Agenda item

 

 

Application Number:			18/00681/FUL & 18/00700/ADV
Location:	Regent Arcade, Regent Street, Cheltenham
Proposal:	18/00681/FUL:  Demolition and reconstruction of the Regent Arcade High Street entrance 18/00700/ADV:  Individual internally illuminated lettering reading 'Regent Arcade' with supporting 'Shopping | Dining | Leisure' sign and installation of two projecting glass banner signs
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit / Grant
Committee Decision:			Refuse / Refuse
Letters of Rep:		1	Update Report:		None

 

MP introduced the application 18/00681/FUL as above, at Committee because it is not supported by the Architects Panel.  The second application, 18/00700/ADV, has been brought to Committee for completeness.  There have been various revisions throughout the process and officers feel it is now a better scheme.  Their recommendation is therefore to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

None. 

 

 

Member debate:

PM:  is not so worried about the design  but rather more about the conditions, if permitted. The council is about to spend thousands on repairing the High Street; the repairs to the front of the Regent Arcade may interfere with the newly-laid road and pavement surfaces.  If the footpath is going to be changed, we should ensure that the road surface is put in afterwards, and thus remains pristine.

 

KS:  it’s very good that the Regent Arcade is planning ahead and revitalising its frontage, but is disappointed in the proposed design.  It doesn’t seem to go together – the bottom panels of glass are shorter than the ones above – is not entirely happy with this and would like to see something better.   It doesn’t have to compete with John Lewis, and it’s a shame the designer couldn’t sort out the proportions better and come up with something more harmonious.

 

JP: the management of the Regent Arcade has been forced into upgrading by other retail development in the town.  The whole purpose of any shop front is to attract people in, but this doesn’t really do that.  It is the Regent Arcade – yet there is no reference to this in the design.  It is bland and poorly proportioned, and does no favours to the High Street.  Can’t imagine we won’t be back in three years with Version 3.  The present façade has not been well-maintained – it is in a terrible state, and doesn’t attract people in.  This is a missed opportunity  -  something far more attractive is needed.

 

SC:  understands why the Regent Arcade wants to do this – to attract more people in – and this is to be commended.  Is concerned about the large window above the doors; it will look like so many other shopping malls in the country, and doesn’t do justice to this prime location in Cheltenham.  The existing façade has a classic elegance, and sort of echoes what was there years ago – the Plough Inn.  Further along the High Street, the Regency columns of the bank building reflect a design theme appropriate to a Regency town such as Cheltenham.  This proposal would be a mistake – just another High Street shopping mall - and is a missed opportunity to refurbish, at considerable cost.  We could do much better, and make the High Street much more attractive.

 

SW:  originally didn’t really like the design and felt that it doesn’t really work, but would accept it – but other Members are exactly echoing his feelings.  KS is right – the proportions are wrong.  The current detail between the ground and first floor sort of follows the line set by other buildings – but this cuts through it.  It is out of proportion; will vote against, it spoils the architectural line of the High Street, doesn’t fit, and we should/could do a lot better and require a design that fits in better.  Quite liked the original Regency pastiche.  Is inclined to vote against.

 

RH:  agrees with KS about the design; would like to see something with better proportions.  It is disappointing that the façade has been re-done so recently, but understands why the regent Arcade feels it has to do this, to keep up with the changing High Street.  It would have been great to see the other end of the Regent Arcade come forward for refurbishment, and join more attractively to the Promenade.  Will probably support this proposal; can see no planning reason not to do so.

 

KH:  doesn’t think this application is any improvement on what is there at the moment, and if the applicant feels that what is proposed will help retailers and tenants, doesn’t believe that this will achieve that aim.  There are many challenges currently facing the High Street; this will have no impact on them. For the record, doesn’t think a pastiche design would be very good either.

 

MP, in response:

-       To PM, the existing doors are recessed on the applicant’s own land, and this proposal would be also. There will be no need to disrupt any new paving as part of the redevelopment.

 

KS:  KH said that the current design isn’t good, and this won’t improve it.  Will it attract more people to the Regent Arcade?  We all want people to come to shop there.  We could be firmer with the arcade – they could do better – there are too many stalls in the middle.  But this proposal won’t improve on the prime location in the High street.  MP has said the door are recessed, but there will be construction vehicles, as in the John Lewis area.  What will happen to the paving – it isn’t designed for heavy vehicles?  How can this be rectified?  Will support SW’s move to refuse.  For the record, doesn’t mind pastiche or modern, as long as it looks good.

 

KH:  to clarify, doesn’t like either!

 

SW:  if the pavements are damaged, they must be put right again.

 

PM:  with regard to the Regent Street entrance to the arcade, the owners put in an application to improve it but wanted the flower seller removed from Ormond Place; when the council declined to do this, the arcade declined to improve its frontage.  Outside Planning Committee, some serious conversations are needed with the owners of the Regent Arcade; it is important to Cheltenham.

