Page 1

Appeal Decisions Inquiry opened on 8 April 2014 Site visits made on 12 December 2014 by Richard Clegg BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 May 2015

Appeal A: APP/P5870/A/13/2199244 2-4 Green Lane, Worcester Park, London, KT4 8AD    

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr H Aziz against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. The application Ref A2012/66050/FUL, dated 7 June 2012, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2012. The development proposed is described as ‘the change of use from vacant offices (class B1) to a place of worship (class D1)’.

Appeal B: APP/P5870/A/13/2206647 2-4 Green Lane, Worcester Park, London, KT4 8AD    

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr H Aziz against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. The application Ref A2013/67455/FUL, dated 9 May 2013, was refused by notice dated 26 September 2013. The development proposed is described as ‘a temporary permission for four years for a change of use from vacant offices (class B1) to a place of worship (class D1)’.

Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed. 2. Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from vacant offices (class B1) to a place of worship (class D1) for a temporary period of four years and the replacement of a garage door with a window at 24 Green Lane, Worcester Park, London, KT4 8AD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref A2013/67455/FUL, dated 9 May 2013, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Application for costs 3. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the Council against Mr Aziz. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural matters 4. The inquiry sat for six days: 8-9 April, 29-30 May, 19 November and 12 December 2014.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

5. On the application form for proposal B, the location of the site is given as Green Mosque, 2-4 Green Lane, Worcester Park, Surrey. I heard that the Appellant refers to the building as Green Mosque. That may be so, but this is not a retrospective proposal and the building is not a mosque. The main parties agreed that the site is in London. Accordingly, in the appeal details above, I have identified the location in the same form as for appeal A. 6. The proposals include the replacement of a garage door on the north-east elevation with a window. Proposal A is more clearly described as the change of use from vacant offices (class B1) to a place of worship (class D1) and the replacement of a garage door with a window. Proposal B is more clearly described as the change of use from vacant offices (class B1) to a place of worship (class D1) for a temporary period of four years and the replacement of a garage door with a window. I have considered the appeals on this basis. 7. A location plan ref CTP/5325/LOC1 was submitted with both planning applications and it purports to identify the extent of the site. At the inquiry the Appellant acknowledged an error in that the red edge drawn on this plan includes part of the paved area to the front of Nos 2-4 Green Lane and excludes the rear part of the building. An amended location plan was submitted which correctly shows the extent of the appeal site as the whole of the building (Plan B). Notwithstanding the error on the location plan, the proposed site plan ref KBC 05B and the proposed ground floor plan ref KBC 01A are both annotated to indicate that the site boundary is marked by the extent of the building, and, although not marked with a red edge, a location plan inset into the existing ground floor plan ref JDD/BC-E1 identifies the building with hatching. Moreover the proposed floor plans and elevations clearly show that the proposed developments relate to the whole of the building at Nos 2-4 Green Lane. I am satisfied that the location of the development has been clear from the complete set of plans. The Council raised no objection to the revised plan, and I am satisfied that no prejudice would be caused to the interests of any parties by consideration of this plan. Accordingly I have taken it into account in determining these appeals. 8. The second reason for refusal in respect of both proposals refers to the absence of a planning obligation concerning contributions towards environmental improvements and community benefits and the provision of cycle storage. Subsequently, in April 2014, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule for the London Borough of Sutton came into force, and the Council’s planning witness explained that, in consequence, financial contributions were no longer sought through planning obligations and that this part of the reason for refusal would not be pursued1. He also advised that the remaining part of this reason would be addressed by the submission of an appropriately worded planning obligation. A planning obligation in the form of a unilateral undertaking has been submitted by the Appellant in respect of each appeal (Documents A4 and A12). The obligations concern the provision of a cycle parking facility on the opposite side of Green Lane to the appeal site, and I consider their merits below (para 39). 9. When the inquiry opened four witnesses were introduced on behalf of the Appellant. Subsequently, one intended witness, Mr Cunnane resigned from his roles as planning consultant to the Appellant and instructor to the Appellant’s 1

The Council’s position on the second reason for refusal is covered in paragraphs 7.4-7-8 of Mr Green’s proof of evidence, and the CIL Charging Schedule is at Appendix 6 to his proof. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

