Agenda item

Demolition of the existing Church, The Manse and associated storage buildings. Construction of a church and community centre with 2no. residential dwellings.

Public Participation 

·       Luke Gilliam spoke in objection to the application. 

·       Linda Gholson spoke in objection to the application. 

·       David Jode spoke on behalf of Suzie Bedo in objection to the application. 

·       David Beresford-Smith spoke in support of the application. 

·       Stan Woods spoke in support of the application. 

·       Adrian Male spoke in support of the application. 

·       Councillor Robert MacNaughton spoke on behalf of Calne Town Council. 

Senior Planning Officer Ruaridh O’Donoghue presented a report that outlined the proposal for the demolition of the existing Church, The Manse and associated storage buildings and the construction of a church and community centre with 2 No. residential dwellings. Officers recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions. The Planning Officer explained that the site was situated on the edge of Calne and outlined the site plan showing access off Castle Street. He showed the Committee that the site waslargely surrounded by housing and flats, with the park and canal to the south. Part of the site was within the Calne Conservation area, but not the church itself. The Planning Officer stated how the church was considered a non-designated heritage asset, before going on to describe the proposed church. The building was to be essentially split in two, with a worship space on one side and a community space and residential flats on the other, with a central lobby dividing them. The Planning Officer further outlined the proposed mixture of materials and contemporary style, withcar parking along access way and in front of church building. There were to be 20 spaces in total, with four reserved for the residential flats, onefor disabled parkingand three for electric vehicles. Explaining the officer recommendation, the Planning Officer outlined how in the view of officers, new residential development was acceptable in principle, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)was supportive of new community facilities, the site was deemed large enough to accommodate the proposed works, it was considered to behigh-quality design, with the improved energy efficiency also regarded positively. The Planning Officer further stated that the heritage concerns raised were understood but went on to say that the proposal was not considered contrary to policy, with officers deeming the loss of the heritage asset to be justified in light of the benefit outweighing the harm, especially when the plan for memorials to be relocated inside the new church was factored into consideration.The Planning Officer explained that the site was not subject to significant flood risk, nor would it increase the flood risk to nearby areas. The Planning Officer concluded by making the following points: neither the Council ecologist or archaeologist raised any objections;there was sufficient separation provided to avoid odour or loss of light to nearby buildings; no unacceptable noise or disturbance was anticipated from the proposed site and thatthe existing site was in fact not subject to the restrictions to be imposed on the proposed one;highways raised no objection subject to conditions pertaining to cycling. On balance, the Planning Officer summarised that there would be minimal measurable harm, some positive benefits,ergo the granting of planning permission was recommended.  

The Committee asked questions of the existingchurch’s status as a non-designated heritage asset. The Planning Officer explained that Historic England deal with listing buildings, and that they surmised the existing church failed to meet criteria due to significant alterations to it over time and to the building’s relative commonality, ultimately considering it not to be of national importance. He explained that the NPPF allowedthe LPA in some cases to consider a building as a non-designated heritage asset, but that as yet there was no local list despite a desire to compile one. The Planning Officer explained that the feeling of the Conservation Team was that despite not meeting statutory listing requirements, the existing church was entitled to a degree of protection. Councillor Grant asked about parking restrictions on Castle Street around the entrance to thechurch and the potential impact on burials and memorials.Councillor Bucknell asked about the capabilities of the existing and proposedchurch and enquired as to whether the existing building could be updated and whether a tasteful refurbishment would aid the church’s bid to be listed. The Planning Officer noted that there were deemed to be complex and problematic structural issues with the existing building to the point that it was more viable to replace the building. Councillor Lay asked about whether 16 parking spaces for the church was adequate, to which the Planning Officer explained that there was no requirement to provide parking, and thatofficers had broadly discounted parking as a material concern due to alternative access possibilities. He also observed that there was less parking and more seating in the existing church than the proposed one. Councillor Cape asked about the sustainability of the proposed building and why it was not carbon neutral. The Planning Officer responded that there was no requirement for proposed buildings to be carbon neutral andstated that the fact the proposed site was more thermally efficient and airtight was deemed a positive in the eyes of officers despite a lack of total carbon neutrality, but confirmed for Councillor Cape that the exact improvements in sustainability were left unquantified. Councillor Berry sought information on the view of the Conservation Officer. The Planning Officer explained that in informal conversations with the Conservation Officer, they had suggested they would object to the application, but ultimately noofficial objection was submitted.  

