Agenda item

Grant one year temporary approval subject to conditions

PROPOSAL:

Change of use of mini cab office (Sui Generis) to Islamic Culture and Education Community Centre (Use Class D1) (Please note this is a re-submission following withdrawal of previous application Ref: 12/1667).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant one year temporary planning permission subject to conditions and informative.

In reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manger referred to additional objections raised including the applicant’s commitment to carry out the required works given that officers were recommending a one year temporary approval.  In response to this he drew members’ attention to conditions 3, 7, 12 and 14 which covered the required works adding that the most significant of the works would be the replacement of shutter to which the applicant had agreed.  He continued that the Council had powers to pursue enforcement action should the use continue without the conditions being complied with.

In respect of additional representations on consultations and use of the building, the Area Planning Manager confirmed that about 215 consultation letters were sent to local residents including members of the Sudbury Court Residents’ Association.  As regards the use of the site, the Planning Manager stated that whilst there would be an element of religious activity with five short (15-30 minute) prayer sessions each day, the busier Friday lunchtime prayers known as Zohar had been excluded as a proposed activity (condition 4 referred). He added that projected visitor numbers provided by the applicant indicated a low level of use during these times.

Mr Michael Rushe speaking on behalf of South Kenton and Preston Park Residents’ Association informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted false and misleading information in support of the application.  He added that the applicant had not submitted an appropriate travel plan and that the parking spaces indicated were lesser than the previous scheme for the site.  He added that similar facilities for Islamic education centre existed elsewhere within the Borough.  Mr Rushe urged members to refuse the application for the above reasons and to ensure that the reduced vacancy rate of the area was reversed in the interest of the viability of the local shops.  In response to members’ questions, Mr Rushe stated that according to the applicant’s travel plan, visitors to the centre would come from as far as Hatch End and Northolt.  He also stated that the application stated that the use class would be B1 which was also misleading.

Mr Vinod Shah, Vice Chair of Sudbury Court Residents’ Association raised concerns about parking and added that despite Friday lunchtime prayers being moved elsewhere, there would still be problems with parking with about 90—100 people worshipping at the site.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor HB Patel, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents.  Councillor HB Patel objected to the proposed change of use for the following reasons;

i)             There was no local demand for the proposed use although use was forecast to increase over time.

ii)            Parking and environmental problems including traffic congestion were likely to result.

iii)           No proper travel management plan had been submitted by the applicant

iv)           The site was too small for the proposed change of use to Islamic Centre.

v)            The proposed use would be out of character with the residential area.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Harrison, ward member stated that she had been approached by both supporters of and objectors to, the proposed change of use. Councillor Harrison expressed concerns about the purpose of the centre and added that the applicant needed to demonstrate to residents, the benefits of the proposal and its use.

Mr Kaleem Janjua, the applicant’s agent stated that the application had been submitted in response to the need for local facilities including Islamic educational and religious prayers.  He continued that the initial application which incorporated Friday afternoon prayers was withdrawn in response to residents’ concerns.  Mr Janjua added that the submitted travel plan sought to reduce noise pollution and traffic congestion and although no amplified sound would be in operation, adequate sound proofing materials would be used.

In response to members’ questions, Mr Janjua confirmed that the site would have a capacity for 60 – 70 persons.  He added that future planning permission would be sought for any other use including the tent.  Mr Janjua considered a 1 one year temporary permission too short to ensure effective monitoring of the travel plan and to overcome any initial problem that may arise, expressing a preference for a three year temporary approval.

The legal representative advised that as misleading material facts had been submitted, the application was defective and in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning Authority could not determine it.  He therefore recommended refusal.  The Chair clarified that any decision to grant planning permission for a defective application could put the Council at too a high risk of its decision being   judicially reviewed leading potentially to the permission being quashed in light of the circumstances to date.

DECISION: Refused planning permission on grounds of misleading material facts which rendered the application defective.