2


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

advocate before he had been called to give evidence2. Mr Cunnane’s proof of evidence remains as a written representation, but as it has not been tested by cross-examination the weight that it carries is reduced. Main Issues 10. I consider that the main issues in these appeals are: (i) The effect of the proposed developments on highway safety and traffic movement. (ii) The effect of other considerations on the overall planning balance. The proposals 11. Nos 2-4 Green Lane is an office building within Worcester Park District Centre. Both appeal proposals involve the use of the building as a mosque to serve the local Sunni Muslim community. There is a single garage contained within the building. In conjunction with the internal rearrangement of the building the garage door would be replaced with a window. 12. In proposal A, the capacity of the mosque is given as 140 persons. In proposal B, the room identified as prayer hall 2 on the first floor in proposal A is shown as a library, and this scheme would have a reduced capacity of 95 persons. The mosque would be used for the five daily prayers and for festival prayers. Quran classes for children would take place in the afternoon, there would be a weekly ladies’ study circle, and the building would be used as a meeting place for senior citizens twice a week. It is common ground between the main parties that the mosque would only be likely to reach its capacity on the occasions of Friday afternoon prayers, two Eid festival prayers, and on the first five nights and the 26th night of Ramadan. At other times, the Appellant contends that the number of people present would be considerably less. The proposal is promoted as a green mosque, which, the management plan explains, is intended to operate on a car-free basis3. Whereas proposal A seeks permission on a permanent basis, proposal B seeks permission to use the site as a place of worship for a temporary period of four years. Planning policies 13. The Development Plan includes The London Plan, the London Borough of Sutton Core Planning Strategy (CPS) and the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD). Policy 3.1 of The London Plan explains that development proposals should protect and enhance facilities and services which meet the needs of particular groups and communities. The impact of proposals on the transport network should be fully assessed (Policy 6.3), and safety should not be adversely affected. Policy 6.13 seeks the application of maximum parking standards. 14. In the CPS, Policy BP10 explains that the Borough highway network, traffic and parking will be managed to ensure its efficient and safe operation, while seeking to reduce the need to travel, amongst other considerations. New development should be appropriately located in relation to the public transport and highway networks and it should comply with the Council’s restraint-based parking standards. Leisure and cultural facilities are to be developed in 2 3

The letter from Mr Cunnane advising of this position is at Document A8. Green Mosque Management Plan Rev A is part of Document A6.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

3


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

sustainable locations within the Borough (Policy BP11), and planning obligations are to be used to ensure that new development meets necessary requirements (Policy DP2). 15. To comply with Policy DM19 of the DPD, new development should be accessible by, and make provision for, sustainable modes of transport so as to promote their use in preference to the private car. Under Policy DM20, proposals will be assessed for their impact on transport infrastructure. Policy DM22 is concerned with parking: new development is expected to provide the appropriate amount of parking in accordance with the restraint-based maximum standards. Planning permission will be granted for development with no parking, provided that this will not result in an increase in on-street parking which would adversely affect traffic movement and road safety, amongst other matters, and that a series of specific criteria are satisfied. Policy DM31 supports the development of social and community infrastructure where, amongst other requirements, it would be accessible by a range of transport modes, and it would be close to or accessible to the community it is intended to serve. In accordance with Policy DM36, proposals involving the loss of existing office accommodation will not be permitted unless specified marketing and development requirements are met. 16. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - Planning Obligations includes cycle parking as a example of the transport works which may be required by a planning obligation in association with new development. Reasons Highway safety and traffic movement 17. The appeal site is close to the signalised junction of Green Lane with Central Road. Central Road (the A2043) is a busy route providing a link between Sutton and Kingston and between the A24 and the A3. The greater part of Worcester Park District Centre extends along this road. Green Lane provides access to a large residential area, and other uses include a sports ground on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. 18. There are parking restrictions (0830 - 0630 hours) in place on both sides of Green Lane close to the traffic signals and these extend further down the road on the south-east side. These restrictions also apply along much of Central Road within the District Centre and on a number of other roads, including The Avenue and the west side of Lynwood Drive to the south of the A20434. There are three car parks on the south side of the District Centre with a combined capacity of 205 spaces. A car park at Worcester Park rail station (about 200m north-west of the appeal site) is provided for rail users, and there are opportunities for parking on the north-western side of Green Lane, and on residential streets in the vicinity. 19. Both of the main parties carried out parking surveys during 2012. The Appellant’s initial survey was undertaken on a Wednesday and the results recorded a minimum of 27 available spaces. As maximum attendance at the mosque would occur for Friday prayers, a further survey of the District Centre parking area and the station car park was carried out on a Friday. The public 4

