Monday, 12 November 2012

Worcester Park Mosque - Revised Plans Submitted

The public consultation on plans to convert Bank Chambers in Green Lane into a mosque has been reopened after the applicants submitted a additional information and answers to questions raised by their planning application to Sutton Council.

The applicants claim that Sutton Council planning officers "confirmed that, in their initial view, there are 

no objections in principle to the proposed change of use subject to providing satisfactory additional information" to a series of concerns and questions raised by the Council.

The supplementary information is available on Sutton Council's planning portal. Residents now have until 29th November 2012 to comment on the proposed mosque.

Below is a summary of key answers submitted in response to questions raised by Sutton Council planning officers. For full responses to these questions and for other supporting information, visit the planning portal.

A full timetable for prayers explaining the type of prayers and how long it will take to perform each prayer on a daily basis; 

Islamic prayer times are traditionally set according to the movement of the sun, not by the clock. The "times" (according to the clock) for these prayers change from day to day and are dependent on location. On average, to perform a prayer (from concregation to dispersal) takes about 20-40 minutes.

Information about Friday prayers and festivals and how this would impact on visitors to the site and hours of use.  For instance, when is it likely that the mosque will be at full capacity;

It is likely that the mosque will only accommodate its full capacity at Friday afternoon prayers, at 2 festival prayers and on the first five nights and the 26th night of Ramadan.  A Management Strategy each year will be in place and performing these prayers would not have any adverse impact either on the surrounding properties or passers by.

Information about whether the proposed mosque would provide educational facilities, training and other community events in the premises; 

It is proposed that the building will not only be used as a mosque but it will also be used  for religious educational purposes. The proposals would provide community facilities  for Muslims who currently live and work  locally. School visits to the mosque may also be permitted three times in a year. These visits are useful as they help teach children about other religions.


Information about the type of branch of Islam (i.e. Sunni, Shiya) the worshipers of   the proposed mosque will follow.  How this compares to the four other mosques in the area and whether this would have implications on the proposed catchment area; For instance, would worshippers come from outside the catchment area and possible other mosques due to the branch of Islam.   


All four local mosques (Morden, Sutton, Epsom & Ewell and Kingston) follow the ‘Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at’ branch of Islam, and the proposed mosque will follow the same branch.  It is considered that the catchment area for the proposed mosque would be approximately 2.0 km, which approximately corresponds with half the distance to the closest mosque in each direction.

A Management Strategy is required to  demonstrate how the applicant intends to manage visitors to and from the site.  For instance, how will people disperse from the site to avoid people unnecessarily congregating /waiting on the highway; 

A caretaker employed at the site will be tasked with the managerial role of overseeing the operation of the mosque at prayer times. His role will involve assisting people into the mosque quickly and without disruption before prayers and helping to ensure the site is vacated reasonably promptly after prayers have finished.  It is expected that only 10-15 people will attend at any one prayer on a daily basis; therefore one caretaker would be adequate. All worshippers will not vacate the building at one time, because the time, taken to perform the prayer will vary from person to person.  


The mosque committee will employ two people who will aid the caretaker during Friday noon prayer and for festival prayers when attendances are expected to be higher. The extra two people will be based outside the mosque, on the forcourt, to ensure people disperse from the site and avoid unnecessary congregation/waiting on the highway.

Explanation as to how the proposal would ensure that local residents are not unacceptably impacted by increased noise or disturbance.  

Muslim prayers are performed quietly and so there is very little external noise impact. Generally, concerns about possible external noise arise from the possibility of the call to prayer (called ‘Athan’) being externally broadcast by loudspeakers.  This scheme does not include any such plan and  there will be no externally broadcasting loudspeakers. 

The low attendance on a daily basis also means that noise disturbance from worshippers congregating and dispersing is likely to be low as well.  The mosque committee will instruct a caretaker to ensure that prayers are performed quietly. In addition, the mosque will adopt a ‘no children under 6 years old’  policy, which will help keep noise to a minimum (such an age restriction in common in mosques).

An additional transport report is required including the car parking survey at Waitrose Car Park on a Friday to demonstrate that the proposed change of use will not affect town centre parking spaces on Fridays;

A car parking survey was carried out on Friday 31st August between 11:30 and 14:30 at both the town centre car park at Waitrose and the railway station car park.  Based on the level of parking available within those local car parks, as well as the further capacity available within the surrounding local highway network, the statement concludes that there would be adequate parking available for any vehicle use associated with the proposed mosque during a typical weekday and that adequate spare parking capacity would remain demonstrating that In a bid to counter criticism that the development will bring additional traffic to the already-congested area, the applicants are proposing to supply additional cycling racking on Green Lane, for storage of up to 16 bicycles.

