Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.  

 

The application sought approval for two storey rear extension with single storey projecting bay for a Mimbar pulpit. Increase the number of attendees for the community use to 29 daily and 37 (Friday afternoon only), and extension to the opening hours until 11pm, including a 30-minute opening for morning prayer between 02:50 and 6:30. 

 

Mr Abu Uddin addressed the Committee in support of the application.  

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Darwin Drive:

      i.          Did not object to the building of the extension and the existing hours of teaching and worship.  

     ii.          Did object to the increase in the hours of use, and the numbers attending.  

   iii.          In 2011 the North Area Committee denied the application because it would negatively affect residential amenity.  

   iv.          The Cambridge Local Plan of 2018 specifically states the planning system should protect amenity.  

    v.          Darwin Drive was a quiet, residential street. The proposed application would increase the size, scale, and intensity of use, and cause unacceptable noise at night.  

   vi.          The development would damage the character of the street.  

 vii.          The environmental health report of April this year confirmed the likelihood of an “adverse impact on residential amenity". The report author stated, “given the potential for adverse impacts on amenity in the area […] we cannot support this application”. 

viii.          The assessment of the impact from the proposed changes had not changed.  

   ix.          What had changed was the willingness of the Shah-Jalal Islamic Centre Management Committee to engage with residents who respected the Centre’s neighbours and did not believe there would be a negative impact and wanted to get things right for everyone. 

    x.          However, there needed to be a cautious approach as previous committees had insisted on religious necessity without thinking of the local amenity.  

   xi.          Permission on such applications had led to many complaints with some residents moving away because of the disturbances. 

 xii.          The proposed application could upset a culturally diverse fragile equilibrium.  

xiii.          If permission is granted it will be hard to reverse.  

xiv.          It is not easy to record late night disturbances and to get them validated and prosecuted. 

xv.          Allowing the application based on goodwill, was not a cautious approach. 

xvi.          Referenced the Akeman Street Community Centre which closed at 10pm. To be fair and equitable, the same rules should apply to all other community rooms in the area. 

xvii.          Believed the original reason for asking for an expansion was to allow more children to be taught Arabic.  

xviii.          A compromise might be a target change in hours to make that possible. This might stop the cycle of repeated, near-identical applications. 

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a second local resident:  

      i.          Neighbours had witnessed that the Centre was used not just by local residents but those outside of the area  

     ii.          Residents could also confirm how many individuals drove to the Centre which caused issues with parking.  

   iii.          Any intensification of use would bring an increase to these problems and raise noise issues.  

   iv.          Paragraph 7.4 of the Planning Officer’s report highlighted a response from the applicant to the objections raised by residents; part of the response stated users of the premises were residents who walked to the site.  

    v.          Despite this confirmation in previous applications there had been representations from users of the Centre who had given their address outside of the local area such as Hanson Court or Kings Hedges.  

   vi.          Reviews of the Centre could be found on the internet from users who were not only outside of the local area but visitors to Cambridge.   

 vii.          The applicant also stated in paragraph 7.4 they were unaware of any violations within the last five years. However there had been breach of conditions brought to the attention of Planning Enforcement:

·       Possible High Court action had been brought to the attention of Officers on two occasions without any acknowledgement.  

·       The Local Government Ombudsman ruled in favour of the complaint stating the least that could be done by Planning Enforcement was to acknowledge the breach of conditions.  

viii.          Evidence of planning conditions breaches could also be found online and were committed regularly as witnessed by local neighbours.  

   ix.          Those individuals who had objected to the application lived closer to the Centre than those who expressed their support.  

 

The Committee:  

 

Resolved (unanimously) to reject the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

      i.          The extension to the property, the change of hours and the number of users would not adversely harm the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.  

 

Resolved unanimously to grant the application for planning permission including delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft conditions requiring development in accordance with the approved plans for the following:

         i.          Time limit

       ii.          Plans

     iii.          Materials

     iv.          Amount of Attendees

       v.          Opening Hours (week day, not early hours)

     vi.          Opening Hours (early hours)

   vii.          Noise Mitigation Measures

 viii.          Transport Mitigation Measures

     ix.          Management Plan Mitigation Measures (Combined Noise, Supporting statement and Transport) 

       x.          New Cycle Parking  

     xi.          Limitations on the flat  

   xii.          The use of the garden  

 xiii.          Hard and Soft Landscaping (Prior to use of the extension) 

 xiv.          Construction Traffic Management Plan