Listed church conversion at Church of the Holy Innocents, Dewsbury

“Proposed external alterations to the building include the installation of rooflights on the lower plane of the east aisle and chancel. The original church doors are to be refurbished, while all existing architectural details of the building will be retained and preserved.”

“Proposed alterations within the curtilage include the creation of a residential car park with capacity for seven vehicles. The existing access will be widened to facilitate vehicle entry and exit. A new public footpath will be provided, linking the graveyard to Vicarage Road. Soft landscaping will be introduced between the parking area and the graveyard to create a visual buffer.”

“This Grade II listed church, designed by Mallinson and Healey and constructed in 1858–1859, is a prominent historic building featuring a spire, stone pulpit, and listed gate piers. The church sits within a large cemetery that includes access paths running through the churchyard.”

“The church and its surrounding curtilage is accessed via Vicarage Road. It consists of the church building and a graveyard. Several protected trees (reference 24/94/T) are located within the curtilage. Residential properties lie to the east along Selbourne Road, while to the west is Savile Road, a category B road.”

“Aligned Listed Building Consent application - 2025/90441 - Listed Building Consent for conversion of existing listed church to 2 dwellings, forming new residents car park, external amenity spaces and associated works – Pending decision…”

“2024 - The applicant has previously engaged with the Council’s pre-application advice service, submitting a proposal for the conversion of the church into two dwellings and the creation of a car park. The current proposal, which is the subject of this application, represents a modified version of that earlier scheme, incorporating feedback provided by Officers through the pre-application process.”

“In conclusion, the proposed development will secure the long-term, viable use of a vacant listed church building. The scheme has been designed to deliver a sensitive conversion that conserves the building’s historic and architectural significance. Significant weight has been given to the conservation of the designated heritage asset in this case.”

“While it is recognised that the proposal will involve the partial loss of Urban Green Space, the removal of four protected trees, and a reduction in the existing grassed landscape, these impacts are considered proportionate.”

“KC Highways Development Management – No objection, subject to conditions.”

“KC Environmental Health – No objection, subject to conditions.”

“The conversion of residential dwellings would lead to a conflict between the residents and people observing graves. • Some of the gravestones are in close proximity to the church that is set to be converted. • Residents in outdoor areas would create noise that can be heard within the graveyard. • The outlook from residential properties would lead to an overlooking impact to the people observing the graves.”

“Screening should be provided between the residential properties and graveyard. • Graves have previously been vandalised and this may occur in the future. • Soil will be contaminated from burials and is not safe for occupancy. • The changes risk disturbing the graves and would permanently alter the sanctity of the site. • An area of the graveyard will be converted into a space for private parking • Cars will be visible from the adjacent properties.”

“RESOLVED – That consideration of the application be deferred and that the Head of Planning and Development be requested to: (i) Review and strengthen the conditions in respect of, but not limited to: (a) The internal works. To include specification of the retention/ preservation/re- use of internal features including the war memorial.”

“A recorded vote was taken, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42(5), as set out below: For: Councillors Bellamy, Davies, Homewood, Lee-Richards, McCarthy, Scott and Sokhal (7 votes) Against: 0 votes…”