54 COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

teatime said...

I hope all of those people who voted Liberal Democrats are happy. This council doesn't care about Worcester Park residents, it never has and it never will. Where's our councillor - what is he doing about this?


The fact that the parking survey was carried out on Friday 31st of August (school summer holidays) just proves the complete incompetence and disconnect with regards to the area.

Hettie said...

I would like to say I am surprised by what I have just read but sadly I am not. Once again the views of local residents appear to have been completely ignored. For Sutton Council planning officers to state that, "in their initial view, there are no objections in principle to the proposed change of use subject to providing satisfactory additional information" is quite frankly outrageous. Do the voices of so many local people, the people that elected them into office, count for nothing? Obviously they don't.

How can a parking survey carried out at the end of August during both the school holidays and at the end of a Bank Holiday week possibly be a true representation of the true level of parking available. Answer.....it isn't! The availability of spaces in the Station car park seems irrelevant. Why would the mosque users choose to use a car park where they have to pay to park when they can use the local streets and Stone Place for free? Answer....they won't. Who would? But all is not lost at least there will be facilities for up to 16 extra bicycles......

I also note with interest that whilst the premises would be used for community services for Muslims, non Muslims MAY (and i emphasise the word may) be invited in up to three times a year, and the invitation would only be extended to children. So clearly large sections of the community will not be welcome if any at all.

We had been previously asked to believe that a mosque was needed in Worcester Park because the other nearby mosques were not suitable for the Muslims who wished to worship locally. It has now been clearly stated that "all four local mosques (Morden, Sutton, Epsom & Ewell and Kingston) follow the ‘Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at’ branch of Islam, and the proposed mosque will follow the same branch'. Have we been misled once again? Many Muslims from these local mosques could easily decide if they haven't already that a mosque based in Worcester Park would be much more convenient and choose to use it instead thus putting even more stress on the road and parking infrastructure. How can this possible 'ensure that local residents are not unacceptably impacted by increased noise or disturbance'? Answer..... it won't. We are asked to feel reassured by the fact that the scheme does not include the plan for the possibility of the call to prayer (‘Athan’) being
externally broadcast by loudspeakers and there will be no externally broadcasting loudspeakers. I have seen people being called to prayer in the UK by a man standing in the street using a hand held PA system. No external loud speakers need to be present to achieve this but clearly what will be achieved is that local residents ARE unacceptably impacted by increased noise or disturbance.

I cannot find it in myself to trust or believe anything the applicants have stated bearing in mind the very same people denied for a long time that the premises had been procured for use as a mosque. I also cannot believe that Sutton council have the best interests of the community they are laughingly elected to represent in mind when they clearly are prepared to ignore the concerns of so many of their electorate. It appears that both the applicants and the council are prepared to go to what ever lengths necessary to obtain what they want the final outcome to be. Anybody that doesn't agree will simply be ignored or labeled racist.

Applicants without credibility said...

"The applicants claim..."

Please bear in mind that this is not a statement of fact, but a dubious claim, published on a blog, by someone who wishes to remain anonymous - it ain't serious journalism!

'The applicants" previously claimed for 3 years that they didn't exist and didn't have any plan to turn Bank Chambers into a mosque!

...And look how false and deliberately dishonest those claims by 'the applicants' turned out to be!

Hettie said...

I do take your point.....and do refer to my concerns about the
applicants credibility in my final paragraph. I am also astounded by the
fact that when the council had a query such as the availability of
parking at Stone Place on a Friday afternoon they allowed the applicant
to carry out the survey rather than enlist the help of an independent
body with nothing to lose or gain by the outcome. The findings of only
one afternoon, which would have been a quieter than average Friday were
then deemed acceptable. If it wasn't such a serious subject it would be
laughable!

axlrocky said...

well that seems to cover everything a liberal democrat needs to justify this application, well played worcester parkers, now maybe you'll listen when i tell you not to vote lib dem in future

Zoe said...

Why am I not surprised? Liberal lefties (despite being in the minority in this country) always win. The islamification and dilution of the British people and culture is well on its way. As for Worcester Park - take a picture whilst you can - its going to change - mark my words!

