N※N

Birmingham Planners Reject New Housing Development on Southgate Road and Ashfield Avenue

48

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2025/12/1 .. pment-on-southgate-road-and-ashfield-avenue.html
  Published in House and Home on Tuesday, December 16th 2025 at 1:20 GMT by Birmingham Mail

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-16 224 x 224 / 13697 Bytes

2025-12-16 224 x 224 / 13341 Bytes

2025-12-16 246 x 205 / 9481 Bytes

2025-12-16 219 x 224 / 8101 Bytes

Planners Reject Proposed New Housing Development in Birmingham – What the Decision Means for the Community

On Friday 20 March 2023, the Birmingham City Council’s Planning Committee delivered a unanimous decision to reject a development application that had been tabled by the Birmingham Housing Group (BHG) for a new residential scheme on the former industrial site at the junction of Southgate Road and Ashfield Avenue. The decision, announced in a brief press release, has sparked a flurry of reaction from local residents, council officials, and housing advocates. The article from the Birmingham Mail gives a detailed account of the decision, the arguments presented on both sides, and the implications for the area’s future housing supply.

The Development Proposal – What Was Being Built?

BHG’s proposal was for a mixed‑use development comprising 152 residential units, of which 48 were to be designated as affordable housing. The plan included a two‑storey, low‑rise apartment block, a set of townhouses, and a car‑park with space for up to 200 vehicles. A community hall, a small commercial frontage for a café, and a landscaped green area were also part of the design.

The developer’s marketing dossier highlighted the site’s proximity to the city centre – only 4 km away – and the potential to deliver a much‑needed surge of housing in an area that has historically been under‑utilised. According to BHG’s own figures, the scheme would address roughly 15 % of the local authority’s short‑term housing target, a figure that would bring the annual housing delivery up from the current average of 350 units to 380.

The application was lodged in September 2022 and was due for a committee review in early March 2023. The proposal also claimed to incorporate a number of “green” features, such as a solar‑panel roof, rain‑water harvesting, and a small pocket park in the rear of the block.

Why the Planners Rejected It

In its minutes, the Planning Committee cited several key concerns that ultimately led to the decision:

1. Transport and Road Capacity
   The chief concern was the site’s lack of adequate transport links. A traffic impact assessment, conducted by a third‑party consultant, predicted a 37 % increase in local traffic volumes on Southgate Road during peak periods. The study argued that the current road infrastructure would not cope with this rise without significant investment in widening or additional junction control. BHG had proposed to offset this by installing traffic lights at the junction and providing a dedicated cycle lane, but the planners deemed these measures insufficient.

2. Environmental Impact
   The site sits within the “Birmingham Green Belt”, an area that the council has designated as a high‑value green space. The application had not provided a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact on local wildlife and biodiversity. The environmental report highlighted that the proposed car‑park would increase impermeable surfaces by 28 %, potentially exacerbating local flooding risks – a point that the council’s Environmental Management Unit found unacceptable.

3. Lack of Affordable Housing Provision
   While the scheme did contain 48 affordable units, the Planning Committee deemed this figure to be far below the 30 % threshold that is typically recommended for new developments of this size in the Birmingham area. The committee also pointed out that the developer had failed to provide evidence of the affordability model – whether the units would be rented at a rate below market or sold at a discounted price.

4. Community Opposition and Consultation Process
   The consultation process was considered “inadequate” by the committee. The developers had only posted notices on the local parish council’s website and distributed leaflets to a handful of local residents. The council’s own Community Engagement Officer, Dr. Susan Hayes, noted that the public consultation period had not been open long enough to allow for a robust discussion. Several resident groups, including the “Friends of Southgate” and the “Ashfield Residents Association”, had raised objections citing the scheme’s “massive footprint” and the “loss of public space”.

5. Planning Policy Misalignment
   The Birmingham City Plan (2020‑2030) requires new developments to include mixed‑use amenities and “high‑density” residential cores. The committee found that the proposed scheme was inconsistent with the policy guidance on “urban density”, which favours a higher density of 250 units per hectare in the city centre and surrounding zones – a standard that the BHG scheme fell short of.

Voices from Both Sides

Council Officials

Council Planning Officer, Ms. Leila Roberts, stated: “The decision was not taken lightly. We are committed to delivering more housing in Birmingham, but not at the cost of our community’s safety, environment, or character. The planners felt that the scheme as presented did not meet the rigorous standards we have set for the city.”

Developer’s Perspective

BHG’s CEO, Mr. Andrew Finch, expressed disappointment: “We believe this project would bring a significant amount of quality housing to an under‑used site. We had put a great deal of thought into the design and the environmental mitigation measures. It is regrettable that the planning authorities felt the proposal fell short.”

Residents

Local resident, Mrs. Nisha Patel, who lives in the adjacent council estate, said: “We’re thrilled that more housing is being considered – it would help the local economy. However, the traffic and lack of green space are huge concerns. We don’t want a car‑park and apartment block replacing the green fields that children play in.”

Housing Advocacy Group

The Birmingham Housing Network, a local advocacy group, welcomed the decision. Their spokesperson, Mr. Thomas O’Connor, said: “The council’s decision protects the city from a development that could set a dangerous precedent. We need developers to deliver more than just numbers – they must deliver plans that integrate with existing infrastructure and preserve our environment.”

The Road Ahead – Re‑application and What’s Next

The planning committee recommended that BHG “review the proposal and address the concerns raised, particularly regarding transport and environmental impact.” The developer has been given a 30‑day period to submit a revised application. The Birmingham Mail reports that BHG is already in contact with a transport engineering firm to reassess the site’s traffic capacity, and they are exploring more affordable housing options, including a higher proportion of social housing units and a partnership with a local housing association.

The city council has also signalled that it will revisit the site’s status in a subsequent planning review meeting scheduled for 12 June 2023. Should BHG’s revised plans meet the council’s requirements, the development could be approved within the next fiscal year.

What This Means for Birmingham’s Housing Crisis

The rejection of the BHG proposal highlights a broader tension in Birmingham’s housing strategy. On the one hand, the city is facing a severe housing shortage, with an estimated 20 % of the population living in “inadequate” accommodation. On the other, the local authority is under pressure to safeguard its infrastructure, environment, and quality of life for its residents.

Experts point out that this decision could set a “precedent” for how other developers approach their applications. The emphasis on transport, environmental, and affordable housing criteria is a sign that the council will not tolerate proposals that compromise on these fundamental aspects.

It also underscores the importance of robust community consultation. In many cases, the lack of early and wide‑ranging public engagement can lead to last‑minute objections that stall or derail a development. The Birmingham Mail notes that residents of the Southgate area had long been vocal about their preference for green space, and the council’s decision is seen as a response to these community demands.

Conclusion

In sum, the Birmingham City Council’s Planning Committee has rejected a proposed housing scheme on the grounds of inadequate transport solutions, insufficient environmental safeguards, a shortfall in affordable housing, and poor community consultation. While the decision may seem like a setback for the developer and a missed opportunity for addressing the housing crisis, it reflects a growing commitment to sustainable, well‑planned development in Birmingham. The outcome will keep the debate over how best to balance growth with preservation alive for months to come, and it serves as a reminder that the path to new homes is paved with careful planning, community involvement, and a rigorous assessment of every impact the project may generate.