Plan D shows parking restrictions and supply in the vicinity of the appeal site, and has been agreed by the main parties. The capacities given for the car parks were amended at the inquiry in line with representations from the main parties. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

4


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

car parking area was found to be at or approaching capacity throughout the survey period of 1130-1430 hours, whilst 18 spaces remained available in the station car park at the busiest time5. There are discrepancies between the capacities agreed for these parking areas on Plan D and those given in the Appellant’s survey. A capacity of 197 spaces is given for the central parking area, whereas it is agreed that there are 205 spaces there, and the capacity of 76 spaces given for the station car park is greater than the agreed figure of 68 spaces. In consequence there may been have been more free spaces in the District Centre parking area and fewer in the station car park. The Council carried out surveys on three consecutive Fridays, which found little on-street or off-street spare capacity, and reference was made to queuing in the District Centre parking area and parking in breach of restrictions on Beverley Gardens and Brookside Crescent. 20. The appeal site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 3. The rail station can be reached on foot from Green Lane and there are frequent bus services along Central Road. 21. On the occasions when the mosque would not be used to its maximum capacity the number of people present would be significantly less. The expected number attending daily prayers, other than Salat al Juma’ah on Friday, is expected to be no more than 15, with 21 people present for the education classes and 5-6 for the senior citizens’ group and the study circle6. On the basis of the suggested timetable, and allowing for the presence of some members of staff, occupancy of the building should not exceed about 40 persons outside the occasions of capacity attendance. In answer to my question the Council’s highway witness confirmed that concern about the effect of the proposed use related to the 60 occasions a year when the building would be fully occupied. 22. At application stage, proposal B was promoted as a car-free or green mosque, although during the course of the inquiry the Appellant’s representatives suggested that both proposals could operate in this way. Travel plans have been put forward for proposals A and B, which rely to a large extent on the dissemination of information and advice about public transport, cycling and walking. There is no provision for funding to introduce any additional measures if monitoring reveals that targets have not been achieved. A management plan has also been submitted7: this envisages the mosque being run on a members only basis. A register would be used to record transport details, and if sustainable modes of transport are not used, membership is liable to be withdrawn. Staff would be deployed to prevent people waiting on the forecourt and, in the case of proposal B, to avoid the use of the library as a prayer hall. 23. The Appellant argues that there is a significant Muslim community in Worcester Park, and that many people live sufficiently close to the appeal site to walk there. The transport statement for proposal A referred to a catchment area of about 2km, on the basis that four existing mosques were stated to be about 44.5km distant, and it was anticipated that worshippers would travel to the mosque closest to their home or place of work. However it is clear from 5

The Appellant’s surveys are reported at paragraphs 6.1.1-6.2.4 of the transport assessment for proposal A and paragraphs 4.3.5-4.3.7 of the addendum to the transport statement for proposal A. 6 These figures for proposal A, and are presented in table 2.1 of the addendum to the transport statement. Certain lower figures are given in figure 6.1 of the transport statement for proposal B. 7 Included in Document A6. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

