Agenda item
Shree Saibaba Mandir, Union Road, Wembley HA0 4AU
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 15 December 2010 7.00 pm (Item 17.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 17.
Decision:
Deferred to allow further negotiations between the officers and the applicant.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for change of use to a place of worship (Use Class D1), and proposed erection of a single-storey rear extension and a canopy to the side elevation. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission. |
Neil McClellan the Area Planning Manager in responding to issues raised at the site visit stated that a condition restricting the number of people able use the outside area to the rear could be difficult in terms of control as well as defining activities which would not also contribute to potential nuisance. In respect of the extension (9.9m from the original rear wall), he felt that its size would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjacent property, 22 Union Road in terms of light and outlook. The Area Planning Manager continued that the applicant had not responded to requests for a management plan to address the parking situation in a way which would not adversely affect neighbouring residential properties. He therefore reiterated the recommendation for refusal.
Mr H Chhatwal reiterated his objections on grounds of noise nuisance, inadequate traffic control measures despite the existing control parking zone (CPZ) provisions in the area. He added that the applicant had not provided a management plan which could address the resulting traffic and parking problems. In response to an enquiry by Councillor Kataria about the noise levels, Mr Chhatwal stated that although he had observed a slight reduction in the level of noise in the last couple of weeks it (the level on noise) had been consistently high in the past.
Mr Darsham Nagi Chair of Board of Trustees stated that the temple was determined to work closely with the residents and the Council to address any likely impact from the proposed change of use and apologised for any inconvenience caused to them in the past. He added that as part of the management plan, there would be several volunteers on hand to ensure that any likely impact was kept to a minimum. In respect of the perceived parking problems Mr Nagi continued that most of the devotees would park in Ealing Road car park, shop in the area and then would walk to the temple, thus minimising parking problems in Union Road. In response to members’ questions Mr Nagi stated that the trustees were misled into believing that they needed to apply for a planning permission although there was a D1 use for the premises. He added that officers had not responded to the management plan he has proposed and that the parking problems in the area could not be attributed to the temple only. In terms of the noise nuisance Mr Nagi stated that the attempt by the trustees of the temple attempt to install double gazed windows was discouraged by officers.
Mr AS Kassim the applicant’s agent clarified that the rear extension would not project beyond 4.3m which was smaller than the property next door (in excess of 5m). He continued that any likely impact from the rear of the property could be controlled by the imposition of conditions. Mr Kassim added that the premises had had a D2 use for the last 5 years without any problems being caused to the local residents.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor HB Patel stated that he had been approached by devotees and trustees of the temple. Councillor Patel stated that the existing D1 use had not created problems for the local residents and that any noise nuisance that could result could be controlled by conditions. He continued that the detrimental impact referred to by some of the objectors was a cumulative effect of 3 places of worship in the area and the nearby shopping centre. He added that he was aware that a management plan had been submitted by the trustees.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor Butt stated that he had been approached by devotees and trustees of the temple. Councillor Butt stated that in his view the parking problems could not be attributed to the temple only but recognised that its activities could cause significant problems in terms of the free flow of traffic and the safety of pedestrians as well as impacts on nearby residents. Councillor Butt urged members to defer the application for a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposed change of use on the area.
In response to issues raised, Neil McClellan clarified that the current use required an application for change of use and that the applicant had made a series of inquiries in regards to measures for addressing the traffic problems which was found to be inadequate given the intensity of use. He informed the Committee that there was a demonstrable need for a robust and an acceptable management plan to support the application. He continued that the distance from the window (3m) did not comply with the Supplementary Planning Guidelines (SPG). Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning outlined the main differences between this application and the application for McNicholas building (item 6) in terms of scale, management plan and the intense commercial activities in Ealing Road compared to that part of Kingsbury Road.
Members discussed the application during which the general consensus was for a deferral of the application for further negotiations between the applicant and the Council. This was put to the vote and declared carried by a majority.
DECISION: Deferred to allow further negotiations between the officers and the applicant. |
Note: Councillor RS Patel Chair declared a prejudicial interest left the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting in this item. Councillor Thomas chaired the meeting for this item only.
Supporting documents: