Letters

Tips for writing letters about Student Halls on Elliot Rd and the Triangle Site.

Who to send letters to?

Write to our local Councillors and our MP Steve McCabe. Selly Oak is divided between three council wards each with 2 Councillors. Please write to as many of these politicians as possible. Writing one letter to cover both the Elliot Rd and Triangle sites will maximise the impact of the total number of student bedrooms and give you a good reason for writing to Councillors in more than one ward. Alternatively, separate letters for each site to increase the total number of letters received.

Address for Steve McCabe MP: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, mccabes @ parliament.uk, 020 7219 3509 (Parliament) 0121 443 3878 (constituency office).

Find your local Councillors here.

The postal address for all Councillors is Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B1 1BB

Weoley and Selly Oak Ward: If you live to the north of the Bristol Rd, south of the Bournbrook River and to the west of the railway line your councillors are:  

Cllr Tristan Chatfield, tristan.chatfield @ birmingham.gov.uk, 07779 102292

Cllr Julie Johnson, julie.johnson @ birmingham.gov.uk, 07748 733967

You can write to both of them about both proposals but only the Triangle site is in their ward.

Cllr Johnson sits on the Planning Committee so she cannot reply to your letter. If she does, she won’t be able to speak about the application or vote on it. Please include a statement at the start of any letter you write to Cllr Johnson explaining that you understand that she is on the Planning Committee and you do not require a response, but you do want her to understand your concerns.

Please ask Cllr Chatfield to reply to your letter.

Please also write to the councillors in the two other wards explaining that you are concerned about a development that affects you as a resident of the wider Selly Oak area and will affect people living in their ward.

Bournville and Cotteridge Ward: If you live to the south of the Bristol Rd and west of the railway line your councillors are:

Cllr Fred Grindrod, fred.grindrod @ birmingham.gov.uk, 0121 303 2039

Cllr Liz Clements, liz.clements @ birmingham.gov.uk, 0121 303 2039

Please be aware that Cllr Clements is currently on Compassionate Leave from her role as Councillor. You can write to both of them about both proposals but only the Elliot Rd site is in their ward.

Please ask for a reply to your letter.

Please also write to the councillors in the two other wards explaining that you are concerned about a development that affects you as a resident of the wider Selly Oak area and will affect people living in their ward.

Brounbrook and Selly Park: if you live to the east for the railway line, south of the Bournbrook River and the north of the River Rea & The Bourn your councillors are:

Cllr Brigid Jones, brigid.jones @ birmingham.gov.uk, 0121 464 4000

Cllr Karen McCarthy, karen.mccarthy @ birmingham.gov.uk, 0121 303 2039

You can write to both of them about both proposals but neither proposal in in their ward so please say you are writing to express your concerns as a resident of their ward and point out the potential impact on their ward.

Cllr McCarthy is the Chair of the Planning Committee so she cannot reply to your letter. If she does, she won’t be able to speak about the application or vote on it at committee and will have to hand over the Chair. Please include a statement at the start of any letter you write to Cllr McCarthy explaining that you understand that she is on the Planning Committee and you do not require a response, but you do want her to understand your concerns.

Please ask Cllr Jones to reply to your letter.

Please also write to the councillors in the two other wards explaining that you are concerned about a development that affects you as a resident of the wider Selly Oak area and will affect people living in their ward.

Is a letter or email better?

People tend to miss emails even once read they tend to get forgotten on a hard drive; but they are easy to reply to. Paper letters are harder to miss and, being rare these days, may have more impact. Include your email address to make a reply easier. Both e-mails and letters are preferable to a telephone call. 

Please e-mail info @ cp4so.org.uk to say that you have written and who to.

What should you do with any replies?

Please send a copy of any reply you receive to info @ cp4so.org.uk

What should you include in your letter / email?

Use the suggestions below but please put this into your own words if you can this will have more impact.

Treat the e-mail subject like a headline: eg “Concerned about 1800 new student bedrooms in Selly Oak”. Put a similar statement as a subject for a letter above the “Dear” e.g. “Re: 1800 new student bedrooms in Selly Oak.”

Open your letter by saying which development(s) you are writing about and make a clear statement giving your most important reason for objecting to the developments.

For letters to Cllr McCarthy and Cllr Johnson follow this with a statement saying you know they are on the planning committee and that you do not expect a response, but want them to understand your concerns.

Include an objection to the number of bedrooms along these lines.

“The number of student bedrooms proposed is too high. Although universities only try to cater for around 1/3 of their students there is no evidence of a net shortage of student accommodation in Selly Oak. Indeed, there is evidence of oversupply with many houses on the outskirts of the student area being converted into Supported Housing.”

Next include an number of objections from the lists below. Please select those objections that are most important you. This may vary depending on your location or personal worries. It is better if everyone writes a different letter – this will stand out more. The idea is that all of the points below (and more) are made by someone rather than everyone!

General objections.

