Housing is a key issue for many of our local city councillors. There are thousands of families with small children living in temporary accommodation in Birmingham while waiting on the Housing Register for a home to call their own. This housing crisis was a major consideration for Planning Committee members when they voted to demolish Smallbrook Ringway Centre on September 28.

Plans to replace this elegant, 1960s, 6-storey sweep of building with three tower blocks of 48, 44 and up to 56 storeys are designed to provide a total of 1,632 flats in three phases which could take up to 14 years to complete. Seven votes to six, one vote was all it took to condemn Birmingham’s ‘Regent Street’ to oblivion. We need to understand if this development will help meet the city’s housing need.

22,000 families on Birmingham’s Housing Register are crying out for homes in the city. A development of this size might well go some way towards providing homes for some of these families. But to what extent is this the case? Unpacking the difference between social and affordable housing might bring greater clarity to the situation.

Difference between affordable and social housing

What is the difference between affordable housing and social housing? Social housing is rented from the city’s housing organisation, Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust, or local Housing Associations. It is available to eligible families at up to 50% below commercial rates.

In the main, families on the Housing Register are looking for three- or four-bedroom homes whereas the vast majority of homes available from developments like Smallbrook Ringway Centre are one- and two- bedroom homes. There is no requirement that such developments offer any social housing and only a small proportion of the families on the Housing Register might be in a position to take up an offer of affordable housing in one of these blocks.

According to government guidance, affordable housing for rent usually comes in at something like 20% below the going commercial rate. The West Midlands Combined Authority uses a different, more equitable figure which is based on local people paying no more than 35% of their salary on mortgages or rent. The city has a policy which requires that all new developments of a significant size include the provision of 35% affordable housing.

This is rarely realised because developers can appeal to reduce their commitment on
grounds of financial viability. From an original 0%, a revised figure of 7% of the total number of 1,632 flats in the Smallbrook Ringway Centre development were set aside as affordable. These were primarily one- and two-bedroom flats and therefore unlikely to meet the needs of Brummies on the Housing Register.

Only 4.4% of the flats to be affordable

As we understand it, further negotiations meant that the one- and two- bedroom affordable flats were replaced with three-bedroom affordable flats, a change which also involved a change in the method of calculation. At this stage, smoke and mirrors come to mind and it is hardly surprising that the financial arguments have proved difficult to unpack. The value of the affordable flats became the basis on which the percentage was calculated. Thus 10.5% became the percentage promoted by the developer, although the actual percentage of individual dwellings is 4.4% – albeit of three- rather than one- or two- bedroom flats.

When the application came before the Planning Committee the number of affordable flats had risen to 20%. This included the equivalent of 9.5% affordable housing supported by West Midlands Combined Authority Deeper Devolution Fund for which no application has yet been received. There is no guarantee this subsidy will be made available. Were councillors misled by these figures since the reality may well be very different?

Unsuitable for families

Even if the flats in the tower blocks planned for Smallbrook Ringway Centre were available at social rents, would they be suitable for families? Families need ready access to green spaces, schools, doctors’ surgeries, a whole raft of services and infrastructure that is not accommodated in these plans.

Retaining the existing building might be a useful starting point for an alternative approach. We have some excellent examples of retrofitted buildings in Birmingham, buildings which retain their original design externally but offer exciting new opportunities internally. At last, the wraps have come off the Beneficial Building (1961) on the corner of Paradise Street and Suffolk Street. Revealed is a handsome building repurposed as residential accommodation and retaining its original 1950s style. The Typhoo Tea Factory, a new home for BBC Midlands, will be a jewel in the crown of the regeneration of Digbeth. A similarly exciting approach to Smallbrook Ringway Centre could see Birmingham citizens in residence in no more than a couple of years and, incidentally, a cash-strapped city council in receipt of valuable council tax.

Without the Ringway Centre the area loses all its definition, including what is left of our 1960s heritage of which Birmingham should be proud. To bury this boulevard in multi-storey towers will be to cut off its light – the towers are planned for the south side of the street – and destroy its unique Birmingham personality.

Think more clearly about housing

There is a critical need for clarity about the ways in which the present housing crisis can best be resolved. We need social housing to meet the needs of those on the Housing Register. We need affordable housing for those who cannot at present afford the exorbitant rents that are being demanded for new apartments. Birmingham does not need 14 years of demolition and disruption. Our world does not need the carbon impact of that demolition nor the increased demand on the environment of such extremely tall buildings. The housing needs of Birmingham citizens merit so much more thought and consideration than they are being afforded by the current Smallbrook Ringway Centre plans.