5


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

subsequent plans submitted with the addendum and Mr Blamey’s proof of evidence that the distances given in the transport statement for proposal A are incorrect, and, excluding the Shah Jalal Islamic Foundation in Sutton which serves the Bengali community, that the nearest mosque is Morden Islamic Centre, a distance of 5.9km from the appeal site8. People would, therefore, be closer to the appeal site than an existing mosque at a distance of almost 3km. 24. Subsequently, taking account of the Appellant’s database of the local Muslim community, it was calculated that the maximum capacity of 140 persons could be achieved from a catchment area of less than 1km9. This assumes that people are travelling from the identified households and businesses at the time of Friday prayers and other occasions of maximum attendance, but members of the local community may not be in these locations. For example, Ms Khan explained at the inquiry that she lived about 10 minutes walk from the appeal site, but that her husband would use a prayer room at work on Fridays. I heard that existing mosques serve the Sunni Muslim community. Nevertheless Mr Dosani acknowledged that some people have preferences for a particular mosque, and Mr Shirwani, who lives closer to Sutton Islamic Centre than the appeal site, explained that different mosques met different needs, and that he would not always attend the nearest mosque to his home. 25. I turn now to consider the potential for travel by car to the mosque. In the addendum to the transport statement for proposal A the proportion of visitors driving by car on Fridays is given as 19%, based on interrogation of the TRAVL database for several existing mosques. In his evidence to the inquiry, the Appellant’s highway witness first argued that the Batal Fatuh mosque (with car usage of 20%) should be excluded from this exercise since it is much larger than the proposed mosque and attracts a congregation from an extensive catchment area. This view contrasts with that in the transport statement where the position is taken that the other mosques selected, including Batal Fatuh, were considered comparable in terms of levels of accessibility, use, size and anticipated operation. The effect of excluding Batal Fatuh is to reduce the maximum level of car use to 10.5%, which it is calculated would generate a demand for 14-15 cars when the mosque was occupied by 140 people. It is postulated that the size of the catchment area is related to the size of the mosque, and that a smaller catchment area provides a greater opportunity for the use of sustainable modes of transport. As the appeal proposal would accommodate fewer people than the smallest of the mosques referred to in the TRAVL database, which has 7% car use, it is suggested that the appropriate level for the appeal proposals would be 5%, resulting in a peak parking demand of 7 cars for proposal A and 5 for proposal B. This exercise is based on travel patterns at a small and reducing number of existing mosques and I consider that the figures put forward should be treated with caution and treated as a best case scenario. 26. The Appellant’s highway witness acknowledged that the availability of parking space would be limited at Worcester Park, and this view is consistent with the surveys undertaken on Fridays by both main parties (above, para 19). My visits took place on a Friday afternoon, and I observed few on-street spaces 8

Plan 01 of the transport statement for appeal A gives distances of 3.7-4.5km to the nearest mosques, plan 01 of the addendum gives distances of 3.7-4.5 miles to the nearest mosques and the plan at Appendix D to Mr Blamey’s proof gives distances of 5.9-7.2km (equivalent to the distances in miles) to the nearest mosques. 9 Muslim households and businesses with Muslim employees are plotted in relation to a 1km isochrone from the appeal site on Appendix I to Mr Blamey’s proof of evidence. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

6


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

available for parking and drivers seeking spaces in the Stone Place car park at the District Centre. If the proposed mosque were to attract 5-7 cars at a time of the day when parking space has largely been occupied, the circulation of vehicles in and around this busy district centre would interfere with traffic movement. Moreover, whilst I consider it unlikely that cars would be left blocking drives for the duration of prayers, given the take-up of parking space I am concerned that they could be left in places where they would cause difficulties in manoeuvring and potential reductions in safety for other road users. 27. I acknowledge that the parking pressures at Worcester Park are themselves likely to discourage car usage by people who have an alternative means of transport, and that the site could be readily reached by public transport and cycling. I agree with the Appellant that 1km is not an excessive distance for making a journey on foot, and it is clear that many prospective worshippers live within this distance of the appeal site. 28. Operation of the mosque on a car-free basis is dependent upon worshippers coming from a restricted catchment area and the effectiveness of travel and management plans (whether in their existing or revised forms). A condition limiting the occupancy of the building to 95 persons, with a record of attendance being maintained, should be capable of enforcement. However, whilst I am satisfied that travel and management plans could be the subject of conditions, I doubt that they could ensure that no journeys to the mosque would be made by car. Factors such as inclement weather, linked trips and individuals’ state of health are all likely to play a part in generating some level of travel by car. 29. The Appellant argues that the generation of a demand for seven parking spaces would be equivalent to that resulting from the lawful use of the building as an office. For a fallback position to carry weight, there should be a reasonable prospect that it could occur, but in addressing the loss of office space, the Appellant’s planning consultant has submitted evidence that the property has been marketed since September 2010 without any serious interest being received (below, para 35). Consequently I do not accept the proposition that use as a general B1 office carries weight as a fallback position. Continued use by the Muslim community for meetings of the management committee and by an imam on an occasional basis would be low-key and would not correspond to the potential effect of attendance at Friday Prayers and festival events during Eid and Ramadan. 30. Use of the building as a mosque would reduce the number of trips by members of the local Muslim community to other mosques. There is no detailed evidence of the extent of such a reduction in trips by car, but the proposal would have a beneficial effect in this respect. 31. Policy DM22 of the DPD provides for restraint in the provision of parking space, having regard amongst other matters to accessibility by public transport. It is consistent with paragraphs 29 and 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which are concerned with facilitating sustainable development and considerations relating to local parking standards. Part (a) of Policy DM22 of the DPD expects the provision of parking space in accordance with the restraint-based maximum parking standards, taking account of other factors including public transport accessibility levels and publicly available

