Church alterations and extension at Tillicoultry Baptist Church, Tillicoultry

What was proposed

The application sought alterations and extensions to the front, side and rear of an existing church and hall.

“CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL Report to Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 18 th June 2026 Subject: Application 26/00038/FULL for Planning Permission to make alterations and to add an extension to the front, side and rear of an existing church at Tillicoultry Report by: Mark Dunlop, Principal Planner 1.0 Purpose 1.1.”

Officer report

Earlier application

This was a resubmission of an application refused in 2025, with the previous refusal reasons given substantial weight.

“For these reasons, the Councillor has made the case that it is in the public interest for the proposal to be decided by the Planning Committee. Recommendations 2.1. For the reasons set out in the Appendix 1 and as assessed in section 3.0, it is recommended that the application is refused. Considerations 3.1. Background and relevant site history 3.2.”

“No review was sought by the Applicant following the previous decision; therefore, these previous reasons for refusal are material planning considerations. Although a planning authority is not legally bound by its earlier decision, decision-makers are expected to act consistently unless there is clear justification for departing from an earlier conclusion.”

Officer report

What people said

Nine representations supported the proposal, one objected, and the Scottish Wildlife Trust raised concerns about protected bats and birds.

“Publicity and Representations 3.12. The application was advertised in the Alloa Advertiser on 11 th March 2026. Eleven representations have been received. One general comment was received from the Scottish Wildlife Trust. In summary this iterated that both bat roosts and bird nests are protected under law and may be features of the site.”

“Planning Authority Comments: An informative will be applied should the application be approved. One comment was received in objection to the proposal. In summary it suggested that on the basis that the new design does not address the reasons for refusing the previous planning application, the same decision should be made.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and a church trustee and elder attended, while the committee also heard from objectors.

Questions and committee view

Members questioned the planning officers and objectors before considering approval contrary to the officer recommendation.

“The report was introduced by Mark Dunlop, Principal Planner and supported by Jacob Muff, Team Leader. Members of the Planning Committee had the opportunity to put questions to both [name withheld] and [name withheld].”

“Contrary to the officer’s recommendation set out in the report, that the Committee agree to approve the application subject to standard conditions.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors moved and seconded approval contrary to the officer recommendation, with the decision recorded as seven.

“Moved by Councillor Denis Coyne. Seconded by Councillor Jane McTaggart. Decision Contrary to the officer’s recommendation set out in the report, that the Committee agree to approve the application subject to the standard conditions and reason as set out below: 7”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was approved subject to standard conditions because reuse, improved condition and wider local vitality outweighed the visual harm.

“Standard Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission or, as the case may be, when the permission is deemed to be granted. Reasons: As required by Section 58 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Prior to any above-ground construction works, details of external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.”

“Reason for decision Although it is acknowledged that the proposed front extension would result in a degree of visual harm to the existing building and the surrounding character, the overall benefits of the proposal including; the re-use of a long-vacant property; the associated improvements to its condition; and the wider contribution to local vitality; are considered, on balance, to outweigh the identified harm.”

Minutes