Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report, with further amendments to be made to Condition 4 to allow the use of reasonable amplified sound and Condition 6 to allow flexibility to the hours of operation to allow for administrative and cleaning to take place.

PROPOSAL

Change of use of the ground floor from professional services to place of worship (Use Class F1(f)) and community hall (Use Class F2(b)) and replacement of windows with doors to front elevation.

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)   That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(2)   That the Head of Planning is delegated to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Mahya Fatemi, Senior Planning Officer, North Area, Development Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought the change of use of the ground floor of the existing property from professional services to a place of worship (Use Class F1 (f) and community hall (Use Class F2 (b) and replacement of windows with doors to the front elevation. The site was not located within a conservation area and there were no listed buildings within the site’s curtilage. It was clarified that the prayer space was limited to 40 worshippers and would serve to meet the needs mainly of local employees who required a designated place to pray during business hours.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Supplementary Report that responded to further objections made regarding the operational hours, the agent re-confirmed that the hours of use would be 12pm – 9pm and as such the recommendation remained to grant consent as per the Committee report and decision notice.

As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited Mr Mohammed Azad (as an objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

Mr Azad introduced himself to the Committee as a local resident and business owner before raising the following key issues:

• Mr Azad advised that his premises where he had conducted his business for the past 24 years was located directly in front of the application site.
• Mr Azad felt that parking issues had increased significantly since the new owners of the application site acquired the premises approximately 4 years ago.
• There were ongoing issues in relation to parking along the access road, Mr Azad explained as there were limited allocated parking spaces, vehicles were frequently double parked and regularly blocked the access road.
• Mr Azad advised that this was a source of frustration for him, as there had been multiple occasions where he had been unable to move his vehicle to collect his children from school as he had been blocked in.
• Mr Azad closed his comments by advising the Committee that he had no objections to the applications proposed use of the premises as a place of worship, his only issue was that he felt the increased number of visitors to the location would undoubtedly exacerbate the existing parking issues.
• Mr Azad sought assurances that the parking would be adequately managed if the proposed application was granted planning permission.

The Chair thanked Mr Azad for his contribution and invited Committee members

to ask any questions or points of clarification they may have in relation to the issues raised. Members raised queries regarding the parking issues along the access road. During the discussions it was clarified that the access road was a private road therefore the Council were unable to enforce parking restrictions however there was potential for the space to be managed by a private parking company. The Chair advised that further detailed discussion regarding parking issues would be addressed by officers later in the meeting.

As no further questions were raised the Chair invited the next speaker Naran Gajparia (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Gajparia introduced himself as a local resident of 35 years before raising the following concerns:

·       Mr Gajparia advised the Committee that the application site’s surrounding area of Kingsbury Road was subject to heavy traffic and congestion, he was concerned that if the proposal was approved there would be an increase to visitors in the area which would exacerbate the existing traffic issues.

·       Mr Gajparia explained that there was high footfall in the area due to the high numbers of pedestrians using the local supermarket and tube station. He felt that there could be an increased risk to pedestrians trying to cross the busy road because of the increased traffic to the area.

·       It was felt that there was not adequate parking provision to manage the increased visitors to the application site.

·       Mr Gajparia closed his comments by re-iterating that he was not opposed to the site being used as a place of worship, his issues were related to the increased traffic and safety issues that he felt would be exacerbated if the planning permission was given, as such he felt the proposal would be better suited a different location.

The Chair thanked Mr Gajparia for his representation, the Committee noted that Mr Gajparia’s points reinforced the concerns raised by the previous speaker and as such had no further questions.

The Chair moved the meeting on to invite Councillor Kabir in her capacity as Ward Councillor to address the Committee in person as a supporter of the proposed application. Councillor Kabir expressed her support as follows:

• Councillor Kabir advised the Committee that although she was aware that objections had been received, through her work as a Ward Councillor she had heard directly from many residents who were supportive of the proposed application.
• It was highlighted that there were increasing numbers of Islamic based businesses and shoppers visiting Kingsbury Road, therefore it was felt that a local place of worship was accessible to the community of employees and visitors who required a space to worship during the day and evening.
• It was highlighted that the mosque would serve a small number of local worshippers during business hours, therefore it was unlikely to attract additional vehicles to the area and due to its small scale, it was unlikely to create a noise nuisance or negatively impact local residents and businesses.
• It was felt that any parking spaces needed in addition to the facilities 6 parking spaces could be adequately met by available local on street parking, Kingsbury Station car park and the local supermarket car park. 
• Concerns were expressed regarding the conditions specified in the report in relation to no amplified noise and the restricted hours of use from 12pm to 9pm. Councillor Kabir felt that worshippers should be able to access prayer facilities flexibly when required, it was also noted that during Summer time sunset prayers would need to take place after 9pm. Additionally it was felt that having no scope to use amplified noise at all was an unfair and unnecessary restriction. Councillor Kabir questioned if the applicant had been asked to compromise on timings and amplified noise or if these conditions had been put forward with the original application.

