The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will present a report (Document “AY”)which sets out an application for retrospective planning permission for change of use from a doctor’s surgery with a flat above to a mosque.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to document “AY”.

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 424605)

Note – at the commencement of this item, the Chair of the Committee experienced connectivity problems so the Deputy Chair assumed the Chair. Councillor Warburton took no part in the discussion or voting on this matter.

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) presented a report (Document “AY”)which set out an application for retrospective planning permission for change of use from a doctor’s surgery with a flat above to a mosque.

A comprehensive presentation was made to the Committee including the sharing of plans and photographs of the site and local area. Members were advised that the mosque was not a large establishment and that no external works to the premises were proposed.  A number of representations had been received in objection to the application, mainly based on noise, disturbance and highways matters. In response to those the applicant had proposed noise insulation works and the use of wardens at busy times. The main use of the mosque would be for Friday prayers but it was noted that this was a time when most local residents would be at work. Four parking spaces had been identified to the rear of the premises.

A member queried the capacity of the mosque and was advised that it would usually be used by 20 worshippers and could only go to a maximum capacity of under 100.

A local resident joined the meeting and spoke in objection to the application. He referred to a previous Local Ombudsman Investigation in respect of these premises which had stated that the views of local residents and the effect on the local community should be taken into account. He advised that the mosque had been in operation for three years and that it was open from 0500 to 2200 every day and that it could be open 24 hours a day at some times of the year. The effect of traffic from such an operation was described as dreadful and the lack of parking was highlighted as a particular problem, especially as there was little on street parking for residents’ use. He did not consider the proposal for four on-site parking spaces to be a practical solution and highlighted the level of objection to the application that had been submitted. He also referred to other applications which had been refused by the Council where there had been a large number of visitors resulting in disturbance to local residents.

In response, the Assistant Director stated that this application must be considered solely on its own merits and that the Council’s Environmental Health Team had received no complaints from residents. He accepted that on-street parking would have some impact but considered it to be similar to that caused by a local school. He advised members that in the last five years there had been no accidents attributable to the operation of the mosque.

The Principal Engineer – Highway Development Control confirmed that, during the period in which the mosque had been in operation, there had been no recordable accidents. He also reminded members that on-street parking was available to any road user and that his team had assessed the available on-street parking in this area as satisfactory.

The agent for the applicant joined the meeting and spoke in support of the application, stating that the building had previously been used as a doctor’s surgery so its current level of usage was not dissimilar. As the building was modest in size, the usual number of worshippers was only about 40 people. He considered that the proposed four parking spaces would be sufficient, but accepted that there would be peak times within the religious calendar and stated that the mosque would provide marshalls for those times. He disagreed that the mosque experienced peak times late into the evening or that the suggested number of 32 cars were parked around the mosque by worshippers.

Two local Councillors joined the meeting and both spoke on the application. The first stated that the mosque was a valuable local community facility and that she was pleased that the residents’ concerns had been considered and addressed. She hoped the whole community could work together to resolve issues of concern.

The second ward councillor stated that he considered the application to be fraught with difficulties which had been ongoing for some years, with both the mosque owners and local residents being poorly treated by the process so far. He referred to previous LGO decisions which he considered had not been acted upon and asked that the Committee include them as part of their deliberations today.

The Committee was advised that, in respect of parking, safety and accidents could be assessed but that amenity was not assessed and that it was accepted that parking did take place on the highway. It was also explained that a lot of work had been undertaken with the mosque owners to try to resolve parking issues and that a scheme of noise amelioration inside the premises had also been agreed. The issue of previous advice was also addressed, as previous conversations with the mosque owners were explained as well as their decision not to apply for a certificate of lawfulness which could have clarified the need for planning permission. It was also stressed that all previous recommendations made by the LGO had been complied with and that the role of the LGO was limited to examining process.

A member of the Committee commented that, having heard representations from all parties and the points made by officers he considered that officers had made every effort to resolve the issues described by the objectors.

Another member disagreed with that view and considered that the concerns of residents had not been addressed nor had the mosque owners made efforts to be a good neighbour.

Resolved –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to document “AY”.

ACTION: Assistant Director, Planning Transportation & Highways