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

7


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

parking provision. Application of the standard gives a maximum requirement for 16 spaces for the mosque. I note that the accompanying explanation indicates that additional spaces are unlikely to be required for changes of use, although there is the caveat that all proposals will be considered on their merits. In this case the proposal would result in the loss of the only parking space on the site (the garage), and use as a general office does not represent a fallback position. Accordingly this is not a situation where it would be inappropriate for additional parking provision to be made. The Appellant argues that the absence of parking is consistent with the policy, given the site’s accessibility credentials. Developments where no parking is proposed are, however, addressed under part (b) of the policy, and not part (a). 32. In part (b) of Policy DM22, the proposal fails to comply with three relevant specific requirements: it is not in a high (5-6) PTAL area, it does not provide parking for disabled drivers, and it is not within a controlled parking zone. Moreover, the proposals are likely to result in an increase in on-street parking with the potential to affect traffic flow and road safety. I find that the proposal would conflict with Policy DM22 of the DPD. 33. The mosque would be in a location where it would be accessible by a range of transport modes, and accessible to the community it is intended to serve, consistent with Policy DM31 of the DPD. The rearrangement of trips to a mosque would result in a reduction of trips out of Worcester Park to existing mosques, and this is a benefit of the proposals. However, notwithstanding the travel and management plans, I consider it likely that the mosque would attract a proportion of worshippers by car. This would be more significant in the case of the larger proposal, and I consider that the level of car usage could be higher than 5 or 7 vehicles suggested by the Appellant. In the context of a busy district centre, where there is evidence of parking pressures, and the appeal site is close to a junction with an important main road, I conclude that the generation of demand for upwards of seven parking spaces would have a severe localised impact on traffic movement and potentially on highway safety. Although I consider that the smaller scheme would also have an adverse effect, this would be less given that the capacity of the mosque would be reduced by about one third, and I do not consider that the effect of proposal B would be severe. Moreover that proposal is only for a temporary period, which would provide an opportunity to assess the effect of the change of use. Other considerations 34. Policies 3.1 of the London Plan and DM31 of the DPD support the provision of community facilities, and the mosque would meet the needs of the local Muslim community. However this is not a situation where there is no opportunity to access the type of community facility sought. There are four mosques in the surrounding area, and the Shiraz Mirza community hall in New Malden, which is only about 1.6km from the site, is used for Friday Prayers. I appreciate that there have been some occasions when the hall has not been available, and that it cannot be used to the same extent as a mosque, but it does provide a local opportunity to attend Friday Prayers, which account for most of the occasions when large numbers of the community assemble together. Nevertheless the need for a local mosque carries important weight in support of the proposals. 35. Policy DM36 of the DPD sets out a series of requirements for assessing proposals which would involve the loss of office accommodation. Insofar as the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

