Agenda item
Pavement on Kilburn High Road, Salusbury Road, Chamberlayne Road, Harrow Road, Station Road, Acton Lane, Craven Park, Bridge Road, Neasden Lane, Dudden Hill Lane, Kendal Road, Parkside & Cricklewood Broadway, London (Ref. 14/1252)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Installation of 0.5mm clear nylon wire spans between poles in 14 locations
within the London Borough of Brent (and additional ones in adjacent boroughs) to complete a notional 'enclosure' (as defined in Jewish law) so as to ease Sabbath observance for non-ambulant persons and their carers -- locations in Brent are indicated in the schedule of pole locations and circled in red on the 1:10,000 Brondesbury 'Eruv' site plan 870_01.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve planning permission subject to conditions.
Stephen Weeks began by advising that the application for an ‘Eruv’ was the first as such in the borough, although some already existed in other London boroughs. He drew members’ attention to additional comments as set out in the supplementary report which also highlighted an error on the council’s website that had mistakenly stated that Councillor Colacicco had commented on the application. He then referred to the detailed plans available at the meeting.
Ruth Ward, speaking on behalf of Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association, objected to the application. She felt that the application was an unnecessary use of an already cluttered public space. Members heard that the signage that did already exist was for the benefit of the whole community, whilst the proposals in the application were only for the benefit of a small sector of the community. Ruth Ward contended that the street scene should be secular and that approving such an application could set a precedent for other such applications of a religious nature. She also felt that the application could potentially become a divisive element in the community and she was uncomfortable with what appeared to be the demarcation of one particular faith.
In reply to a query from a member that the application involved only one pole in her area, she stated that her comments were relation to the application as a whole.
Rabbi Baruch Levin, the applicant, then addressed the committee. Rabbi Baruch Levin stated that the proposals to complete a notional closure if the Eruv included a minimum number of poles to minimise physical impact on the environment. The poles and wires were needed to ensure that the perimeter of the Eruv was demarcated. Rabbi Baruch Levin stated that there was no evidence that there had been any adverse effects on community cohesion where Eruvs were already in place.
In reply to queries from members, Rabbi Baruch Levin advised that around 120 families visited the synagogue, with many having young children and elder members. He advised that an application for planning permission was required because of the erection of poles. In response to a query on whether an Eruv could be created for the whole of London, Rabbi Baruch Levin advised that this was not possible as the maximum number of people an Eruv can incorporate was 600,000 people. Members noted that the wires would be checked twice weekly for any breakages and any identified would be repaired immediately and this would apply to wires to all poles. The committee heard that there had been no reported incidents of pigeons or other birds flying into wires where Eruvs already existed.
During discussion, it was queried whether residents would need to apply for planning permission if they had similar proposals to demarcate an area with poles. It was queried what steps could be taken to ensure the wires were not struck by traffic and was the application merely for the poles or also for the creation of an Eruv.
In reply to the issues raised, Stephen Weeks advised that similar proposals to demarcate an area would also need to apply for planning permission and such applications should also not unreasonably obstruct the highway. Members noted that no objections had been received from Transportation in respect of this application. Stephen Weeks advised that the height of the wires would mean the likelihood of impact from vehicles or people was minimal and Transportation did not consider this a risk. He also advised members that the application under consideration was both for the poles and wires and to fulfil religious needs in respect of the Eruv. Due weight in taking into account the Public Sector Equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“The Act”) was also being given.
Horatio Chance then provided clarity to members by reading out section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. He reminded the committee that the Council, when performing its statutory function as a Local Planning Authority, must have regard due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, inter alia, who share one of the eight protected characteristics (as more defined under section 149 [7]) of the Act, namely religion in this case, during the decision making process.
DECISION:
Agreed as recommended.
Supporting documents: