Julian Dunkerton’s plans for No 131 Promenade in Cheltenham get the green light after council vote this evening.
The council considered two seating area plans for 129-133. One was a glass structure with ironwork, and six voted against it, while four voted for it, with one abstention.
The second plan had a metal pergola featuring a retractable roof. Eight voted to approve it, but three voted against this plan. Solar panels were on the plans too, for the roofs of 125-127 and 133. They also wanted to remove a conservatory by the side of 133.
The chairman, Garth Barnes, changed the meeting’s order, and three other small applications went first. Dunkerton and others waited fifteen minutes. White marquees had been outside 131 and 133 since October 2020 to help with outdoor dining during the pandemic.
Rules changed, and keeping the marquees was proposed, but the council rejected this in November 2022. A planning inspector agreed in summer 2023, and the council wants the marquees removed now.
Dunkerton submitted plans in October for a permanent terrace. He aimed to protect 130+ jobs and also wanted to boost Cheltenham’s appeal. Over 2,000 people signed a petition for the plans, however some objected, including groups like Historic England.
Officers had concerns, though. They worried about harm to listed buildings and felt the plans went against policies. They suggested refusing both proposals.
Dunkerton said both options fit the architecture and that he worked with local experts on the designs.
Robert Maitland spoke against the plans, saying they would hurt Cheltenham. He noted damage to buildings and the area, mentioning reduced attraction. He lauded the officer’s report.
Maitland made three points: safeguarding heritage was essential, expert advice was unanimous, and there was no public benefit.
Maitland declared expert advice was overwhelming, stating the plans would harm the town. He asserted no benefits would offset this damage and suggested exploring other options, hoping the committee would refuse the application.
Dunkerton questioned the refusal’s benefit, noting few objected while over 2,000 supported it, stating the support was overwhelming. He described a beautiful garden that would be used by everyone.
Dunkerton said he invested £150 million in Cheltenham, claiming it made 1000 jobs. He declared his love for Cheltenham and noted past awards for his work.
He asked if the plan was good for the town, citing similar examples nearby, including outdoor seating and town hall work. He said his plan was unique and would enhance the town.
Dunkerton said his building made the town special and asked if they would risk it, warning 100 jobs were at risk, claiming this was the only way to proceed, stating the industry was in turmoil.
Dunkerton emphasized a chance to save jobs, stating it would allow him to invest more.
Dunkerton reminded everyone 131 was empty, saying he spent lots of money reviving it. He said it was a fantastic opportunity and would be the right thing for Cheltenham.
He called it fundamental for the town and the economy, feeling hospitality is as vital as racing.
Dunkerton called it a prime location, saying the atmosphere was legendary. He says it is unique and people talk about it.
Dunkerton stated people visit it and they know it, describing races and festivals there. He asked to improve it and save jobs.
His speech received great applause. Frank Allen spoke during the debate, saying the report was well done, adding that he had much to consider.
Allen mentioned economic benefit, arguing conservation could continue because of the structures. He felt the pergola would not harm the building, warning harm could occur if 131 closed.
Allen declared he would speak against the advice. Tony Oliver also had concerns, feeling keeping the business profitable was best, as this would protect heritage assets as well.
Oliver said it was popular, claiming people wondered why it was turned down. He said it brings people to Cheltenham, noting Cheltenham is vibrant, but cautioned it could change. He announced he would support it.
Simon Wheeler echoed this sentiment, saying some frontages were unattractive, particularly along the Promenade.
Wheeler noted the buildings were iconic, describing hiding their light, feeling that was a shame. He stated if they don’t agree, they won’t get anything and feared car parks and ugly hoardings, suggesting they might end up with those.
Barbara Clark disliked the marquees, saying they could use a wash. She agreed with Allen’s comments and said young people are struggling to find work.
Clark declared that employment mattered and the economic benefit outweighed the others. She claimed Cheltenham was overperforming.
Barnes asked the public to stop applauding. Paul Baker spoke about heritage, saying the town was passionate about its heritage.
Baker stated Covid created the opportunity for marquees, saying they had created income. He presumed the business was successful pre-Covid, adding that buildings were meant to be seen, but that would get lost.
Baker said Dunkerton invested, but felt he was in a difficult spot to vote.
Baker stated “damned if we do, damned if we don’t.” He mentioned he disliked both schemes, and Allen suggested a compromise: reject one, approve the other.
Barnes described it as a “difficult situation,” saying the committee thought about history. He felt they were “losing what is important” and said economic claims lacked justification.
Barnes asserted that protecting Cheltenham mattered, saying this role belongs to the councillors, describing them as guardians. He concluded there was only one answer: they must support the advice.
Barnes cautioned without support, they risked credibility, noting Cheltenham might lose Georgian town status. A vote rejected the ironworks plan, the vote count being six to four, with one abstention. A bid to reject the other plan failed.
Allen’s proposal passed, approving the second scheme. The vote tally was eight to three.