•        The developers claim that their developments will ease the pressure for HMOs in the area but there is no evidence to support his. Halls of residence will not ease pressure on HMOs because landlords will most likely convert houses into Supported Housing which is more lucrative than renting to families. Supported Housing in residential properties is known not to work because such houses are too small to warrant a permanent support worker. Further, a mix of student- and Supported Housing-HMOs in Selly Oak will create an unsafe situation.
•        Birmingham has no strategic plan for Student Housing but The Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document notes that ‘The attractiveness of Selly Oak for student accommodation … should not offer a green light for new student accommodation for education establishments outside the area’. However both developers have stated that their developments will be available to students from all over the City. It is already clear that many students from Aston and Birmingham City University’s live in Selly Oak. Selly Oak cannot be expected to support all the students in the City.
•        Birmingham has no strategic plan for Student Housing but planning authorities that do such as Camden in London recommend limits on student density at around 25% of the population and the spacing of purpose built student accommodation at least 300 metres apart. Both developments would fail these tests being within 300 metres of other halls on Bristol Rd, Elliot Rd, Frederick Rd, and Selly Oak Shopping Park and bringing the density of student living in the upper end of Selly Oak close to or above 25%.
•        Being in Bournville and Cotteridge, and Weoley and Selly Oak wards the developments are in areas that are protected against student HMOs. These developments will draw more students in these protected areas, change the nature of retail outlets and increase the rate of studentification.
•        The developments provide no car parking. They make the false assumptions that students do not bring cars to Birmingham and that car use can be curtailed by a tenancy agreement. However we know from experience on Frederick Rd that a far smaller development of just 47 rooms with the same type of car ban has attracted at least 8 cars parking in the same road. Scaling up 1800 rooms will result in around 300 cars. When pressed the developers have provided no reassurance that they can police their own car bans. Inappropriate cars will swamp local roads and jeopardise the free car park at the railway station.
•        The National Union of Students is keen to promote affordable student accommodation over high-end studios and flats but these developments will favour the latter.
•        Student halls of residences should be located close to University Campuses but the City Council has recently refused a development for around 500 bedrooms on Pritchatts Rd which is effectively on the University of Birmingham campus, closer to the university than these developments and equally well connected to public transport links. How can halls of residence in Selly Oak be approved when those on the University Campus are not.

Specific objections to the Triangle Site.

•        The Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document calls for a ‘mixed development’ on the Triangle Site but the proposal is for a single use with no office, leisure or retail space. The Developers propose a gym but this would be for residents only.
•        Referring to the Triangle Site the Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document says that ‘Developments fronting Bristol Road should reflect the scale and massing of the existing built form’. The typical building height on this part of the Bristol Rd is 2-4 storeys but the proposed development will rise to 9 storeys on the Bristol Rd
•        The scale and mass of the development is far to high. Blocks on the Bristol Rd will rise to 9 storeys, on Chapel Lane to 12 storeys and on Harborne Lane to 15 storeys. This is far to high. Further the Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document call for developers to use the natural fall of the site to reduce impact. However the developers will not do this adding a further storey of retaining wall to the Harborne Lane tower.
•        The 15 storey tower on Harborne Lane will overlook Cherry Oak School for children with special needs as well as residential gardens.
•        It is well known that air pollution accumulates in busy streets with high buildings. Due to its size the development will create pollution corridors on the Bristol Rd and Harborne lane. This will significantly reduce the air quality for existing residents on Rebecca Drive which fronts Harborne Lane.
•        The site is in the middle of a major road junction between two main roads and a main artery out of the city. This is not a suitable location for residential use. Those living in the development will have extremely poor air quality.
•        The Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document calls for “Safe pedestrian/cycling routes to and through the site to improve linkages with adjoining areas, bus stops and rail stations”. As a gated community the development will provide no through pedestrian links at all.
•        The development provides poor active frontage. There will be little coming and going as might be associated with a retail frontage. Passers-by will be able to view users of the gym but not engage with the development. Sections of frontage for a café and community room are limited.

Specific objections to Elliot Rd.

•        Rising to around 12 storeys alongside the canal the scale of the development is too big. The development is overly blocky and will dominate nearby residential terraces.
•        The developers describe this as a brown field site but in fact the site is currently occupied by viable factory /warehouse space and is currently host to a local gymnastic club. If developed this community resource will be lost. The site is not listed as a development opportunity in the Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document. The development will also constitute a change in the zoning use for this site.
•        The site is part of the former Sturge chemical works. Sturge developed a number of new chemical techniques and the site should not be developed without an archaeological survey.
•        As the site of a former 19^th century chemical works there is a risk of lingering contamination on the site. This needs to be investigated and a comprehensive de-contamination process completed before the site is used for residential purposes.
•        As a gated community this development will be unwelcoming and provide only poor active frontage to Elliot Rd.
•        The density of rooms and significant number of studio rooms will be detrimental to student mental health.