Controversial proposals to demolish the redundant Catholic Church of the Good Shepherd at Batheaston and build houses have been revised.
The church of the Good Shepherd in Batheaston | Image © Google Street View / Google 2023
However, the changes proposed by the Clifton Diocese have failed to impress the parish council and many local residents.
The latest scheme is now being considered by Bath & North East Somerset Council which is due to make a decision by the end of the month.
The church at Northend is a rare example of Brutalist architecture in the Bath area, and the council has identified it as a non-designated heritage asset since the initial planning application was submitted last autumn.
Historic England has however dismissed two requests to add the building to its statutory list of designated heritage assets, concluding that while the Good Shepherd has local interest as an unusual mid-20th century church, “it falls short of the level of interest required for it to be listed in the national context”.
The revised scheme says whilst the church has some local heritage interest which would be lost, it has been shown that reasonable efforts have been considered for the retention of the building and that its demolition is “the most sensible route” for a sustainable development and beneficial reuse of the site.
Also known as the Batheaston Mass Centre, it closed during the pandemic. With declining numbers attending mass, it was judged to not be viable to reopen.
The diocese has thanked consultees and members of the public for the comments provided on the initial planning application and says it has “listened carefully” to comments and made “significant positive revisions to the design”.
They include amendments to the height, scale and appearance of the houses, amendments to the car parking at the rear, including a reduction in the number of spaces from seven to six, and the removal of the dropped kerb access from Brow Hill.
Other amendments have been put forward to achieve energy and sustainability standards, including solar slate roof tiles.
Batheaston Parish Council remains opposed to the redevelopment, which is in the village conservation area, saying that it is “massively overscale development for the location” and highlighting the severe lack of parking in the area, partly due to more demand and partly to the loss of on-street parking spaces in the past few years.
The objection letter adds: “Fewer houses and a much more traditional approach to the design is vital than the ones submitted.
“Finally, we believe that there is a possible community use of the building such as a day nursery, which parish councillors and others have discussed, and have put to the current owners.
“We would like the opportunity to develop a case for a viable community enterprise of some sort, to renovate the church and provide much-needed amenity/ies for the village.”
Comments of objection on B&NES Council’s website in response to the revised plans include: “The height of the proposed buildings is still a major concern, the materials to be used are no way close to anything that any other property in close proximity has been constructed from.
“This is clearly for profit only and no consideration has been given to residents that these poorly designed buildings will have such an impact on.”
Another commented: “The revised application has disregarded comments and concerns previously made by 85 local objectors and has submitted a revision which not only ignores local concerns of residents but increases the scale of the project which was already larger than the current scale of the building.”
A report commissioned by the applicant’s planning consultants says alternative uses for the property have been considered but are all unviable.
Community use has been ruled out as there is already a newly-built village hall and the Rhymes Pavilion is also available for hire.
Office use was another option but the prospect was discussed with a serviced office/co-working provider, who considered the space unviable.
Also rejected was the potential for a nursery or restaurant as too much work would be involved, and it was considered unviable for indoor sports.
