General Purposes Sub-Committee: July 14th 1924
The General Manager stated that in view of the fact that the inhabitants of Northfield were so scattered, and that no provision was at present made in the Kings Norton and Rubery Districts, facilities should be afforded in the latter districts, and that a suitable working arrangement should be made whereby branches at Northfield, Rubery, Kings Norton and Longbridge could be worked by one staff.
578 RESOLVED:- That the General Manager be authorised to obtain suitable rooms for branch bank purposes in Kings Norton, Rubery and Longbridge, and that his suggestions regarding the working of these branches in conjunction with Northfield, be approved.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: October 14th 1924
594 On Minute No 578 (Branches at Longbridge, etc) the General Manager reported that arrangements had been made to open the Branch of the Bank at Hawkesley Hall on the Longbridge Estate, and that he had been able to secure a room at a weekly rent of 7/6d, the intention being to open the Branch once a week, probably on some evening, but the times would be decided after a public meeting at which Mr Hallas and Councillor Cooper would deliver addresses.0
General Purposes Sub-Committee: December 8th 1924
On Minutes Nos 578 and 594, the General Manager reported that on the authority of the Chairman of the General Committee, he had made arrangements for renting the front room of a house situate at No 4, The Green, Kings Norton, at 7/6d a week, for the purposes of an evening Branch.
He also reported that certain property at the Cotteridge had been brought to his notice, but, in view of the prohibitive prices required, he could not recommend any action being taken with regard thereto.
612 RESOLVED:- That the General Manager's action with reference to the renting of premises at Kings Norton be confirmed, and that no action be taken in regard to the property at Cotteridge above referred to.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: July 13th 1925
766 The General Manager stated that he was of the opinion that it would be well, in addition to having the Branch at the Dogpool Lane Corner of Pershore Road for the use of the Selly Park and Stirchley people, to arrange for another branch at the Cotteridge to serve the residents of the Cotteridge and Kings Norton. He pointed out that the present Stirchley Branch lay between these two points, and did not attract either the Selly Park or Cotteridge people to any appropriate extent.
In the event of these two Branches being set up, it is not anticipated that much difficulty would be experienced in disposing of the present Stirchley premises.
Bank Committee: July 26th 1926
2440 The General Manager reported that certain offers had been received from Miss Grant for selling or leasing of land and properties at Cotteridge to the Bank, but the terms asked were unfavourable, and consequently no action had been taken in the matter.
Land at Cotteridge
Miss Grant has offered land to the Bank at Cotteridge, fronting Middleton Hall Road, at a price of £1,275.
There are 1,600 yards in the area, and she states that she would require an 8ft cartway, and also some of the back land.
As an alternative, Miss Grant suggested that one of the shops on the Pershore Road, which she owns, might be obtained on the Bank paying suitable compensation to the tenant for possession, but she was not prepared to sell such a shop and suggested that the rental would be £150 to £200 per annum.
After consultation with the Chairman, it was decided not to entertain either proposition.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: October 12th 1925
On Minute No 766 (Suggested Branch at Cotteridge) the General Manager reported that the Gas Department had no spare accommodation at their premises at Cotteridge which could be used for a Bank.
790 RESOLVED:- That Minute No 766 be discharged.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: January 9th 1928
Extract from the General Manager's Annual Report for the year ending December 31st 1927:
The position in the Selly Park, Stirchley, and Cotteridge area should be carefully considered. To cover this area, I expressed the view in 1919 that we should provide facilities at Cotteridge and Selly Park, leaving Stirchley out of our arrangements, as the Bournville Works Branch would cater largely for Stirchley people. The Committee, however, elected to open at Stirchley, and buildings are being erected at Selly Park. Neither of these branches will cater for Cotteridge and Kings Norton, where facilities are called for, and yet I do not consider four branches in the Selly Park-Stirchley-Cotteridge area will pay their way.
1217 RESOLVED:- That the question of the branch bank facilities in the area of Selly Park - Stirchley - Cotteridge, be considered at a later date.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: June 11th 1928
On Minute No 1217 (Branch facilities - area, Selly Park, Stirchley and Cotteridge) the General Manager presented the following report:
Report on Branches in the Selly Park, Stirchley and Cotteridge Area.