8


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

marketing requirements are concerned, the Appellant’s planning consultant has explained that the property has been marketed since September 2010 without any serious interest being received, and the Council had accepted the evidence on marketing in reaching its view the change of use is acceptable in principle. The proposal would also be consistent with the intentions of the development requirements since it would create two full-time and five part-time jobs, and the building could readily revert to office use in the future. I agree with the main parties that there is no objection to the loss of office space at the appeal site. 36. There is no objection by the Council to the change in appearance of the northeast elevation. The proposed window would be in keeping with the pattern of fenestration on the building, and no harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area by this alteration. 37. The occupiers of The Old Post Office, which is situated to the north-east of the appeal site on the opposite side of a service road, are concerned about overlooking and disturbance from the mosque. Windows at first floor level in the north-east elevation provide a view towards a balcony and bedroom window at the house opposite, and there is also potential for overlooking of a ground floor kitchen window. The Appellant had no objection to a condition requiring the installation of obscure gazing in this elevation, nor to conditions requiring an acoustic report and preventing external amplified sound. With these safeguards I am satisfied that neither proposal would unacceptably worsen the living conditions of the occupiers of The Old Post Office. 38. The developments would provide a number of jobs, and together with the investment in the property, this would make a modest contribution to growth to which I ascribe limited weight. The planning obligations 39. Both planning obligations provide for a cycle parking facility on the opposite side of Green Lane. This is necessary to encourage the use of sustainable travel to and from the mosque: it is also directly related to the proposed development, and fairly and reasonably related to it in scale and kind. The statutory tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations are, therefore, met and the obligations are material considerations in the appeal decisions. Conditions 40. I have already referred to conditions concerning travel and management plans, obscure glazing, an acoustic report and a restriction on external amplified sound, all of which would be necessary for the development to proceed. To minimise the prospect of adverse effects on traffic movement and highway safety, the hours of use and the occupancy of the building should be restricted. To ensure that the development would be in keeping with its surroundings, any external works should match the existing building, and details of external lighting and refuse facilities should be submitted for approval. A condition specifying the length of the temporary permission would be necessary for proposal B. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, it is important that the development is carried out in accordance with the specified plans.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

9


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

Conclusions 41. I have found that use of the building with a congregation of 140 worshippers would be likely to have a severe localised impact on traffic movement and potentially on highway safety. Accordingly, notwithstanding the location of the site in a District Centre and the provision of a local community facility, the proposal would not represent a fully sustainable form of development. Moreover, having regard to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the Development Plan is not absent or silent in this case and relevant policies are not out-of-date, and I have borne this in mind in assessing the overall planning balance. The harm from proposal A would not be outweighed by the importance of meeting a need for a mosque in Worcester Park and the additional limited benefit of the proposal to growth, and none of the conditions referred to above (para 40) would overcome my objection to this proposal. Whilst the smaller scheme for 95 worshippers would also have an adverse effect, I do not consider that that effect would be severe. On balance the benefits of proposal B would outweigh the harm, and temporary permission for a period of four years would enable the effect of the use on traffic movement and highway safety to be fully assessed. 42. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that appeal A should be dismissed and that appeal B should be allowed.

Richard Clegg INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

10


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

Schedule of conditions 1)

The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued no later than four years from the date of this permission.

2)

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A4 location plan (Plan B), proposed site plan ref KBC 05B, proposed ground floor plan ref KBC 01A, proposed first floor plan ref KBC 02A, proposed front and north-east elevations on drawing ref KBC 03A, proposed rear and south-west elevations on drawing ref KBC 04B.

3)

The use hereby permitted shall not take place outside 0500 to 2230 hours, except between 1 March and 1 September and during the period of Ramadan each year when the use may additionally take place between 0245 and 0500 hours and between 1030 and 0030 hours.

4)

The building shall not be occupied by more than 95 persons during the occasions of Salat-al-Jumu’ah prayers on Fridays, two occasions of Festival Eid prayers each year, and prayers on the first five and 26th nights of Ramadan. At all other times the building shall not be occupied by more than 40 persons. A register shall be maintained of the number of persons present in the building, which shall be made available to the local planning authority on request.

5)

The mosque shall not be brought into use until a travel plan, including a programme for its implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme.

6)

The mosque shall not be brought into use until a management plan, including a programme for its implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The management plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme.

7)

Any external alterations shall match the materials, treatment and finishes used in the existing building.

8)

The mosque shall not be brought into use until refuse and recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with a scheme which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

9)

No external lighting shall be installed other than in accordance with a scheme which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

10)

The mosque shall not be brought into use until: a) an acoustic report on the use of the building has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and b) any mitigation measures specified in the acoustic report have been implemented.

