{"id":5370,"date":"2013-02-01T16:21:09","date_gmt":"2013-02-01T16:21:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=5370"},"modified":"2013-02-01T16:21:09","modified_gmt":"2013-02-01T16:21:09","slug":"birmingham-planning-department-conservation-advice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=5370","title":{"rendered":"Birmingham planning department & conservation advice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Birmingham City planning chiefs have been accused of a \u2018war on conservation\u2019 by excluding eminent history groups from commenting on all decisions and replacing them with architects.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Birmingham Post writes<\/span>
\nBirmingham City Council\u2019s official watchdog committee on historic architecture is undergoing a major overhaul by the planning department.<\/p>\n

The move will see professional specialist architects asked to join the Conservation and Heritage Panel, which advises on planning applications for historic buildings and conservation areas to provide it with \u2018more credibility\u2019 according to the panel\u2019s chairman.<\/p>\n

But representatives of conservation groups, such as the Victorian Society, the Civic Society and Birmingham Archaeology Society, are to be removed and only invited to give opinions on buildings in their area of expertise.<\/p>\n

The panel was set up to prevent Birmingham repeating the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s when much Victorian and historic architecture was bulldozed to make way for high rise tower blocks, drab housing estates and concrete offices, which have failed to stand the test of time.<\/p>\n

Panel members \u2013 all volunteers \u2013 have reacted angrily to being asked to step aside and called on the council\u2019s planning committee, which approved the changes by six votes to five, to reconsider.<\/p>\n

Critics of the panel complained that its views were too often ignored by developers and planning officers \u2013 to the point that recent applications like the 30-storey tower block in the middle of the Central Fire Station were recommended for approval even though the conservation case against was compelling. In the end councillors on the planning committee threw out the plans.<\/p>\n

Andy Foster, a former city councillor and representative of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, said that, although the members are unpaid enthusiasts, their expertise should not be dismissed.<\/p>\n

\u2018I have been on this panel 29 years. I hope I have skills, I just don\u2019t have professional ones. The criticism seems to be that we object to things on principle and are negative. But this is a conservation panel, we are the basis of it, we are the conservationists.\u2019<\/p>\n

He said that he did not know who the professional architects taking up the six positions will be.<\/p>\n

He added: \u2018If you go through with this the planning department is declaring war on conservationists. It\u2019s that simple.\u2019<\/p>\n

He warned that the assault on Victorian architecture during the 1960s could be repeated on post-war architecture now as public tastes are changing at a time when many are being bulldozed.<\/p>\n

Fellow panel member Eva Ling, of the 20th Century Society, pointed out both her group and the Victorian Society are statutory bodies recognised and funded by the Government.<\/p>\n

She said: \u2018If we\u2019re are seen as \u2018negative\u2019 it is because the planning system supported by this Government is an adversarial one.\u2019<\/p>\n

George Demidowicz of the Birmingham Archeology Society also warned against putting professional architects on the panel. \u2018There\u2019s a conflict of interest. Why would practitioners object when it could be their application going through next?\u2019<\/p>\n

Chairman of the Panel and planning committee member Coun Barry Henley (Lab, Brandwood), who is driving through the changes, said that the group\u2019s message was not getting through.<\/p>\n

He said that the Central Fire Station application and the UFO-like top floor proposals for Victorian offices at 55 Colmore Row were recommended for approval by the planning department and only fell because maverick planning committee members stood up to the officials.<\/p>\n

\u2018The view of the panel was ignored. It seems to lack credibility in the planning department. I want it to have more gravatus and more respect.\u2019<\/p>\n

He added: \u2018It is because Birmingham doesn\u2019t do heritage well that we are doing this. There is a problem. This is about outcomes. I want the panel to be effective.\u2019<\/p>\n

He told the panel that he would consider some amendments to his plan and would reconsider if it was as unworkable as they suggest.<\/p>\n

The changes were opposed by Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Former chairman of planning Peter Douglas Osborn said: \u2018This panel was successful. I don\u2019t think we can replicate the expertise and enthusiasm groups such as the Victorian Society provide.\u2019<\/p>\n

Birmingham Post Article<\/span>: LINK<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Birmingham City planning chiefs have been accused of a \u2018war on conservation\u2019 by excluding eminent history groups from commenting on all decisions and replacing them with architects. The Birmingham Post writes Birmingham City Council\u2019s official watchdog committee on historic architecture … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5370"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5370\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5371,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5370\/revisions\/5371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}