By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.




Here is a planning policy puzzle. Perhaps an astute reader can explain the contradiction between two concurrent statements.

In ajplus 10.05.07 you report that Birmingham City Council is backing a proposal by the West Midlands Fire Service that the conversion of its Grade II-listed Central Fire Station, which sits within the Steelhouse Conservation Area, should include a new 40-storey tower. At exactly the same time, the city's director of planning and regeneration publishes a draft management plan for this area, saying: 'The council will ensure that all alterations and additions are sympathetic to the existing building in scale, proportion, materials and detailing, ' and 'new buildings must not appear to be significantly higher or lower than their neighbours'.

Is a 40-storey building not significantly higher than a three-storey building? Or is it the truth that, when faced with erectile development machismo, conservation policy is just hopelessly girly?

Joe Holyoak, by email

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters