Say NO to proposed student development on Twyning Road/Pershore Road

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Thomas Keynes started this petition to Birmingham City Council and

Below are the objections for the plans to build a commercial and residential development to house 31 students at 1256-1258 Pershore Road and Twyning Road. As well as signing this petition, please also submit your comments on the Birmingham Planning Portal with the reference 2020/04405/PA

Birmingham Planning Website

Objection point #1: The demolition of two utilised properties and the destruction of a non-heritage asset.

They will be completely demolishing two existing buildings which have stood for over 100 years and are currently occupied, one of which has a ghost sign which has been designated a non-heritage asset. There is also a business still working out of the commercial unit underneath the properties.

Objection point #2: The Site’s appearance and scale are not appropriate for the location.

As per Birmingham Council’s Statement of Student Needs it insists any proposed student development should have the scale, massing and architecture appropriate for the location. The proposed site proposes to erect 1066 sq m of commercial property and studios. Based on the size of 3 Twyning Road (78 sq m) the Site would be 13 times the size of the surrounding properties and almost 7 times larger than the existing property it proposes to replace. This is not appropriate for the location.

Objection point #3: The construction of such a property would negatively impact Birmingham’s plans to reduce climate change.

The building of the Site does not follow the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle method of sustainability. It does not repurpose the existing buildings, nor does it use recycled materials from the existing building. The acceptance of this Site would lead to the destruction and disposal of two buildings leading to the contribution of Construction and Demolition Waste, which accounts for 59% of the UK’s waste output and negatively impacting on climate change. The application itself states, “The use of recyclable materials, such as aggregate will be considered, where feasible.” Therefore, recycled material will only be considered, even if it’s readily available. That does not sound like a build committed to reducing CO2 or producing a sustainable building.

Objection point #4: There is no sufficient evidence that suggests the need for additional student accommodation in Stirchley.

Student accommodation is currently being built on Stirchley high street which is yet to be completed. Where is the evidence that this will be at full capacity upon opening and the demand requires additional student accommodation? Furthermore, less than 1 mile from Stirchley, Raddlebarn Road and the surrounding streets are littered with To Let signs, HMOs readily available for students requiring accommodation closer to the University than the village of Stirchley. Not only are these options available to students but there is also another Site currently underway in Selly Oak to house over 1000 students to accommodate the small increase in students attending the local universities.

Objection point #5: The amenities are not sufficient for 31 students and commercial properties.

Proposed is a small communal garden with limited privacy and which is smaller than the average-sized garden of the surrounding homes. Between 31 occupants the space suggested equates to 3.68 sq m per occupant, far below the suggested 16sq m by the Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG. A large gathering of people in a small confined area will bring noise and disruption to the neighbouring homes and will not provide an inclusive, safe, well run, environment for neither students nor current residents as required by the Statement of Student Needs. Also planned is bike storage for 16 bicycles, enough for just over half of the students. It is unreasonable to think out of 31 students in a modern age that the majority of them will not own or bring their own transportation, putting immense strain on the already crowded surrounding streets.

Objection point #6: Highway safety would be an issue.

I believe the impact on highway safety would be severe. The Pershore Road during peak times is extremely congested with turning right out of Twyning Road near impossible. With the potential of additional 31 vehicles, plus any additional people parking to use or visit the commercial properties on the road during busy times will cause congestion on the Twyning Road turning and the potential for illegal parking on Pershore Road bringing restricted views of oncoming traffic. Adding potentially 31 additional cars, plus any visiting relatives will make homeowners returning from work or families with small children or prams unable to find adequate parking near their homes creating an unfair environment for existing residents.

Objection point #7: Overall lack of community presence.

Despite being a ward of Birmingham, Stirchley still retains its village-like feel (it’s 62/69 smallest wards of Birmingham). Adding such a large development not proposed by a co-operative or any other community member as well as a sudden influx of students in constant turnover, wouldn’t be beneficial to the neighbourhood or the students themselves as the continuous transient nature of students would create a sudden need for jobs and services which would then drop dramatically at certain points of the year.

How do we want Stirchley to be in five years or even a year from now? Will it still be an affordable place for new families, young professionals and the elderly community? Or will Stirchley become in-personable and indistinguishable from Bournbrook or Selly Oak, To Let signs and empty properties littering the once well-sort after Twyning Road? I truly believe if planning is accepted on this Site, more like it will follow and it will rapidly become the latter scenario. This would ultimately drive young professionals, elderly people and families out of Stirchley and flatten any future economic growth other than quick accommodation turnover.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!