Cardiff Planning Committee Set to Rule on Modern Church Extension 2026

Key Points

• Cardiff church extension proposals on the former Albany Road Methodist Church in the area of Roath will be submitted to the Planning Committee of Cardiff Council on 3 September 2026.
• The Grade II listed property is at present used by the retailer Rainbow Bargains.
• The plan aims at changing the current usage of the land into mixed development which is going to include retailing, food and drink, as well as workspace purposes.
• Proposed plans include extensions, alterations to the exterior, construction of a dormer, new walls, alteration of entrance and installation of fire doors.
• It was pointed by the residents that the extension in the contemporary style does not fit with the historical architecture of the building and will hide some parts of it.
• Petition against the original plans gathered signatures of 116 residents of Cardiff and one person who does not live within Cardiff.
• The plan was deferred due to concerns raised by the councillors regarding the impact of the extension on the neighboring properties.
• Planning officers of Cardiff Council recommend approval of planning permission and listed building consent under certain conditions.
• According to the Heritage Asset Assessment Database provided by Cadw the property is marked as “at risk”.

Cardiff (Wales Times) September 03, 2026 – uk/local/cardiff/cardiff-council/">Cardiff Council’s Planning Committee is due to consider plans to repair, alter and extend a former Methodist church that is now used by discount retailer Rainbow Bargains.

The application concerns the former Albany Road Methodist Church in Roath, a prominent historic building that has Grade II-listed status. The proposal would introduce a mixed-use future for the property, combining retail, food and drink and workspace uses.

As reported by Insider Media, the scheme has attracted objections because residents and other interested parties believe the proposed modern addition would not fit the character of the listed church. The application site is also located within a conservation area, increasing the importance of the building’s appearance and its relationship with surrounding streets.

Planning officers have nevertheless concluded that the revised application is acceptable under the relevant planning policies. Their report recommends that the council grants planning permission, subject to conditions. A separate application for listed building consent has also been recommended for approval.

The committee’s decision will determine whether the applicant can proceed with the proposed changes, although any permission would be subject to the precise conditions attached to the approval.

Why has the former church become controversial?

The main disagreement centres on the relationship between the proposed extension and the existing listed building.

Earlier plans reportedly included a larger extension. According to a previous Insider Media report, the design was revised after advice that the original scale, design and materials could harm the character of the Grade II-listed building. The current proposal includes a smaller, single-storey extension on the north side, although other coverage of the application described earlier designs as involving a two-storey cube-like addition.

The revisions have not ended the dispute. Insider Media reported that the lead petitioner reaffirmed that the original objection remained applicable to the revised proposal. The petitioner’s position was that, although the design had changed, the modern extension remained out of character and would still block sections of the original structure.

The objection reflects a wider concern about how new architecture should be added to historic buildings. Supporters of the scheme argue that a clearly modern addition can contrast with a heritage structure without imitating it. Opponents argue that the proposed form would dominate the church and weaken its architectural presence.

What are residents saying about the plans?

Coverage by WalesOnline recorded objections from residents who viewed the proposed addition as inconsistent with the church’s existing design.

One resident described the proposed extension as an “ugly metal box”. The objection referred to the building’s brickwork and stained-glass windows and argued that the proposed design would be an unsightly addition to the corner of Wellfield Road. The resident also raised concerns that the extension could undermine improvements made to the surrounding pavement and streetscape.

Another resident said they supported preserving the church and preventing it from falling into disrepair, but believed the proposed external extension would be damaging. That resident also expressed concern about the loss of a local business providing access to locally sourced produce.

The objection petition was signed by 116 residents with Cardiff addresses and one person from outside the city, according to the earlier Insider Media report.

However, the consultation responses were not uniformly negative. WalesOnline also reported letters supporting the proposal. One supporter described the designs as exceptional and said the architects had heritage expertise. The same letter argued that restoring the listed building could improve the appearance and commercial prospects of Wellfield Road and part of Albany Road.

Another supporter welcomed the modern extension as an architectural contrast that could enhance, rather than damage, the historic building. These competing views illustrate the division surrounding the application: one side has prioritised the protection of the church’s existing appearance, while the other has focused on restoration and the possibility of securing a long-term use for the building.

Why does the applicant support redevelopment?

The applicant, Mahsa Ltd, has presented the project as a way to give the building a more sustainable future.

A statement submitted with the applications, quoted by Insider Media, said the main benefit would be the flexibility created by allowing different uses within the property. According to the statement, that flexibility would strengthen the building’s long-term future and generate funds for necessary repairs and maintenance.