John said...

You think they would have learned from the Morden mosque. But these guys are suckers. Of course it doesn't matter to them as they don't live in the real world...

Applicants without credibility said...

Ladies and Gents,

Please avoid the mistake of blindly believing statements of an anonymous third party source on the internet, who states "The applicants claim..."

If you want to find out the true situation, make enquiries with legitimate sources: our local Councillors (both Conservative and Lib Dem) and Sutton Council's planners, as opposed to accepting the anonymous sensational comments written here.

And here's a thought...

Has anyone noticed that the advertisements on this blog have suddenly disappeared?

Could it be that questions are being asked about where any advertising revenue from our web visits is going and how tax is being paid on the income?

Anonymous bloggers usually retain their anonymity for a reason...

teatime said...

The worst thing is that shortly after the Morden mosque was built lots of BNP leaflets started to appear through our letterbox. I suspect the same will happen here.

Zoe said...

Lets not change the subject. This is not a tax avoidance article but one written about the impending mosque. And as for claims et al - this website has lifted the PDF off the Sutton planning website - so a lot of it is a statement of fact and one which you can believe.

Applicants without credibility said...

Let's not attempt change or reinterpret an apparently necessarily anonymous blog as a local community service of transparent integrity:

Again, what has been uploaded is a PDF from the applicant - it is an WHOLLY UNEDITED statement of the applicant's claims - it is NOT a statement of fact.


The entire application appears on-line to ensure the planning process is transparently adhered to - whatever it's contents - that doesn't make all or any part of it either true or factual.

What is a statement of fact (since the source is Sutton Council) is that according to the portal, more than 750 letters of rejection have been received, who argue that the claims of the applicant are NOT a statement of fact.

If you want to stop this mosque, (like over 50 of us have already done), write you rejections to the Council and copy them to your Councillors. Writing comments of rejection here is completely off-radar and will have no impact ... except maybe to generate revenue for someone who wishes to remain unknown.

Applicants without credibility said...

Obviously that should read "over 750 of us" not 50.

teatime said...

That's what we have done except Sutton have yet again chosen to ignore our objections!

Applicants without credibility said...

How does anyone know 'our objections' have been ignored?' ...Surely you aren't automatically accepting the applicant's claims as true and accurate?

The Council asked for further explanations: surely this in itself highlights they were not satisfied with the application?

What is a certainty is that approving this planning application would be a disaster - including a political disaster. It would hand the BNP a huge PR gift in LBS. At least some of our locally elected Councillors must have worked this out ... especially those whose party form a majority in LBS and who represent a ward close to Green Lane.

teatime said...

No I haven't accepted the applicant's claims as true and accurate however I also have no faith whatsoever in Sutton council.

Re BNP - This I agree with as that is exactly what happened once the Morden mosque was built.

Sean Volcheck said...

This is just the start.

Phase 1: Local private business decay and closure - this has already started happening

Phase 2: Mosque / cultural centre - on its way (they will eventually get approval anyway)

Phase 3: Webuyyourgold / Poundland opens

Phase 4: Halal butcher opens (happened)

Phase 5: Parking restrictions introduced and you are forced to pay to park outside your home. Wardens are rife - you can't have a visitor for two seconds when they are out to try to fine them. Council happy because its quids in.

Phase 6: More local business decay - we may be lucky to get a Subway / other franchise

Phase 7: Internet cafe / mobile phone unblocking opens (too late by then)

Phase 8: More empty shops - local fruit shop replaced by Turkish fruit shop / general food

Phase 9: Locals start to move out as eastern europeans move in and Polish shop opens

Phase 10: Somali tea rooms start opening where old shops were - I don't hold a grudge against them - they have to make it where they can / conditions suit.

Phase 11: Waitrose closes - Netto / Aldi opens

Phase 12: You start to see and hear less English people. Mosque sermons take place on the street outside, the mosque gets permission to build an extension to increase capacity (of course they need a separate entrance for "sisters" too). They start to have BBQ's / fund raising events outside their mosque for mosque families only

Phase 13: Many 1 bedroom flats contain whole families of eastern europeans. I don't hold a grudge against them - they have to make it where they can.

Phase 14: Remembrance parades are cancelled in case they offend the locals. Pubs start to close because we cant have "drinking and debauchery" and offend worshippers attending the mosque.

Phase 14: Game over - next town

Applicants without credibility said...

