Listed church office conversion at Agar Road, Illogan Highway, Redruth

What was proposed

The application sought consent to convert three listed Methodist buildings into offices, retaining the main buildings and adding internal and external works.

“This application seeks listed building consent for the works associated with the conversion of three, individually listed grade II Illogan Highway Methodist Church buildings, which comprise the disused Church, Sunday School and Hall buildings on Agar Road, Redruth. Listed building consent is solely required for all works of demolition, alteration or extension to a listed building that affect its character as a…”

“Listed building consent is sought for the works associated with the conversion of the disused Church, Sunday School, and Hall buildings, collectively known as Illogan Highway Methodist Church. All three principal buildings are to be retained, with no extensions proposed. The dilapidated outbuilding at the rear is to be demolished, along with a small section of the front boundary wall, to widen the existing access onto the highway.”

Officer report

The site and its buildings

The site contains three separately listed grade II buildings reflecting three stages of Methodist worship, with the main church retaining significant historic features.

“The site is occupied by Illogan Highway Methodist Church buildings, which comprise the three principal buildings: a former Methodist Church, Sunday School and Hall. The three buildings are all separately listed at grade II and these individual listings reflect the important development of the site for Methodist worship over three phases. The school and hall buildings were originally chapels and as the congregation grew a new chapel was built beside the previous one.”

“Historic England’s guidance for Methodist and Nonconformist chapels in Cornwall explains that once a chapel is no longer used for worship, a new use must be found, with the level of alteration depending on the type of reuse. Low impact uses, such as arts spaces, require minimal change, while residential conversions typically involve subdivision and loss of historic features, which may harm the building’s significance.”

Officer report

Earlier advice and applications

The scheme followed pre-application advice, revisions and a site meeting after an earlier planning application was refused.

“This scheme benefits from firstly a preapp site visit attended by both the present Conservation Officer and Planning Officer (PA23/00436/Preapp) in 2023, and secondly, following refusal of the initial planning application (PA25/01684), with negative comments from both HEP and Historic England (HE), and another site meeting on 3/12/2025 with the applicant, architect, builder and planning case officer to underline reasons for the refusal and to guide how a more sensitive…”

“It was recommended that the applicants read the detailed preapp reports prepared by both the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer, in order to be informed by the principles of development and adaptive re-use of historic methodist chapels. It should be noted, that in order to understand the significance of Methodist church buildings (especially those that are nationally designated), a specialist Methodist Chapel…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the works would limit heritage harm, retain important features and provide a sustainable future for the buildings.

“The full extent of the works can be reviewed on the detailed floor and elevation plans and are discussed within the Historic Impact Assessment. By way of overview, with regards to the Methodist Church, the proposal would retain key historic features, including the gallery, rostrum and organ, with adaptations to accommodate the proposed office use.”

“Overall, it is considered that reasonable efforts have been made to mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the heritage assets and the works proposed are reasonably necessary to secure the long-term use of the highly constrained site.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Historic England and Historic Environment Planning considered the revised scheme acceptable after changes retained key historic features.

“Historic England (16 February 2026) On 3 rd December 2025, Historic England commented to advise that they had “very strong concerns about the proposals where they relate to the 20th century Methodist church”, stati ng that “the scheme will result in very high levels of harm being caused to the building’s interior, which are unjustified.” The full set of comments can be reviewed on the Online Planning Register.”

“Historic Environment Planning (18 February 2026) Summary Whilst the principle of adaptive reuse for the two older buildings has been supported from the HEP context, issues of internal and external significance for the largest and most recent Methodist Chapel, as well as the internal design of the adjacent older Methodist Chapel, has resulted in months of revisions and ongoing consultation in order to advise a scheme which promotes a detailed understanding of HE…”

Officer report

Concerns raised

The parish council, a councillor and residents raised concerns about parking, dangerous access, traffic, damage and losing a valued community facility.

“The Design and Access Statement at paragraph 5 of Section 10 says, “By carefully managing access, parking, and boundary features, the proposals ensure that the setting of the chapel is preserved while providing the practical facilities necessary for its successful reuse as office accommodation.” This is untrue for the following reasons: a.”

“Information Classification: PUBLIC That Carn Brea Parish Council object to PA25/06804 on the following grounds; (1) There is an absence any clear and convincing evidence demonstrated in the application that the loss of the use of the site as a community facility, recognised within Policy CF2 of the Carn Brea Neighbourhood Plan 2024-2030 as being of significant importance to the local community would be justified by any of the circumstances set out in Policy 4.4 of the…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Electoral Division Member said she had nothing further to add to her earlier presentation on the associated application.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the effect on the listed building and noted that heritage consultees had raised no concerns with it.

“Following the presentations Officers responded to Members’ questions regarding:-”

“The Committee could look at the impact on the character of the listed building. However, it was noted that Historic England and Historic Environment Planning had raised no concerns with this; and 2. A condition was recommended to secure evidence to be provided following the investigation into condition of stone underneath external render to determine appropriate finish.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Councillor Ball proposed approval, Councillor M Thomas seconded it, and the committee approved unanimously with ten votes in favour.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Ball, seconded by Councillor M Thomas, and on a vote of 10 votes in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, it was:-”

“RESOLVED that Application No. PA25/06804 be approved.”

Minutes