The Chair thanked Councillor Kabir for her contributions and reassured the Committee that the points of concerns raised by Councillor Kabir would be addressed by officers in the latter part of the meeting. The Chair proceeded to invite the final speaker on the item, Mr Murtaza Poptani, Sterling Planning, (agent) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. The following key points were shared:

• The Kingsbury town centre was recognised as home to a large and diverse community. As demonstrated in the planning statement, the surrounding area was well served by temples, gurdwaras, churches and synagogues. However, there were no Muslim prayer facilities in the immediate locality. The closest prayer facility was a 30 minute walk away.
• The Kingsbury town centre accommodated a number of Muslim owned businesses, employees and visitors who came to dine and shop. However, there were no local prayer facilities for the Muslim community. This had resulted in people having to pray in unsuitable locations such as within their businesses, restaurants and shops which was impractical.
• The proposed application would not operate as a fully functioning mosque. The main prayer hall covered only 68 square metres and would have a maximum occupancy of 41 people. This could not be exceeded due to its physical size.
• The unit would only be used as a prayer space during work/business hours when people were away from their homes, this was reflected in its opening hours from 12pm to 9pm.
• The site was within a high public transport accessibility zone and within walking distance of the community it would serve. The surrounding area was characterised by businesses that were open to and beyond midnight. The proposed place of worship would not require any external plant or amplified sound and would cause no disturbance to any neighbouring dwellings.
• The planning officers report had already addressed that the principle of a place of worship in this town centre location was acceptable and due to its central location, proximity to public transport and the level of car and cycle parking provided, no highways issues had been raised.
• In summary, the proposal would deliver vital social infrastructure playing an important role in supporting Brent's diverse community, helping to promote social inclusion and cultural wellbeing within a sustainable location.

The Chair thanked Mr Poptani for addressing the Committee and asked the Committee if they had any questions or points of clarification following the information heard. In response the Committee raised queries regarding parking management, managing the number of worshippers, hours of use and amplified sound. The following responses were provided:

·       In response to concerns regarding parking management, Mr Poptani re-iterated that the proposed application could accurately be described as a prayer room rather than a full time mosque. There would be no fulltime Imam and although the capacity was for 41 worshippers, it was unlikely that it would regularly reach full capacity. In addition, the facility would mainly serve local workers in the area, therefore there was not expected to be an increase in cars already in the local area as it was expected that most worshippers would walk to the facility.

·       It was highlighted that at busier times a parking marshal would be employed to support the parking management, the Committee noted there were ample local car parks available for use including the Kingsbury Station car park and local supermarket car park.

·       Mr Poptani added that communication would take place with neighbouring residents and businesses to avoid issues with parking.

·       In relation to the restricted operational hours, Mr Poptani advised that the hours requested reflected the light use of the facility and further illustrated the minimum impact the development would have on the local community.

·       Mr Poptani confirmed that amplified sound was not requested as part of the application as it was felt that the small size of the prayer room would not require amplified sounds, additionally the applicant was conscious that they did not want to cause any disturbances for neighbours.

As members had no further questions for Mr Poptani, the Chair thanked Mr Poptani for his contributions before inviting members to ask officers any questions or points of clarification they may have in relation to the application. The Committee raised queries in relation to the conditions on restricted hours of use, amplified sound and parking and traffic management. In response to the issues raised by the Committee the following points were discussed:

·       The Committee sought clarification on the presentation of the balance of public support and objections in terms of the outcome of the consultation process as laid out in the Committee report Officers advised that the Committee report aimed to provide a balanced view of the outcome of the public consultations.

·       In response to a Committee query regarding the basis of which hours of operation had been agreed, officers confirmed that the hours of use had been suggested by the applicant, additionally the agent has been contacted to clarify the hours ahead of the agenda being published. The Committee were advised that it was not unusual for applicants to initially suggest shorter operational hours for a new facility to minimise the impact felt by the local community. Once a new facility was established the applicant would be able to make an application to extend the operational hours.

·       The Committee felt it would be beneficial to adapt Condition  6 – Hours of Operation to provide further flexibility to the hours of operation to allow for administrative and cleaning tasks to take place. The adaptation was agreed by officers to take forward as a revised condition.

·       In response to a Committee query regarding the basis of the condition that stated there should be no amplified noise used in the facility, officers confirmed that the applicant had not requested the use of amplified noise as part of their application. The Committee highlighted that although it was not requested by the applicant, it would be helpful to have some flexibility around this condition to allow reasonable amplified sound to ensure that if and when necessary a small speaker could be used to play a speech without this constituting a breach in condition. Consequently, officers agreed that Condition 4 could be revised to allow the use of reasonable amplified sound.

·       The Committee sought clarification on the Class Use of the premises, officers confirmed that the area of the building that would be used as a place of worship would be Use Class F1(f) and the Community Hall would be Use Class F2(b)

·       Following prior concerns raised with the agent regarding parking management, the Committee were reassured that the Car Parking Management Plan set out arrangements for the pre booking of the on site parking spaces, car parking enforcement measures, the provision of information to staff and visitors highlighting alternative options for car parking in the area and full monitoring of the operation of the plan with a view to funding additional signage and parking enforcement if required. Therefore it was felt that adequate mitigations had been put in place to minimise disruption to local residents, businesses and highway safety.

As there were no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report, with further amendments to be made to Condition 4 to allow the use of reasonable amplified sound and Condition 6 to allow flexibility to the hours of operation to allow for administrative and cleaning to take place.

(Voting on the recommendation was unanimous)