Let me guess...
"Phase 15: Alien invasion from the planet Mars. I've got nothing against martians - they have to make it where they can."



Back in the real world...
If you have a reasonable and coherent objection to the planning application, write to Sutton Council, using the portal - the more objections the better.


You can also contact your local Councillors to let them know the issues and ask them to address them. That's what they're there for.


If you are serious about objecting, for goodness sake do so whilst you've got the chance. We cannot seriously blame our Council or our Councillors for failing to respond to objections that were never raised.


It's up to you to get your democratic voice heard, whilst you've got the chance.

Worcester Park Blogger said...

The quotes are all taken directly from documents on the Sutton Council planning portal, which I have linked to in the blog article.

mabel said...

So sad and ridiculous to propose a mosque where over crowding parking in all side roads and especially Fridays and Saturdays trying to find a car parking space in Waitrose Car Park. Worcester Park residents are very tolerant but no residents just over the Kingston side of the Bridge have ever been consulted although they will be one of the nearest to this proposed Mosque. More traffic will make Central Road deadlock worse than it is now especially making school children late for school when the buses are at a standstill most mornings.Worcester Park has always had a Village feel and it is too small to accomodate this kind of proposal. The Mosques in Sutton Kingston and Morden are not a million miles away for people to get to. Please reject these proposals.

longfellow said...

cant wait for phase 11 we need an aldi

Hettie said...

Am I the only person whose has been written to by Richard Green regarding the Planning Application Revisions for 2-4 Green Lane asking for any comments I may have? I do have comments about the revised plans but have been advised by Mr Green that if I write a letter, email or write on the website 'you must provide your full postal address. All such communication will be made available for immediate public inspection in hard copy' It would appear that when I vote I have the right to do so anonymously but if I have an objection to any proposals that the elected council are considering my rights to anonymity are revoked. I conclude from this that anybody who wishes to know who exactly is objecting to their application can not only find out who they are courtesy of the council but will also be told exactly where such persons live. I object to my personal details being given to any person unknown to me and have to ask why such persons would need or want to know my address. I live in a part of Worcester Park that will be directly effected by further traffic and inadequate parking facilities should this application succeed, and those are the grounds on which I am objecting. Of course there is a possibility that Mr Richards did not mean that my full address which he has requested will be made available for immediate public inspection and be available as a hard copy. If this is the case then I would suggest to him that the wording on his hard copy of the letter I received from him be revised.

dt said...

I think that though comments can be made anonymously, objections have to be made on the basis of planning law and must be identifiable. A number of councils will accept initials and postcode as an identifier.

Hettie said...

Mr Richards letter (to my home address) states 'should you wish to make comments' the word 'objections' is never used. In the sentence that informs me if I wish to write or email a comment the words 'you must provide your full postal address' is written in bold type. Initials or a postcode as an identifier appear not to be an option acceptable to Sutton Council. The council have both my name and my full postal address, they can already identify me. As this is the case I do not understand the need to make this information 'available for immediate public inspection in hard copy'.

dt said...

Then I suggest you ask him if it is possible to anonymise your comment, i.e. as a newspare does (Full name and address supplied).

Hettie said...

Good point dt.....thank you.

Siobhanismith@yahoo.co.uk said...

I cant believe this I only came across this by chance yesterday. As residents of Worcester Park should we not have received notification that planning permission was being put through?? I live in the Hamptons and no one has been made aware of this. This will devalue the prices of properties if it goes through. I have e mailed the council and Lib Dem rep on 4 occasions and heard nothing back. How can this even be considered to go through when the council tax payers that pay the salary of the council etc have not been notified. I think you should start by making residents aware before things continue !!!

WP resident said...

I wrote to our councillor to ask about this planning application and he hasn't even bothered to respond. What a waste of space.

Neilfrog said...

It's clear our local MP and Sutton council are not listening to the local opposition to this new place of worship and the impact it will have on local businesses, parking and other residents.

However, it is worth going back and lodging further objections to this application on the Sutton planning portal and point out the failure of Sutton to address these concerns.

Applicants without credibility said...

No, you are not the only person. All 759 authors of letters of objection sent to LBS Planning Dept. will receive the same letter - I have received the identical one too.

I think the purpose of requiring a full name and address is to ensure transparency, so nobody can meddle with planning applications without revealing their identity, as well as preventing the process being slowed up by anonymous pranksters. [No doubt the applicant would have preferred to have continued insisting there was no mosque and no plans for one, as was the case for the last several years!]

