Agenda item

19/01506/FUL  - Planning application documents

19/01506/ADV -  Planning application documents

Officer Introduction

DO: Introduced the application, he explained that there were 2 applications to consider, one was a full planning application and one was for advertisement consent.  The application was before the committee as the council had a property interest in the site. He explained that the application relates to amendments to the existing façade of the retail unit that is currently occupied by River Island. The proposal was seeking to increase the height of the entrance way and the advertisement consent was for pieces of signage including the cash machines.

Public Speaking

Mr Elliott, agent representing Metro Bank

Was delighted that the officer’s were recommending approval of the application, he hoped the briefing note circulated gave a background to the proposal and highlighted the extent of engagement undertaken to reach the design. They felt it was in keeping with the modern shop front design in this part of the High Street but also sensitively integrated in order to respect the more traditional frontages.  He highlighted that Metro Bank was one of the first banks to open in the UK in 100 years and that they were bucking the trend as numerous other UK banks were closing their branches. The application would create 25 new local jobs, enhance local banking choice, benefit residents with increased opening hours, create significant lending to local businesses and SME’s and extensive community outreach and engagement programmes.

Member Debate

MC: Acknowledged that Metro Bank were bucking the trend when compared with other high streets bank and that it added something different to the current offering. Whilst the proposal looked modern he didn’t think the application was in keeping with the street scene and whilst it was subservient to the entrance of the arcade he would rather something more traditional.

SW: Preferred the appearance of the original Arcade and did not agree with the inspector’s decision, felt that the frontage didn’t fit with the street scene and that the glass wasn’t in keeping with the town centre.

VA: Felt that it didn’t look out of place because of John Lewis positioned opposite which had a similar glass frontage. However, felt that it would be a shame for the whole of the High Street to be glass fronted and questioned whether there was anything they could do to preserve the heritage of the High Street.

AH: Felt that it was in keeping with the rest of the façade, especially with John Lewis opposite and development should be encouraged more. He felt that such proposals made the High Street look lighter and cleaner.

JP: Was also opposed to the previous application regarding the main entrance to Regent Arcade and was concerned that as an elected representative they appeared to have less and less say over how the High Street looked due to the threat of planning appeals. He felt that John Lewis was stylish and of a different quality of design when compared with this application. He also noted that  Metro Bank were not in a particularly favourable financial position. 

DP: Reasoned that time had moved on and the Regent Arcade façade would inevitably change and so they should consider the application in the context of what the Regent Arcade would look like, not what it used to look like.

DO in response:

-       Important to remember that it is within a conservation area but it is a modern building. Most of the buildings that are important to protect are in the conservation area or are listed and that’s what affords those the protection as discussed.

PB: Felt it was an exciting development for the town at a time when High Streets were suffering and was pleased that Metro Bank were willing to invest in Cheltenham. 

 Vote on officer recommendation to permit application 19/01506/FUL

12 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

Vote on officer recommendation to permit 19/01506/ADV

13 in support -  unanimous

PERMIT