Childwall church to appeal against refusal of extension plans

A LIVERPOOL church refused permission to build on a graveyard will appeal against the decision.

All Saints Childwall is appealing to the planning inspectorate after city councillors threw out its plans in September. Liverpool council officials had recommended the scheme for approval.
But councillors rejected it a fraught meeting at Liverpool town hall, where church members, the heritage lobby and residents clashed over the only medieval church in Merseyside.
The planning committee ruled a rotunda extension was out of keeping with the fabric of the Grade I-listed building and the conservation area in which it sits.

In a statement the church said: “We remain convinced our original proposal remains a sensitive yet visionary way to enable our beautiful church to be a place for future generations to worship and enjoy.”

TO PASS ON YOUR WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST THE CHURCH WHO ARE APPEALING AGAINST THE DECISION, PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK: AGAIN, THIS IS OUR ONLY CHANCE TO AIR OUR VIEWS AND TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL DECISION UPHELD AS IT SHOULD BE ORIGINALLY!

'Whatever the outcome of the Planning Application is, is God's chosen view, and we will respect his decision".

The above words were spoken by the PCC. And it is now the PCC's view to go against not only their own religion, but also God too, by going against the Planning Application decision. The above statement amazed many.

Since the last Planning Application Meeting, there have been lots of information that has been pointed out - not all in a good light. There have been many people who have quite rightly, complained to the Bishop of Liverpool about being called 'evil ones' in a Prayer Meeting and many letters will be produced on this website in due course.

But there were also a number of inaccuracies on the original Planning Application:

1. The church's website contained a map showing the church hall as being on Childwall Abbey Road, about half a mile away from the church. This blatant error was corrected soon after the last Planning Committee meeting when it was pointed out by one of the objectors a being misleading, most significantly when assessing the question of need regarding the planned extension.

2. Childwall Lane has been described as "a busy main road" which takes "some time to cross". It is not. It is a minor road with a very low volume of traffic.

3. The architects stated that there had been no response from the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings when, in truth, the SPAB had sent the architects a letter of objection. The SPAB were understandably extremely displeased and sent a second letter of objection to the Planning Committee.

We received a copy of a letter addressed to the Vicar from English Heritage:

Naturally, we were amazed to hear that English Heritage do not give full backing to the Rotunda. But despite this, it was mentioned by the PCC that they DO have full backing in the Planning Meeting. Also the development video showing the proposed Rotunda (here:) also gives claim? Why is this?

Below are the 6 pages scanned in (one link for each page). They are quite large in file size so please give them some time. Thank you to those people who have passed these on.

NOW is the time to put forward your objection letter if you have not already done so!