The fact that the Selly Park premises will be shortly available as a Daily Bank caused me to draw attention, in my annual report in January last, to the question of banking facilities for this particular area.
In order that the Committee may appreciate the position in this area, I have had the accounts at our Stirchley Branch dissected to show the number which might be regarded as Selly Park accounts, the number which might be regarded as Stirchley accounts, and the number which might be regarded as Cotteridge accounts. The boundaries taken for the purpose of this dissection of accounts are shown on the map herewith, and in the area from Selly Park there are already 792 accounts at Stirchley Branch. In the area which may be regarded as Stirchley proper there are 1,748 accounts, and in the Cotteridge area there are 1,320.
In considering the possibilities of development of these areas regard should be had to the population, and a rough estimate taken from the records of the Public Health Department show that there are 6,600 people in the Selly Park area, 9,600 in the Stirchley area, and 10,000 in the Cotteridge area, but at Cotteridge there is a population in what may be termed adjacent areas of 12,000, and 3,500 in adjacent areas at Selly Park.
The Stirchley Branch was decided upon at the instance of Councillor Fryer, who, as a Member of the Bank Committee, was convinced that we should do well to establish a Bank there. My own view at the time was that we should have a Branch at Selly Park, and another one at Cotteridge, leaving Stirchley out of the question, but ultimately the Committee followed the lead of Councillor Fryer. Two premises were bought at Stirchley for the sum of £2,750 freehold, but possession could only be obtained of one shop and house, and certain alterations were made to the premises at a cost of £910, the alterations forming part of a general scheme when possession could be obtained of the adjoining shop and house. Possession of these last named premises entirely depends on the Rent Restriction Act, and although approached on the matter of giving possession, the present tenant is not willing to leave. The premises are totally inadequate, and business is being conducted under serious disadvantages and at considerable risk. There is no strong room, and provision cannot be made for one.
In considering this question, regard must be had to the fact that a Branch exists at Bournville Works, and no doubt a good number of Stirchley people are depositors in that particular Branch. There is also an Evening Branch at Kings Norton, the front room of a house on The Green being used for the purpose.
There would appear to be two ways in which this area could be satisfactorily dealt with:
1. To have a Daily Bank at Selly Park, for which purpose the present buildings have been erected, and to obtain premises at Cotteridge. The Branch at Kings Norton could be transferred to Cotteridge, and the depositorship at Stirchley divided between Selly Park and Cotteridge.
The premises at Stirchley could then be disposed of for the best price obtainable, but we are not likely to obtain now the full amount we paid for the premises, as we bought at a time when prices were higher than they are to-day.
2. To have a Daily Branch at Selly Park, for which the present buildings have been erected.
To utilise the present Stirchley premises as an alternate Daily Branch, and suitably enlarge same when possession can be obtained.
To obtain premises at Cotteridge and establish an alternate Daily Branch.
The present Kings Norton Branch could be merged into the alternate Daily Branch at Cotteridge.
The advantage of alternate Daily Branches would be that the same staff could work two Daily Branches; but the disadvantages are that disappointment would be caused as a result of depositors attending at a Branch on the wrong day of opening. The fact that this trouble was experienced in 1919 led to the Committee abandoning alternate Daily Branches in Saltley, Duddeston, Ladywood and Bearwood.
Having regard to the expenditure involved in the Selly Park buildings, we could scarcely allow these premises to be opened on alternate days only, particularly as Barclays Bank will undoubtedly be opened each day.
Although I dislike alternate Daily Branches, I am convinced that a case cannot be made for three Daily Branches in this area, and there is just a possibility that we might lose considerably from Stirchley depositors if we entirely abandoned the Branch in that area, it would be a little risky to abandon it.
Councillors Poole and Gelling have visited the Stirchley Branch with me, and have toured the Cotteridge, Stirchley and Selly Park districts, and they will be in a position to speak as to the risk which we are carrying under present conditions.
The decision of the Committee is desired on this important matter.