 

DP:  would like guidance here:  at times we seem to move from Planning Committee to Dragons’ Den, discussing what is good/not good for business.  We should leave businesses to decide what is best, but it is legitimate to say we don’t like the design.  Agrees with this – it isn’t good and doesn’t gel.  That is our job – to say we don’t like the design, not to say what is good for business.

 

KH:  can the officer confirm the height of the doors?  There are discussions about aligning them to adjacent doors; Members are concerned about the proportions.

 

MP, in response:

-       Regarding the footpath and highway work, we could attach a construction management statements to avoid any harm to the new pavement;

-       Regarding the height of the doors, officers have secured an increase in height, but this was quite nominal.  The Architects’ Panel picked up on the original submission in which the doors were lower than those on either side – Top Shop and H&M.  The doors are now higher;

-       Alternative designs have been considered - what is presented tonight is the most acceptable;

-       To DP, design is always subjective; the report sets out many different views on the design, and clearly others would approach it differently.  Members have only discussed the proportions so far, if they are considering refusing the application on design grounds.

 

KS:  made comments about the design and proportions of the proposal, but is also a customer of the Regent Arcade.  Would like to refuse this application.  Compared with previous iterations, this is a dramatic departure, not just the proportions but also the way it is treated.  Previous versions have had a strong, vertical design, with pillars.  This features a strong horizontal line, and the doors are shorter than the ground floor. A vertical lines only go part way through, which is a dramatic departure.  Can understand the desire to refresh the entrance and make it more modern, but this doesn’t work.  Understands that the architect is trying to get away from Regency pastiche and making a more modern façade, but the lowered horizontal line is not harmonious, and doesn’t look good.  The Architects’ Panel didn’t like the design.  There must be some way round this, something that sits better.  On purely planning grounds, we shouldn’t support the proposal because of that. 

 

KH:  will move to votes on officer recommendations for the two proposals.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit FUL application

2 in support

8 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant ADV consent

6 in support

4 in objection

1 abstention

GRANT

 

KH:  officers will provide clarity on this unusual situation.

 

CH, in response:

-       The FUL application proposes a scheme for remodelling the entrance to the arcade, and the ADV application is part of this.  It cannot be implemented if planning permission for the other scheme is refused. 

 

SW:  the reason why he voted as he did is because he understands that the Arcade wishes to advertise, and has no issue with the advertising banners – just doesn’t like the design of the Arcade frontage.  If the ADV was part and parcel of the FUL application, would vote against it.  It is the design he doesn’t like.

 

KH:  sees the point that the ADV application is integral and based on the FUL planning permission for the design of the Regent Arcade front. 

 

PM:  there was no point having the second vote – the ADV isn’t going to happen without the FUL.  Can that vote be scrubbed from the record?  It would make things a lot more straightforward – planning permission is refused; end of.

 

KS:  there must be a process of voting on two applications that relate to each other.  Legal advice on this would be useful.  It is an awkward situation.

 

SC: would not have voted as he did if this had been explained in advance of the vote.

 

DS:  voted against both but imagines some Members voted for the ADV in the event of the planning permission being granted on appeal.

 

DP:  is surprised that the second vote was taken once the first vote for planning permission had fallen; would have expected it to fail.

 

NJ, in response:

-       Ordinarily, Members are expected to vote on individual applications. It appears that Members were not entirely clear on what they were voting for or the relationship between the ADV application  and the FUL application.  Provided Members are agreeable to do so it would be appropriate to take the second vote for advertising consent again.

 

KH:  in light of this discussion, invites Members to a clarifying vote on 18/00700/ADV

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

9 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

 

KH:  As RH was out of the room and has now returned, the vote will need to be taken again. 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

9 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

KH:  we now need grounds in order to vote for a refusal.  Invites Members to propose grounds.

 

KS:  suggests it is rejected on design grounds – CP7 of the Local Plan; for impact on the conservation area – the elevations and proportions harm the character/amenity of the area – SD4 of the JCS?  Help from officers would be appreciated.

 

MP, in response: 

-       JCS Policy SD8 relates to the historic environment, so could be included in line with Members’ objections.  The application could also be said to contravene design advice in the NPPF.

 

KS:  can construction methodology be included as a refusal reason – the potential damage to the paving during the construction phase?  If the applicant can deal with this in a future application, it would be really useful. 

 

Vote on KS’s move to refuse 18/00681/FUL on JCS Policies SD4 and SD8, Local Plan Policy SP7, and the NPPF

10 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED - REFUSE

 

Vote on KS’s move to refuse 18/00700/AD on JCS Policies SD4 and SD8, Local Plan Policy SP7, and the NPPF

10 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED - REFUSE