Flats plan for historic former church-turned-auction rooms in Jarrow to go ahead after appeal allowed

The former Park Methodist Church, in Bede Burn Road, Jarrow, was most recently used as an auction house but has been vacant since a fire caused extensive damage in November, 2017, causing the roof to collapse.

Proposals from applicant Premier Leisure, which were revealed in 2020, aimed to clear the site and build an apartment complex in its place.

However the plans prompted a campaign to preserve the historic building, which was originally constructed in 1885.

At a crunch meeting in September, 2022, South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee voted to reject the apartment plans, which were said to be “out of character with the area”.

The decision involved a majority of councillors on the panel voting against the advice of council planning officers, who had recommended the scheme for approval.

The applicant later lodged an appeal against the planning refusal, with a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.

In a decision report published this month, the Government-appointed planning inspector allowed the appeal.

This means that the apartment development, and associated demolition of the former church, can now go ahead.

A planning inspector report published on September 21, 2023, sets out the reasons for the decision.

It was noted that the building had been identified as a “non-designated heritage asset” and was a “valued part of the community’s local history”, given the “extensive number” of objections to the loss of the building.

However the planning inspector said the fire-damaged building’s condition was “detracting from the character and appearance of the area” and that developers said it was “not viable”to reconstruct the church building to convert it to residential uses.

The planning inspector’s report added: “While a large number of residents object to the loss of the use of the building as a church, I note the officer report confirms that the building ceased being a church in 2014 and the last use of the building was as an auction house.

“As such, the scheme does not propose the loss of a church use.

“Some residents have expressed concern that there is too much change in the area, and I have given careful consideration to the submitted petition with regard to concerns of the effect of allowing the proposal on residents’ health and wellbeing.

“Moreover, while I acknowledge suggestions that the appeal site should be redeveloped for a community use, a café or turned into a park, I am required to determine this appeal in relation to the use proposed by the appellant which is for housing”.

The planning inspector said the apartment complex would “convey a sensitive consideration of its surroundings” and would “not be unduly incongruous”.

It was concluded that the proposal would “relate positively to the character and appearance of the area” and “reinforce local identity having particular regard to scale and proportions, alignment, form, use of materials and architectural detailing”.

In response to concerns about parking and congestion, it was noted that the apartment complex would not have an “adverse effect” on highway safety.

The planning inspector also concluded there would be “no material harm tothe living conditions” of neighbours living in flats on Victoria Terrace or those living opposite the appeal site on Sussex Street.

The appeal decision report added: “The appeal scheme has a modern design with glazed Juliet balconies and under croft parking and an overall different built form and massing to the neighbouring properties.

“However, it has been designed in such a way that both aspects facing the street would provide visual interest in this prominent corner location and would contribute to a legible hierarchy of buildings and spaces in the locality.

“Moreover, the architectural detailing would reflect some of the key characteristics of the area and in doing so would result in a clear sense of integration both in the immediate street scene and wider area”.

A separate application for costs was also made by the appellant, however this was refused by the planning inspector.

The full appeal decision report can be found on the planning inspectorate’s website by searching reference: APP/A4520/W/23/3315326