By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
The public gallery erupted with cheers and applause as Superdry founder Julian Dunkerton’s plans for No 131 Promenade were approved last night.
Two separate plans for the luxury hotel and restaurant were considered by planners at the Municipal Offices.
Cheltenham Borough Councillors were presented with two different planning applications for a covered outside seating area at 129-133.
The first one was a glass structure with decorative ironwork was rejected by six votes to four with one against while the second proposal included a slim, metal pergola with a retractable roof was approved by eight votes to three.
Both planning applications also featured the installation of solar panels on the roofs of 125-127 and 133 and removal of the existing conservatory to the side of 133.
The plans had been listed to be dealt with first but chairman Garth Barnes (LD, College) announced at the start of the meeting that three other small applications would be dealt with before the plans for 131.
This meant Mr Dunkerton, his planning agent, objectors and dozens of people in the public gallery had to wait 15 minutes for the presentation of the proposals.
Prominent white marquees replaced parasols outside the grade-II* listed 131 and 133 in October 2020 as a temporary measure to facilitate outside dining during the coronavirus pandemic.
However, after the relaxation rules ended, initial proposals to keep the structures for a further two years were rejected by the Borough Council in November 2022.
This decision was upheld by a planning inspector during the summer in 2023 and the council is in the process of enforcing this decision which would require their removal.
As a result Mr Dunkerton submitted plans to the council in October for a permanent terrace to replace the temporary structures in a bid to protect the more than 130 jobs at the venue and fortify Cheltenham’s appeal as a premium destination.
More than 2,000 people had signed a petition supporting Mr Dunkerton’s plans while dozens of people along with Cheltenham Civic Society, Historic England, the Georgian Group and Cheltenham’s Architects Panel raised objections to the proposals.
But, during the meeting, officers raised significant concerns over the harm both proposals would have on the listed buildings and its historic and architecturally important setting.
They recommended refusing both proposals as they consider neither scheme to be acceptable and both are at odds with local and national planning policies.
Professor Robert Maitland, a chartered town planner and a member of Cheltenham Civic Society’s planning forum, spoke against the proposals and said they oppose the development on principle.
He said they were right to resist the plans that would “destroy the setting of fine Grade II* listed buildings, damage the conservation area and reduce the attraction of the town to visitors and businesses”.
He welcomed the officers’ report and made three points about the scheme in that it was essential to refuse to safeguard Cheltenham’s heritage, there is striking unanimity on the damage the proposals would do and there was no evidence of public benefit.
“There is overwhelming and unanimous expert advice that these proposals would be damaging to the buildings, the conservation area and the town,” he said.
“There is no offsetting public benefit. There are other development alternatives.
“They can be explored once these damaging proposals are rejected. We hope the committee will stand by its previous decisions and refuse the application.”
Mr Dunkerton asked if it was in the public interest for the refusal to go ahead. He said only 24 people objected to the scheme while more than 2,000 were in favour.
“There is overwhelming support for what I’m proposing,” he said. “What I’m actually proposing is a beautiful garden that is used by everyone in the town and tourists alike.
“I’m an oddball. I’ve spent £150 million on Cheltenham, developing 1000 jobs, currently between my wife and myself, employing. I love Cheltenham. I’ve won two civic awards for the architectural work I’ve done in this town.
“We have to be honest about where we are, and we have to be honest about the town and say is this good for the town?”
He cited similar nearby examples in the outdoor seating area at Settebello and the development at the back of Cheltenham Town Hall and said his “unique” proposals would enhance the town centre.
“I’m trying to achieve it, I’m trying to achieve a sort of Mayfair/Paris style environment that is about as enhancing to Cheltenham as we could possibly be, yet this is passed.
“This building has made Cheltenham different, desirable and exciting. Are we prepared to put it at risk? There are 100 jobs here at risk. This is the only way I’m going to keep this going. The hospitality industry is in absolute turmoil.
“It is an incredible sector to be in. This is our chance to save 100 jobs and allow me to keep investing.”
He told the meeting 131 was empty for ten years before he took it over. Mr Dunkerton said he spent an awful lot of money bringing it to life”.
“This is a fantastic opportunity to do the right thing for Cheltenham,” he said.
“It’s fundamental for Cheltenham, it’s fundamental for the economy. “The hospitality is just as important as the racing.
“It’s prime location outside space and the atmosphere is legendary. “It is doing something unique that is talked about around.
“When people come to Cheltenham, that’s where they go, that’s where they know. “When March comes along, every race, race event, they’re there.
“When the arts, when the festivals are on, they are at 131. Allow me to make it even better and allow these staff to hold on to the job.”
His speech was met with huge applause from dozens of people in the public gallery.
During the debate, Frank Allen (LD, Swindon Village) said it was a well produced report by the officers and it had given him a lot to think about.
He said: “When I look at the economic benefit I would be minded to argue that heritage conservation could continue not in spite of the structure but because of the structures.”
He felt no structural harm would be done to the building by the pergola but harm could be made if 131 went out of business.
“I’m minded to speak against the officer’s recommendation,” he said.
And Cllr Tony Oliver (LD, Warden Hill) said he too had some concerns about the plans but felt the best way of protecting Cheltenham and heritage assets would be to keep the business profitable.
“It’s extremely popular,” he said.
“Most people I spoke to couldn’t understand why we turned it down because it is such a popular business and it brings people to Cheltenham. Cheltenham is vibrant at the moment but it could change. I’ll be supporting it.”
This sentiment was echoed by Cllr Simon Wheeler (LD, Hesters Way) who said there were some quite unattractive frontages along the Promenade.
“These are three very iconic buildings and it would be a shame to hide their light under a bushel. But if we don’t agree to something to go here, well built and attractive, we are not going to get anything.
“We might end up with three more buildings with car parks in front of them and ugly hoardings.”
Cllr Barbara Clark (LD, All Saints) said she really did not like the marquees and felt they could “do with a wash”.
But she agreed with Cllr Allen’s comments and said young people are struggling to find work.
“Employment is a big concern,” she said. “I do feel the economic case outweighs the other considerations because we are punching above our weight. Cheltenham is performing five per cent above the average.”
Cllr Barnes had to repeatedly ask the public not to applaud.
And Cllr Paul Baker (LD, Charlton Park) said there is a large sector of the town’s population which is passionate about its heritage.
“It’s only because of Covid that opportunity [for the marquees] arose and has continued to generate significant income,” he said.
“I’m assuming it was a successful business pre-Covid. Those buildings were built to be set in a garden so they could be seen and enjoyed.
“That will be lost.” But Cllr Baker said Mr Dunkerton had “put his money where his mouth is” and said he was really in a difficult position over which way to vote on the proposals.
“We’re damned if we do, we are damned if we don’t,” he said.
“We’ve got two schemes which I don’t like.” Cllr Allen suggested a compromise could be to reject the ironworks proposal but approved the other one.
Cllr Barnes said it was a “difficult situation” and the committee was considering its “historic culture”.
“We are losing the nub of what is important here,” he said. “The economic statements have not really been justified.
“It is important that we look after Cheltenham. That is our role as councillors. We are the guardians of Cheltenham.
“It is difficult but I can only come to one conclusion about it. In my view we have to support the officer’s recommendations here.
“If we ignore those we are in danger of losing our birthright and Cheltenham’s credibility as a Georgian town of great repute.”
An initial vote to reject plans for the ironworks proposals was successful by six votes to four with one abstention. However, a bid to reject the second proposal was unsuccessful.
Cllr Allen subsequent proposal approving the scheme was approved by eight votes to three.