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above. 

In response to Councillor Robert MacNaughton describing the Calne Town Council meeting in which the application in question was discussed, the Chairman declared that he was himself a member of Town Calne Council and was likely present at their meeting regarding the application.  

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Ian Thorn, accepted that the facilities being proposed were superior to the existing ones, but noted a number of key factors that the applicant must prove have been fully addressed. The first of these was parking. Councillor Thorn expressed concerns over the capacity of the proposed parking spaces, especially given the constraints to on-street parking nearby. The second was the application’s neighbourhood impact, which he asserted had beenevidenced by the public speakers in attendance. He noted that Castle House, adjacent to the development,was a listed buildingthat warranted protection. Finally, Councillor Thorn spoke to the fabric of the existing building and the potential for preservation. He concluded by saying that he recognised the benefits of the proposed application but wanted to ensure that the aforementioned factors had been wholly considered.  

The Chairman asked the Senior Planning Officer to briefly address some of the concerns raised by members of the public. On parking, the Planning Officer referred to the uplift in parking compared to the existing situation, noting that there was unlikely to be a severe impact on the nearby area from cars parked elsewhere due to the nearby car park and the alternative transport routes. He advised that any damage to outside properties during construction would be a private matter and not one for the LPA but stated that the applicant would be expected to providea construction management statement to ensure accountability. He also clarified that the applicant had no remit to remove any trees that were not owned by the applicant.  

At the start of the debate, Councillor Berry moved that the officer recommendation be accepted and planning permission granted. Councillor Lay seconded the motion.  

Councillor Berry commented on the difficulties posed by upsetting the balance in the community. Councillor Lay noted a fondness for history and ancient architecture, but posed the question of its future should it not be as a church. She explained that she understood the apprehension of local residents but speculated as to the proposed church’s positive future impact. She also advisedthe public present from Castle House that the Party Wall Act would come into force should the wall between the two sites be damaged during potential construction. She observed that parking was not ideal but was at least an improvement on the existing situation. Turning again to the public present, Councillor Lay sought to reassure them that any food waste would most likely be responsibly disposed of in the proposed café. Councillor Bucknell described the application as incredibly finely balanced, butnoted that several concerns were immaterial, including odour disruption, the future of the existing church and car parking, and that the application boiled down to the debate surrounding whether the existing church should be demolished and rebuilt, or preserved and refurbished. He expressed a reluctance to reward the fact that the church was in such a poor state by granting permission to demolish it, and posed the question of why one would knock down a building when one can save it, especially in the case of a heritage asset.As such, Councillor Bucknell explained that his gut feeling was not to support it. Councillor Threlfall asked about hours of use, and was informed that at present there were no restrictions in place at all. She noted that while the existing church looked good online, it was in an altogether sorry state when she visited the site in person, and said that The Manse was anunattractive building. Accordingly, Councillor Threlfall stated that she fell on the side of favouring the proposal on account of not believing the existing building to be worth saving in its current condition.  

Councillor Grant echoed the views of Councillor Bucknell but noted that parking was material and important. Activities outside worship would draw large crowds that the car park would not accommodate. He referred to John Sutherland’s advice on the role of church buildings in modern use and the perks of intelligent conversion. He explained that in his view it was clearly the intention of Calne Town Council to designate the existing church, and it was already recognised by the LPA as a non-designated asset, meaning that a compelling reason was needed to demolish it. On balance, he believed that the application should be rejected and that the applicant be asked to consider how to best restore the existing building.  

Councillor Greenman referred to the fineness of the building in its heyday, but agreed with Councillor Threlfall that it was not currently fit for purpose, remarking thateven if not to the same extent as demolishing it, any attempt to restore and refurbish the existing building would still create significant disruption.  

Councillor Berry noted that the policy in planning applications is broadly that “the answer is yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no”. The Conservation Officer had no official comment so there was no reason to dispute the officer recommendation. Councillor Berry was keen to encouraged neighbourly conduct from the Baptist church, but said it was not in the LPA’s gift to enforce that. Planning, he stated, was a legal procedure, not an emotional one, and they must support this application if they were to stand by their duty as a Committee.  

The Chairman clarified with Councillor Bucknell that the interior space would be enhanced in the proposed church on account of the Manse being redeveloped and noted that the construction methods employed would need to be closely watched, even if the conservation can only be considered so much as the church itself lies outside of it.  

Resolved:  

That Planning Permission be GRANTED, with authority delegated to the Acting Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.