1275 RESOLVED:- That the foregoing report of the General Manager be approved; that arrangements be made for the new Selly Park Branch to be opened as a daily branch; and that consideration of the question of establishing a new branch at Cotteridge be deferred until the effect has been ascertained of the new Selly Park Branch upon the Stirchley Branch, but that the General Manager be directed in the meantime to make enquiries in the Cotteridge area for a suitable site or premises.
Bank Committee: June 18th 1928
3128 The following report of the General Purposes Sub-Committee was presented:
Branch facilities in the Selly Park, Stirchley, and Cotteridge Area.
Your Sub-Committee have given careful consideration to the question of the establishment of branches for this area, which is at present served by the Stirchley Branch where the accommodation is very inadequate and unsatisfactory and also by an evening branch at Kings Norton which is open on Friday evenings.
The Selly Park premises at the corner of Pershore Road and Dogpool Lane will shortly be ready for opening as a daily branch bank which will serve the needs of the Selly Park District, but as the existing Stirchley Branch does not adequately cater for the Cotteridge area your Sub-Committee have considered whether it would be desirable to establish a branch at Cotteridge into which the present Kings Norton Branch could be merged and in this event whether the branch at Stirchley should be continued. Your Sub-Committee have deferred making any definite recommendations until experience has been gained of the effect of the new Selly Park Branch upon Stirchley Branch, both of which will be run for the time being as daily branches. The General Manager will bear in mind the desirability of acquiring suitable premises at Cotteridge and will draw attention to any likely opportunity which may arise of securing premises in that area.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: May 13th 1929
On Minute 1298 the General Manager presented the following report as to proposed facilities for the Cotteridge and King's Norton Areas.
Branch Bank facilities in the Cotteridge and Kings Norton area.
Councillor Fryer has drawn attention to two vacant shops on the Pershore Road at Cotteridge, which he thought might be useful in connection with the establishment of a Branch Bank. I have had a look at both these shops, but in neither case would they be suitable for anything other than a temporary Bank, and this I could not advise.
One shop is situate at No 1837 Pershore Road and has a frontage of 15ft. The rental asked is £104 per annum plus rates, with an understanding that the tenant shall put in a new shop front; a five years lease would be granted with an option of renewal.
The other shop is situate at 1889 Pershore Road and also has a frontage of 15ft. In this connection negotiations are proceeding with the Corporation for permission to bring forward the frontage, and the question of tenancy will not be considered until a decision is received in this respect. The rental paid by the last tenant is stated to have been £120 per annum rising to £130 per annum plus rates, and the new rental would not be at any reduced figure.
Whilst in the area I had a look round at other places, and would draw the attention of the Committee to the accommodation which the Gas Department possesses. I do not know to what extent the whole of the premises are used, but I suggest that the Gas Committee be approached with a view to an arrangement being made for the Bank to occupy one half of the showroom on the ground floor. There is a good deal of space not occupied, and it would appear to me that some re-arrangement and additional building, the requirements of both the Gas Department and the Bank could be met.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: June 10th 1929
1414 On Minute No 1298 (Selly Oak and Bournbrook), the General Manager reported that Councillor Fryer had called his attention to two vacant shops at the Cotteridge which, however, were not suitable to the requirements of the Bank. The Gas Department had also been approached to ascertain whether arrangements could be made for part of their premises and land at Cotteridge to be used for Branch Bank purposes.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: July 8th 1929
1426 On Minute No 1397 (proposed branch at Cotteridge and King's Norton) the General Manager stated that he was awaiting an opportunity to confer with Councillor Hume as to whether arrangements could be made with the Gas Department to accommodate the Bank the in part of their premises at Cotteridge.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: October 14th 1929
On Minutes Nos 1397 and 1426 (Proposed Branch, Cotteridge and King's Norton), the Sub-Committee were informed that Mr Wilde had called attention to certain land in Pershore Road formerly owned by the Midland Railway Company and now in occupation of the Cotteridge Social Club, who had desired Mr Wilde to endeavour to arrange a mortgage thereon. Mr Wilde reported that there was a probability of the Club agreeing to dispose of a suitable area of land sufficient to meet Bank requirements at the price of £1 per square yard, and it was:
1435 RESOLVED:- That the General Manager b e directed to instruct Mr Frank Wilde to continue
negotiations with a view to the purchase of the land at this price.