Chapel restoration works at Saint Pauls Methodist Church, Rochdale Road, Shaw, Oldham

What was proposed

The application proposed partial chapel and Sunday School reconstruction, repairs, a new gable, graveyard restoration, railings refurbishment and internal alterations.

“Proposal: Partial rebuild of the chapel walls, formation of salvaged stone storage enclosure within the footprint of the chapel. Restoring the existing graveyard to the front of the chapel and Refurbishment/Repair of 19thC iron railings. Erection of New Permanent Gable wall to Sunday School/Chapel. Replacement to Entrance Door Sets to Sunday School and Internal works including repairing damaged timber floors, repairs to Escape Staircase…”

“The application proposes the partial reconstruction of the Church and Sunday School buildings, including the reinstatement of a collapsed gable wall, the formation of a new permanent gable, and repairs to the structural and architectural elements. The scheme…”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a Grade II listed Methodist church, a Sunday School, a former nursery and two car parks.

“The site is located on the northern side of Rochdale Road and is flanked by Chapel Street to the east, King Albert Street to the north, and Crompton way is located to the west. The site comprises the Grade II listed St Paul’s Methodist Church. The original chapel was built in 1863 and designed by architect James Simpson. The Sunday School to the rear was built in 1871 The former nursery build was a 20 th century addition.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because repair, stabilisation, viable reuse, public access and community benefits would outweigh the identified heritage harm, subject to conditions.

“The proposed scheme would secure the stabilisation, partial reconstruction and viable reuse of the listed building and associated Sunday School. It would significantly improve the condition and appearance of the site, secure its long-term occupation, and deliver meaningful public access and community benefit.”

“The development would result in harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building and non-designated archaeological remains. This harm has been carefully considered and is afforded considerable weight in accordance with the NPPF. However, the scheme would deliver substantial public benefits, including the repair, stabilisation and viable reuse of a heritage asset in a poor and deteriorating condition, alongside enhanced public access and community use.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Historic England recognised heritage benefits but regretted that the chapel would not be rebuilt, while other heritage consultees considered the harm substantial and objected.

“Historic England Historic England welcomes the submission of the Heritage Statement and Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, noting these provide a comprehensive understanding of the site, including the extent of burials.”

“They acknowledge that whilst the proposals would result in harm, the consolidation and repair of the remaining structure, retention of salvaged materials, and restoration of the graveyard and railings would deliver heritage benefits. It is regretted that the chapel is not proposed to be rebuilt.”

Officer report

What residents said

There were 196 objections, including concerns about heritage, traffic, parking, residential disturbance, graves, religious use and transparency.

“Surrounding streets too narrow for increased traffic flow. • Risk of congestion, queuing, and restricted emergency access. • Insufficient spaces for projected visitor numbers (some estimates up to 300–500 people). • Loss of existing on-street parking for residents and local businesses. • Concerns about overspill parking onto surrounding residential streets. • Increased vehicle movements leading to congestion in Shaw centre.”

“Religion & Disturbance to the Burial Ground • Perceived use of the site as a mosque or Islamic centre. • Potential Loss of Christian heritage. • Concerns that a Christian church and burial site would be repurposed for a different faith. • Concerns about future use or expansion of a mosque: • Potential inter-faith conflicts. • Potential disrespect to the existing (Christian) burial ground. • Belief that the site contains over 400 graves; strong opposition to disturbance.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

An objector submitted written evidence and a ward member addressed the committee.

How members voted

The approval vote was tied, and a second tied vote on refusal was resolved by the Chair’s casting vote.

“On being put to the vote 4 VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR OF APPROVAL and 4 VOTES were cast AGAINST with 0 ABSTENTIONS.”

“The Chair used their casting vote IN FAVOUR OF REFUSAL.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the works would formalise the chapel’s permanent loss and the public benefits were not considered to outweigh substantial heritage harm.

“RESOLVED: That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The proposed works would consolidate and formalise the permanent loss of the former chapel, which historically formed the principal component of the Grade II Listed Building. By failing to provide for its reconstruction, the development would cause substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.”

Minutes