The statement also said the historic fabric of the building would be preserved through the proposed investment. It argued that the building was increasingly falling into disrepair because of the failure of the existing business and that redevelopment could reverse this decline.

The application materials also reportedly identified deterioration to the roof. WalesOnline reported that the roof was approaching the end of its lifespan and that a prolonged period of neglect and insufficient investment had left decorative elements increasingly vulnerable.

The building has been identified as “at risk” within the Heritage Asset Assessment database provided by Cadw. That status adds urgency to the debate because continued deterioration could create a separate risk to the building’s future.

The proposal therefore raises two connected planning questions. The first is whether the design would cause unacceptable harm to the listed church and conservation area. The second is whether the redevelopment would provide a credible means of repairing and maintaining the building over the longer term.

What happened at the previous planning meeting?

The application has already been considered in the context of an earlier committee meeting.

According to Insider Media, Cardiff Council’s Planning Committee considered the applications on 30 July 2026. The officer’s report at that meeting had recommended approval, subject to conditions.

Councillors did not grant permission at that stage. Instead, members voted to defer the matter so that planning officers could prepare reasons for refusal. Concerns focused particularly on the effect of the planned extension on neighbouring properties.

Nation.Cymru reported that the committee vote was close, with six members voting in favour of deferral and four voting against it. The central issue identified in that coverage was the overbearing nature of the extension.

The application was subsequently deferred for a site visit in July. The visit allowed members to assess the relationship between the proposed works, the listed church, nearby homes and the surrounding streetscape.

The latest officer recommendation again supports approval. That means the committee will need to consider the updated proposal, the planning assessment and the concerns raised during the earlier consideration.

What could the committee decide?

The committee can decide whether to approve or refuse the planning application, or it can defer the matter again if members require further information or changes.

Planning officers have recommended approval in accordance with the policies identified in their report. That recommendation is not the final decision: councillors retain responsibility for determining the application.

If permission is granted, it is expected to be subject to conditions. Conditions could control aspects of the construction and future use, although the exact requirements would depend on the committee’s formal decision.

A separate listed building consent application has also been recommended for approval. Listed building consent is relevant because the proposal involves changes to a building with Grade II-listed status.

The planning documents also contain an advisory note clarifying that planning permission has not yet been granted for the external alterations and extensions. As a result, those works are not authorised unless and until the council grants the necessary permission.

That distinction is important. A recommendation from planning officers does not itself authorise construction. The applicant must wait for the committee’s decision and comply with all relevant permissions and conditions before carrying out the proposed external work.

What is the background to the development?

The site was originally constructed as Albany Road Methodist Church and is now occupied by Rainbow Bargains. Its Grade II-listed status reflects the building’s heritage importance, while its identification as being at risk highlights concerns about its condition.

Mahsa Ltd submitted planning and listed building applications with support from Davies Sutton Architects. The wider proposal involves changing the property from retail use to a mixed-use development incorporating retail, food and drink and workspace activities.

Earlier reports described a range of proposed works, including an extension, a new dormer, new walls, a redesigned entrance, internal alterations and new fire doors. The scheme was revised after concerns that the initial extension was too large or unsuitable in its scale, design and materials.

The proposal has been presented as a potential route to restoring and maintaining the building. At the same time, local objections have focused on the visual effect of the extension, its possible impact on neighbouring properties and the risk that a contemporary addition could obscure the historic structure.

The planning process has therefore involved several stages: public objections, design revisions, a committee deferral, a site visit and a subsequent officer recommendation that the application is acceptable subject to conditions.

How could the decision affect Roath residents and businesses?

The decision could affect local residents, nearby businesses and the future appearance of one of Roath’s prominent historic buildings.

If the scheme is approved and implemented, the building could receive repairs and gain a wider range of potential uses. Retail, food and drink and workspace facilities could bring more activity to the site and potentially provide a new commercial purpose for a building that the applicant says is deteriorating.

For residents who oppose the scheme, approval could mean that a modern extension is added despite concerns about its appearance, scale and relationship with the listed church. The effect on neighbouring properties and views of the original building would remain important issues during any future construction and enforcement process.

If the proposal is refused or significantly delayed, the existing building may remain in its current use while the applicant considers whether to submit a further revised scheme. That could give opponents more time to challenge the design, but it could also delay repairs to a building already recorded as being at risk.

The immediate outcome will depend on Cardiff Council’s committee decision and any conditions attached to it. Until formal permission is granted, the proposed extensions and external alterations cannot lawfully proceed.