The Post this had decided to defer a decision on an application by
UCB is seeking permission to demolish buildings in the conservation area and replace them with new ones.
But the contentious element of the proposal is that UCB wants to take over control of Holland Street, a short road joining George Street and Charlotte Street, on which its buildings are located.
READ MORE: {}
It proposes to put gates at either end of Holland Street, restrict access during university hours and close the street entirely at night.
The privatisation of public space has become a familiar tactic of developers in recent decades, usually in retail or commercial developments such as the Bullring or Brindleyplace.
It enables developers to have more freedom to plan for future growth.
It also gives them a greater degree of control over people's behaviour, excluding that which it deems unacceptable.
But, in neither of the two large developments named above, are gates built or people excluded.
Most Read
That would obviously be bad for business.
Most people walking there probably imagine they are in public space, not realising it is in fact privately owned.
We might call them quasi-public spaces and they are relatively benign versions of privatisation.
The unusual aspect of the UCB proposal to close a public street is that it is done in the name of safeguarding.
Safeguarding is the development of policies and methodologies to protect people, predominantly but not exclusively children and young people, from danger and abuse.
Its influence has grown in recent years to be now very extensive. It is mostly sensible and constructive.
But in the case of the UCB proposal it seems to be taken to a degree of absurdity.
Don’t miss
UCB's rationale is that it has a duty of care towards its students, to keep them safe as they approach or leave the university's buildings.
The public street is seen as a place of insecurity therefore it has to be brought into a secure compound over which the college has control.
I find this attitude to be quite sinister in its negative perception of public space.
Through good design and management, we can reduce risk and discourage anti-social behaviour but there is no such thing as an entirely safe street.
That degree of safeguarding could only be achieved by eliminating people. This seems to be the college's objective in this case.
The existence of a democratic public realm in the form of a network of streets is one of the great assets of an urban civilisation.
In Europe, at least, we sometimes take it for granted. It is where we encounter both friends and strangers.
There is always risk but the benefits of freedom to move and assemble, to sit and watch the world go by, far outweigh the risk.
One of the civilising forces in the European tradition is the location of universities on city centre streets.
This is something which, since the University of Birmingham moved out to the suburbs at the beginning of the 20th century, has been under-represented in this city.
It is much more evident in other cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool.
So the recent growth of UCB in the city centre is welcome. It adds to the density and the diversity which a healthy city centre needs.
It also makes city centre streets safer because it is a commonly understood truth that a well-populated street is a safer street.
A great achievement in Birmingham in the past 25 or so years has been in the creation of well-designed public space.
We now see people at weekends strolling for pleasure along the canal towpath, through Centenary Square or Eastside Park, something not seen 30 years ago.
To reduce the stock of public space by gating it and excluding the public is the antithesis of this.
UCB's proposal is clearly absurd as well as sinister because the college's safeguarding could only extend to the one short street outside its front door.
Before reaching that street, the students would have to walk through other unsafeguarded streets and travel on unsafeguarded buses and trains.
Or, perhaps, it is expected they will drive there in locked cars (there is a multi-storey car park included in the development), or their parents will drive them safely to the gates.
But these are measures of an unsustainable and anti-social city.
Another part of the planning application is the proposal to cover Holland Street with a glazed roof, at the level of the tops of the buildings.
This too has generated some criticism from conservationists because of its effect upon the appearance and character of the conservation area.
Personally, I would not object to the roof as long as it covered a public street and was well designed.
There is a long and honourable tradition of streets with glazed roofs, which includes the great 19th century galleria of Milan and Naples.
These are not private malls but public streets, continuously open for access which are made into special places by being under glass.
UCB's architects for their planning application are Glenn Howells Architects.
They certainly have the design and technical abilities to make a very elegant roof which could be an ornament to the Jewellery Quarter.
But would UCB be prepared to spend money on making Holland Street a special place if it is to remain as public space? I suspect not.
But maybe we shall get the opportunity to see if it is so public-spirited, depending upon what the council planning committee decides the next time the application comes before it.
Joe Holyoak is a Birmingham-based architect and urban designer