Bear in mind, if Sutton Council states that objections must be accompanied by a full name and address, and many do not supply one, this would certainly be a helpful way to reduce the number of objections - which is good news for the applicant in masking the scale of opposition! There are already almost 800 addresses shown on the website, so more wouldn't exactly stand out!

The bottom line is that we have 2 weeks to submit our reasoned objections, with a full name and address - or do nothing, be ignored and give Sutton Council the easy task of approving the application.

Applicants without credibility said...

Quite right, do continue to submit objections. None of the points I raised in my own have been answered, so using this as the basis I will submit another, including the revised appication's nonsense.

Has anyone noticed that the revised attendance numbers at local mosques (paragraph 2.20 on page 10) show attendances in Morden at the small Morden Islamic Centre and strangely, the application now avoid any reference to dramatically larger attendance numbers at the nearer Baitul Futuh Mosque.

So according to the application, the MAXIMUM number of attendees at the local "Morden" mosque is just 55!!!


... Is this document a planning application or a script for a stand-up comedian?

Neilfrog said...

Write to Paul Burstow too. He won't bother to reply, but it is worth lodging the objection. Maybe Sutton CC and our local MP will take Worcester Park residents objections more seriously when they are no longer our MP and councillors. They seem to forgot that they respresent us, their decisions are supposed to reflect and represent those of the people that elected them.

Shame on Sutton CC and shame on Paul Burstow.

Sean said...

You can still object - visit http://213.122.180.105/FASTWEB/detail.asp?AltRef=A2012/66050&ApplicationNumber=A2012%2F6605&AddressPrefix=&submit1=Go and submit your objection now

Dave said...

When railway lines are electrified house prices invariably go up.
When Tramlink was built houses along the route generally increased in value as a result.
What happens when an area becomes Islamified? I don't know, but I invite our local Estate Agents to find out and let us know.

Dave said...

To be accurate, as of a few minutes ago the addresses of 764 people / households / businesses offering "comments" were listed on the LBS Website. How many of those are "rejections" can only be surmised.
[for some perverse reason, best known to LBS's IT department, they all carry today's date, which makes the date superfluous]
What is puzzling is that, at the top of this blog, it says that 459 users of Facebook "like" the pdf extracts.
LBS Planning advise that the application is likely to go to Committee in late December or early January, subject to arranging a suitable venue due to the number of interested parties likely to attend. Presumably that will include most of the people who raised "comments", other than those from Preston Lancs and the like.

Dave said...

The blogmaster of this site allows anyone to "vote up" a posting, but one has to be signed-in to "down-vote" - perverse, since we can only vote on what we agree with!

Dave said...

Considering the applicant's claim of a 2 kilometre catchment area, it is interesting to do a quick analysis of those 764 "comments".
About 630 come from KT3/KT4, the rest being outside the catchment area.
In particular, one wonders what the interest of people living in Braintree,Colliers Wood,Coulsdon,Coventry,Croydon,E10,E17,
Feltham,Hampton Court,Knaphill,Lincoln,Merton Park,Mitcham,
Pluckley,Preston,Shirley,Streatham,Surbiton,Tolworth,Tooting,
Watford and Wimbledon
might be in having a mosque in Worcester Park.

Applicants without credibility said...

The quotes are taken from the applicant's statement.
They are not quotes from Sutton Council.

Until Sutton Council has the opportunity to confirm or deny the comments as an accurate portrayal of the meeting, neither you or anybody else can claim them as that.

So why don't you do what a journalist would do and ask Sutton Council, discover the truth and upload the response here?...


I'm sure a number of us residents have already approached Mr. Richard Green, to enquire whether the applicant's impression is a valid conclusion.
And therefore, as Planning Officer, to confirm whether is his true intention is to follow the Planning process and its "material considerations", such as "access and traffic problems" and "need for parking"?


Or respectfully ignore any obstacles and objections and rubber stamp an approval?

WP local said...

I grew up in Woking and the mosque there attracts thousands now. When it started the housing close by went down in value and people moved out as the muslims flooded in, which then created segregation on a huge scale - is this what people want for WP? We can approach the council, but I do know they never respond to anything really. I only found out about this by accident and not being notified by the council about something that would greatly affect our lives.
The traffic is severe as it is let alone attracting more people to make it worse! They are accommodated enough with the amount of mosques you see anyway.
Time to sign petitions folks! Paul Burstow should be at WP library 2nd to 4th Saturday each month should people want to complain.
If the petition is for a few to attend do not believe it.

