Plan to convert old chapel into apartments turned down after hearing houses were ‘crampy’

Il était prévu de convertir l'ancien Mission Church Hall en huit studios et un appartement de deux chambres <i>(Image: LDRS)</i>”  data-src=”–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MA–/″ datarc8″ “–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MA–/″></div>
<p><figcaption class=There were plans to convert the former Mission Church Hall into eight studios and a two-bedroom apartment (Image: LDRS)

A promoter’s project to convert an old chapel into a Brighton in apartments failed on appeal.

Property developer Mike Stimpson wanted to convert the former Mission Church Hall, in Bentham Road, Brighton, into eight studios and a two-bedroom apartment.

Brighton and Hove The city council’s planning committee refused permission in November last year, with councilors calling the proposals “poor”.

The planning committee suggested that Mr. Stimpson should come up with a better plan.

He said the refusal dashed his hopes of renting the flats for ‘social rents’ under a planning deal linked to another scheme in Portslade.

But four of Portslade’s homes – out of 14 planned on the corner of Foredown Road and Fox Way – would be classed as “affordable” homes.

Mr Stimpson said in his appeal that the studios met minimum standards national standard and the two bedroom apartment exceeded the required floor space.

His agent, Lewis and Co Planning, disputed objections from people living nearby that the scheme would be “neighborless”, causing noise and disruption, saying Hanover had a high density of terraced houses and flats.

Even though the hall has not been used by the community for over 30 years, the town planning inspector who handled the appeal was advised that a church hall would create noise disturbance from chanting and gatherings .

Town planning inspector Robin Buchanan dismissed the appeal, saying the pitched roof of a second-floor apartment left a ‘significant’ part of the living space with a ceiling height of less than 1 .5 meters.

He said: “I find that the proposal would not provide satisfactory interior living conditions for the future occupants of the two-bedroom apartment in terms of usable space and of the rear ground floor studios in terms of relates to noise, disturbance and privacy.

“It would also not provide a satisfactory outdoor living condition for any of the apartments in terms of usable space.”

Comments are closed.