11)

No amplified sound equipment shall be used outside the building.

12)

The mosque shall not be brought into use until the first floor windows and the left hand ground floor window in the north-east elevation have been fitted with obscured glass, which shall be retained thereafter.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

11


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

APPEARANCES FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Miss S K Sheikh QC She called Mr P Loveday BSc(Hons) DipTE DipCEng PhD Mr R Green BSc(Hons) MA

Instructed by the Legal Department of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. Principal Development Engineer and Network Manager. Deputy Planning Area Manager.

FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr A Masters of Counsel He called Mr A Dosani Ms S Khan Mr C M Blamey BSc MSc(Eng) MCIHT

Instructed initially by Cunnane Planning and subsequently by DPP. Trustee, Morden Islamic Centre and representative of the management committee for the proposed mosque. Member of the local Muslim community. Director, Russell Giles Partnership Ltd.

INTERESTED PERSONS: Councillor A Hookway Mr H Byrne Mr B Austin Mr B Coleman-Smith Mr S Densley Mr U Iqbal Mr G Paskin Mr S Powers Mr R G Rickard Mr M F Rudduck Mr M Samsudin Mrs H Shelley Mr H Shirwani Imam I Vawda Mr White

Member of the Borough Council and former Chairman of Worcester Park Residents Association. Chairman, Worcester Park Residents Association. Worcester Park Traders Association. Local resident. Local resident and Worcester Park Blog. Volunteer, proposed mosque. Local resident. Local resident. Local resident. Local resident. Volunteer, proposed mosque. Local resident. Volunteer, proposed mosque. Imam, Wimbledon Mosque. Local resident.

THE LPA’S DOCUMENTS L1 L2 L3 L4 L5

Revised version of figure 3.1 in Mr Blamey’s proof of evidence. Email dated 16 May 2014 from Mr Green referring to planning policies. Email exchanges between the Council and the Appellant’s representatives concerning the planning application for proposal A. Email dated 1 July 2014 from Mr Green to The Planning Inspectorate in response to Document A6. Costs application.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

12


Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/A/13/2199244, APP/P5870/A/13/2206647

L6 L7

Miss Sheikh’s closing submissions. Judgement in Cherkley Campaign Ltd v Mole Valley DC

THE APPELLANT’S DOCUMENTS A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Bundle of documents concerning parking controls in Worcester Park. Mr Dosani’s statement. Ms Khan’s statement. Planning obligation in respect of appeal proposal B. Appendix C to Transport Statement for proposal A. Email dated 6 June 2014 from the Appellant’s agent and attachments concerning alternative premises, support for the appeal proposals, site ownership and a management plan. Email dated 5 June 2014 from Mr Blamey to Mr Loveday concerning Plan D. Letter dated 18 November 2014 from Mr Cunnane to The Planning Inspectorate concerning his involvement in the appeals. Response to the LPA’s costs application. Mr Masters’s closing submissions. Judgement in Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Others. Planning obligation in respect of appeal proposal A.

A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

OTHER PARTIES’ DOCUMENTS O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6

Mr Densley’s statement. Councillor Hookway’s statement. Mr Austin’s statement. Extract from the BBC News website. Submitted by Mr Densley. Mr Coleman-Smith’s statement. Bundle of letters in support of the appeal proposals.

GENERAL DOCUMENTS G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7

Notification of resumption of the inquiry. Extracts from the London Plan. Extracts from the Core Planning Strategy. Extracts from the Site Development Policies DPD. Planning permission for use of premises for prayer education and social meetings at 25 Carshalton Road Sutton. Planning permissions and refusal for use of premises for religious and educational purposes at 62 Oakhill Road Sutton. List of suggested conditions and accompanying email.

PLANS A B C D

Proposed first floor plan, appeal A. Amended location plan. Extracts from the Local Development Framework Proposals Map. Worcester Park parking restrictions and supply.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

13

Green Lane Mosque Appeal decision  

The decision by the independent Planning Inspector allowing the appeal for the proposed mosque in Green Lane, Worcester Park for a trial per...

Advertisement