Sean said...

And the same happened here in Acton. Not one indigenous citizen in Acton now....

parkerilla said...

Had a letter from Sutton Council today as, I imagine, a lot of other readers did. The application will be decided at a meeting of the development committee at Cheam High School at 7.30 pm on 3rd December.
All further representations in respect of the revisions to the application must be received by 22nd November.

teatime said...

Thanks for this, I didn't receive a letter.

longfellow said...

Received a letter today saying committee will meet on 3rd of December at cheam High school to decide. please all attend and stop this madness

Sooty said...

What time?

Hettie said...

Thanks for this. I haven't received a letter. Odd that!!

Hettie said...

According to a post from parkerilla it's at 7.30. Without this blog I would know nothing about the application or the appeal against it. Transparent Sutton Council certainly are not!

parkerilla said...

The letter was sent to anyone who made a submission of support/opposal to Sutton Council. Tomorrow I can scan the letter and send it to the blog to be posted, I think its vital that everyone in WP, whether for, against or indifferent to the proposed mosque reads it, not just the 750 odd who put in formal submissions and therefore were written to.

ARR said...

Interestingly, the letter I have received from Richard Green, in response to my objection (dated November 9th) states that I have 21 days from its date (i.e. until November 30th) to submit an updated response to the revised application.

There is NO mention of a meeting on 3rd December and NO mention of a deadline November 22nd.

So it looks like at least some (i.e. objectors) have been excluded from the planning meeting and are to be informed that their revised objection arrived too late to be considered - is anyone else in the same position?

Hettie said...

I was sent the same later dated 9th November by Richard Green but did not receive it until 14th November. My letter also contained NO mention of a meeting on the 3rd of December and NO mention of a deadline of the 22nd November. If Mr Green allowed me the same method of response as himself i.e The Royal Mail that gave me only three days to read the revisions and to pen a suitable response. The revised application was in my opinion a joke and in no way addressed my serious concerns regarding traffic and parking chaos that I had already submitted. Why should I/would I need to repeat myself when my previous written objection covers all my major concerns. The entire process strikes me as both sides, the council and the applicants, simply going through the motions. I fully intend to attend the meeting (that I am only aware of thanks to this blog) to ensure the council are held to count over their shambolic handling of this matter, to ensure they are not able to state at some future point they were unaware of any local objection to the proposal or that the residents of Worcester Park simply didn't appear to care either way. I am a resident of Worcester Park, I object and I care enough to say so.

teatime said...

I'm coming along too! Everyone should come along regardless of whether they received a letter or not.

uninformed said...

Sadly the majority of Worcester Parkers no nothing about this meeting, so they won't attend and probably the mosque will get arpprved, why don't they know - people should be told?

teatime said...

I just got home to find a letter sent to me by the council advising that closing date is today for any further comments. This letter is dated the 17th of November and yet I only receive it today!!

Neilfrog said...

Are WP residents attending this meeting going to pre meet? It would be useful to have a collective list of objections which were presented by the better speakers amongst us. If this doesn't happen then there is a risk that a number of people will share the 4 minutes between them and fail to get the point over collectively.

Dave said...

Looks like Mr. Green should "consider his position". If he cannot act consistently, is he a fit and proper person to be involved at all?

jackie said...

I agree the council are steam rollering over us residents,It took me 20minutes to get out of green lane last week for sheer weight of traffic. Has the council ever been to green lane obviously not. Apart from the increased congestion I think people should also concentrate on the noise & times of the calling to prayer this is a residential area, they are not allowed to call at the Kingston mosque,and how are we going to get past on the pavement as in kingston after friday prayers if you want to pass you have to walk in the road as nobody moves for you this is from experience. I too had a letter sent to me 2 days before the meeting so could not attend because like most people I had already made alternative arrangements, very underhand. I myself usually vote Lib Dem in council elections ,but will not do so in the future when so many residents objections are being overlooked.This is not about human rights if it was what about mine,this political correctness & greed by the council &underhandedness by the people who bought this property 3 years ago,because they always intended to use this facility for the purpose of a mosque,but had to wait till the was right for them to pursue it. The reasons given by this group of people for having a mosque here on religious grounds appears to be false as the local mosques all follow their branch of the religion.

Post a Comment

The Worcester Park Blog welcomes your comments and opinions!