Agenda item
Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14 (PA/10/01826)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Md Maium Miah proposed an amendment to condition 14 of the application seconded by Concillor Kosru Uddin that the closing hours during the Ramadan period be extended from 23:30 to 00:30. On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against, and 1 abstention, this was Agreed.
On a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/01826) be GRANTED at Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14.
2. That the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report subject to the amendment agreed by the Committee to condition 14 that the closing hours during the Ramadan period be extended from 23:30 to 00:30.
Councillor Golds requested that his vote against the application be recorded. His reasons being that he did not believe that the proposal adequately addressed the issues around community cohesion.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14.
Margret Bradley spoke in objection. She was opposed to the locating of a place of worship in a residential area. She disputed the accuracy of the projected visitor numbers. They were too low and would far outnumber this. There were already major plans for a large hotel in the area. There would be dust and dirt from the construction and residents had already had to suffer two years of this. The portacabin was donated to the community over 20 years ago and they had happily used it. The previous scheme for a two storey mosque was more favourable as it left the portacabin in place.
She expressed serious concern that the applicant hadn’t spoken to residents about the application prior to the application being submitted to the committee again.
In reply to Members, she reported that she didn’t initiate contact with the applicant about the application and she expected them to contact residents. The mosque was currently facing away from residential properties in a less noise sensitive area. The application and lack of consultation had caused much ill feeling amongst residents. There were worries over its availability to the community.
Robert Leech also spoke in objection. He stated that he was a resident of the estate. He feared that it would cause overcrowding on the estate by bringing people into the area. It would result in additional noise, pollution, vehicles, litter, congregations around the children’s play area that was already run down. It would be dangerous for children at the nearby school. The portacabin was a valuable community facility open to everyone. He feared that in future it might not be available to non Muslim groups. He asked about the measures to prevent the applicant from keeping the current mosque as well as this new one which could mean many more extra worshippers than predicted.
In reply to Members, he felt that the scheme would place additional pressures on Council services to maintain the area. There was a real risk of conflict between religious and non religious celebrations. In terms of notification, he merely received a letter from planning in October 2010 and only received an e-mail less than a week ago that it was going to the Committee. There was nothing in the East End Life newspaper.
Mr Aun Qurashi (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He outlined the planning history of the scheme. Since the last meeting in January 2011, where the application was deferred, the applicant had formulated a management plan addressing the outstanding issues. At which time, the developer also arranged a meeting with residents that was then rescheduled at their request to June 2011 to allow them to see the management plan. At that meeting, residents questioned the enforceability of the plan and how this would be done. They also requested that two groups be given preferential treatment in using the community facility. The applicant agreed to this. Following this meeting, the lines of communications with residents were kept open for a period of time, but nothing more from them was forthcoming. The applicant had also consulted with a number of key residents groups. The views of residents would be incorporated into the detailed management plan. Therefore they had undertaken extensive consultation.
In reply to Members questions regarding whether the consumption of alcohol, and food would be permitted, he assured members that the applicant was bound by equalities legislation and would permit that the community hall could be used by all groups and all for lawful activities. All current activities and events hosted in the existing facilities would be permitted in the new community facility. Whilst the applicant would endeavour to facilitate community cohesion, they hadn’t considered actively promoting this. According to the travel survey, conducted during the busiest times, it was evident that most worshippers would walk to the facility. Few would arrive in car and there was sufficient parking in the area to accommodate this.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. He described the site location, the planning history including the reason why the Committee deferred the application in January 2011. He also described the consultation undertaken. Both for the original consultation and that for this application that had generated one objection. He addressed the key planning matters. He confirmed the results of the travel survey undertaken by the applicant predicting few car trips to the facility. There were conditions requiring the submission of a highways plan and to protect residential amenity.
In terms of land use, one of the key concerns was the loss of the portacabin as a community facility. However it was reported that the proposed community space complied with policy and exceeded the size of the portacabin. Mr Olaseni described the key objectives of the management plan regarding how it would be made available to the community.
In response, Members expressed some concern over the loss of the portacabin as a community facility. To this end, a Member queried the need for a specific condition ensuring that all community activities permitted at the existing facility be permitted in the new facility (including the consumption of alcohol, dancing, bringing food and drink onto the premises).
In reply, Officers explained the difficulties in placing very specific conditions in the management plan. In any event, the term lawful activity as stated in the management plan covered a wide range of activities, (including those mentioned by the Councillor). Members were reminded that in making a decision on the application it was necessary to have due regard to the duties set out in the Equalities Act 2010 further details of which were set out in agenda item 7. The applicant was also bound by equalities legislation in running the facility. It was also required that full details of the Management Plan be submitted to ensure inclusive use.
Councillor Md Maium Miah proposed an amendment to condition 14 of the application seconded by Concillor Kosru Uddin that the closing hours during the Ramadan period be extended from 23:30 to 00:30. On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against, and 1 abstention, this was Agreed.
On a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/01826) be GRANTED at Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14.
2. That the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report subject to the amendment agreed by the Committee to condition 14 that the closing hours during the Ramadan period be extended from 23:30 to 00:30.
Councillor Golds requested that his vote against the application be recorded. His reasons being that he did not believe that the proposal adequately addressed the issues around community cohesion.
Supporting documents:
-
Committee report gill street, item 7.2
PDF 92 KB
-
PA-10-01826 Limehouse Mosque, item 7.2
PDF 109 KB
-
PA_10_01826_ Site Location Plan.pdf Limehouse, item 7.2
PDF 72 KB
-
Appendix Gill Street, item 7.2
PDF 428 KB