton Walmley & Minworth). Liberal Democrats (2): Mumtaz Hussain (Aston), Colin Green (Sheldon)
“Officers of the council also attend to answer questions about reports.” This is not what actually happens. The case for an application is in effect made by the officers. They tend to be much more familiar with the applications than the Councillors are. On major schemes such as the Ringway Centre they will have had, as Mary Keating says, “detailed and ongoing conversations with the developers.“ There is often little time for discussion in the Planning Committee meeting because of the lengthy agenda. Controversial elements are often skated over. (For example, almost every developer says the Council’s policy that 35% of the homes are “affordable” is not feasible and is allowed to ignore it.)
Local government: neo-liberal policies, bureaucratic planning and participatory rhetoric
In recent years public participation in policy development and implementation has increasingly become a regular theme of Birmingham City Council. It is one of BCC’s “five strategic priorities” in the Executive Business Report by Cabinet, approved by the City Council on 10 January 2023: “Enable community led innovation to enhance community capacity and capability”. Yet the Ringway Centre experience of the planning system has proved the opposite. As Mary Keating says, “We knew it was opaque but our experience reveals it to be a brick wall for all but the developers.”
How can we explain this? Adrian Bua and Sonia Bussu are the editors of Reclaiming Participatory Governance, a book published in June this year. In their Introduction they argue that “As new and innovative forms of citizen participation in policymaking and public service delivery are used globally and at different tiers of government, the space for meaningful citizen input is increasingly constrained by technocratic decision-making and global economic pressures. […] far from deepening participation, these processes might in fact advance neoliberal governmentalities and mystifications.” They call it ‘Governance-Driven Democratisation’ and contrast it with genuine ‘Democracy Driven Governance’. ‘Governance-Driven Democratisation’ is the approach taken by Birmingham Council. It is explored and challenged in two recent articles by Richard Hatcher: “We need Democracy Driven Governance for climate action by Birmingham Council” (June 22) and “Two strategies for Democracy Driven Governance in Birmingham” (July 10). [Link 4]
For a combined campaign: public meetings and demonstrations, and targeting the Councillors
No date has been announced yet for the Planning Committee to consider the Ringway Centre application. The next meetings of the Planning Committee are on 27 July, 17 August, 7 September, 28 September, 19 October, 9 November. 30 November, 21 December. “The agenda for Planning Committee meetings is available five working days in advance”. This means it is extremely short notice to mobilise for, but the bigger the attendance of campaigners both in the meeting and outside it the more pressure it puts on Councillors to oppose the proposal from the CEG.
In summer 2022 CEG said: “The Council will now undertake their own consultation on the application, and we expect a final decision in the early months of next year, 2023.” Now, a year later, a key demand is for BCC to stop procrastinating and organise a serious democratic public consultation event– more than one if necessary, with ample opportunity for the campaign to put its counter-proposal.
We need to put as much pressure as possible on the 101 Councillors who are ultimately responsible for what happens to the Ringway Centre, with a focus on those most involved. At present only one – Labour Councillor Phil Davis – has publicly opposed the demolition plan. Campaigners could also visit their Councillors’ surgery meetings in their wards.
The case against the CEG plan and for the counter-proposal needs to be sent straight away to all the 15 Councillor members of the Planning Committee, with requests to discuss it with each of them.
There are also three Overview and Scrutiny Committees with particular relevance: Homes, Neighbourhoods, and Sustainability and Transport (which deals with Environment issues – bizarrely there is no Environment Scrutiny Committee). All their members should be contacted by campaigners:
Councillors on the Homes Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Labour: Mohammed Idrees (Chair) (Alum Rock), Ziaul Islam (Newtown), Saqib Khan Small Heath), Lauren Rainbow (Quinton), Rinkal Shergill (Holyhead), Conservative: Ron Storer (Longbridge & West Heath), Ken Wood (Sutton Walmley & Minworth). Liberal Democrats: Penny Wagg (Acocks Green)
Councillors on the Neighbourhoods Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Labour: Shabrana Hussain (chair) (Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East), Gurdial Singh Atwal (Handsworth Wood), Marje Bridle (Glebe Farm & Tile Cross), Marcus Bernasconi (North Edgbaston), Ray Goodwin (Castle Vale). Conservative: Deirdre Alden (Edgbaston), Kerry Brewer (Bartley Green). Liberal Democrat: Izzy Knowles (Moseley). The Terms of Reference of the Committee include “Local Development Plans”.
Councillors on the Sustainability and Transport Committee: Labour: Saima Ahmed (Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East), David Barker (Brandwood & King’s Heath), Martin Brooks (Harborne), Lee Marsham (Chair) (Nechells), Waseem Zaffar (Lozells). Conservative: Timothy Huxtable (Hall Green South), Richard Parkin (Sutton Reddicap). Liberal Democrats: Colin Green (Sheldon)
Finally, there are two members of the Cabinet with relevant responsibilities who should be contacted with campaign materials and a request to meet to discuss the issues. They are Cllr Jayne Francis – Housing & Homelessness (Harborne) and Cllr Majid Mahmood – Environment (Bromford & Hodge Hill).
The combination of continuing to build public awareness and support coupled with putting pressure on the decision-makers can defeat this profit-driven plan to destroy Birmingham’s architectural heritage, reinforce social division in the housing market and create massive environmental damage.
Richard Hatcher
10 August 2023
Richard.Hatcher@bcu.ac.uk
Links
- https://zerocarbonhousebirmingham.org.uk/save-smallbrook-ringway/. See this site for more links.
- https://zerocarbonhousebirmingham.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SBQ-counterproposal-FINAL-A.pdf
- Mary Keating in Brutiful Birmingham on Facebook, January 26 2023. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064489670138.
- Both articles are available on the Birmingham Against the Cuts website https://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/
Birmingham Against The Cuts 