Demolition plans for chapel and parish hall in Fulwood get the go-ahead

St. Martin's Chapel on Broadway shut its doors last September, faced with what its operators say were spiralling energy costs and an unaffordable repair bill.

Preston City Council’s planning committee has now approved a new facility on the site in Broadway, which will be less than half the size of the current building. The vacated land will be given over to five shared ownership properties and nine apartments which will initially be targeted at the over-55s.

Broughton Parish says that the arrangement is the only way it can afford to continue operating from the location.

But more than 200 objections were lodged to the proposals, with concerns focused on the loss of a bowling green and Guides hut on the site - and whether the replacement building could accommodate all the groups which used its predecessor.

Objector Pat Brand claimed that published accounts showed that the current facility is financially viable.

“It is fit for purpose and its footprint can accommodate all the parish needs. The new building will not replace like for like and there will be little community fellowship left in this area

“There was no consultation at all with the public [and] people in the community were not given the opportunity to fundraise [for the necessary repairs],” Ms. Brand told the committee.

Also speaking against the proposal, resident Peter Hayes reminded committee members of their responsibility to preserve open spaces promoting physical activity.

“You cannot allow them to concrete over the bowling green - it is well-used and self-financing. Bowling isn’t limited to the over-65s, but many over-65s seeking to be active are limited to bowling,” Mr Hayes said.

“I do wish we could sit down and have a sensible conversation with the owners - this site has got tremendous potential, if only they’d talk to us.”

But Canon Andrea Titterington, a lay minister for the Church of England parish, said it had explored all possible options and undertaken a public consultation into its plans - but had been left with no choice other than demolition.

“[The building] requires extensive immediate repairs at £150,000 just to meet current electricity regulations,” explained Canon Titterington, adding that the parish insurers were also insisting on replacement of the roof.

“The current layout of two big function rooms is neither practical nor flexible. The design for the new building was based upon the community groups that previously used it - and that’s why most of them can be accommodated. Several groups have already contacted us about coming back.

“The parish and community will benefit [from the plans] - this is not the loss of a community facility.”

Papers presented to the committee stated that the only groups that would be unable to make use of the new facility were the guides, hall players and bowlers. But it was noted that there are 11 other bowling clubs within three miles of the site.

The meeting also heard that energy bills for the venue had topped £1,200 per month, whereas the proposed replacement building had secured grants to help it be more energy efficient.

“The building was being used to such an extent in order to pay the bills that the parish couldn’t even use it itself,” Canon Titterington added, outlining plans for more work with young people and the elderly once the new facility is completed.

Several committee members acknowledged that their decision was finely balanced, but most of the discussion focused on the issue of parking. Although the 14 spaces proposed for the apartments were deemed acceptable, the 24 reserved for the community facility fall below the maximum which can be demanded by the authority.

“I know how poor parking is around the location,” said Cllr Neil Darby.

“It feels a little bit tone deaf for us to pass an application that’s going to actively reduce the number of spaces available at what will still be a community building and therefore will be a magnet for cars.”

But fellow committee member Cllr Peter Moss was not persuaded, even though he acknowledged the “justifiable emotions” which had been on display since the plans were put forward.

“I understand the emotional ties and the care people have for this particular building.

“But are you really telling me that we’re going to lose this facility - because nobody is suggesting there will be anything [else] in its place - as well as additional housing for the over 55s, because the car parking isn’t quite as we’d want it to be?”

After almost 90 minutes of debate, the proposals were passed by a majority of eight to two, with one abstention.

If the over-55s apartments do not sell to occupants in the intended age group after a fixed period, they would then be offered on the open market. In that case, the developer would become liable for a contribution towards school places in the area.