Friday, 24 May 2013

New Worcester Park Mosque Plans Submitted


A new planning application to convert the vacant old Bank Chambers in Green Lane into a Mosque, has been submitted to Sutton Council .

The planning application (A2013/67455 - available here) was received by Sutton Council on the 10th of May regarding: 2 - 4 Green Lane, Worcester Park, KT4 8AD. The application is for: Use of premises as a place of worship (Class D1) for a temporary period of four years involving replacement of garage door with window and provision of cycle facilities.

This new application description is very similar to the original application (A2012/66050 - available here) and both the applicant and the agent look to be the same on this new one as the original. The main difference between the two applications is that this new one is asking for permission “for a temporary period of four years”.

In March 2010, The Worcester Park Blog exclusively revealed that a local group was seeking to create a 'Worcester Park Islamic Community Centre' in the Bank Chambers premises next to Kingfish, although no planning application had been submitted at the time.

When contacted by the Blog in 2010, a spokesman for the organisation denied that they were proposing a mosque at the site, and their website which called for 'Muslims locally and internationally to donate generously towards building the House of Allah' in Worcester Park was quickly removed.

After a two year wait, the first planning application was submitted on the 8th of June last year. The consultation ran from the 5th of July and was extended until the 30th of November due to the huge public concern about the plans and the additional congestion that would be caused at an already far too congested site.

Traffic congestion in Green Lane has been a major issue for a long time anyway. It can reportedly take over twenty minutes to get from the bottom of Green Lane to Central Road and if there is an accident between Worcester Park and the A3 or even on the A3 it can take very much longer. It is apparently not uncommon to see road rage and 'disrespectful driving' in Green Lane in such situations.

During the consultation period 473 letters objecting to the application were received by the council as well as petitions run by the Worcester Park Residents' Association, local Conservatives and local residents, containing a total of 4126 signatures against the plans. 150 letters supporting the proposal were also received by the Council however only 17% of those supporting letters came from the KT4 postcode area while 93% of the letters objecting were from the KT4 area.

The case was heard by Sutton’s  Development Control Committee on the 3rd of December and after numerous presentations, some heated debate and many impassioned pleas, the committee unanimously refused the application, upholding the council officer’s recommendations. The application was turned down on the grounds of “insufficient parking provision in an area” and the “danger and inconvenience to all users of the public highway” that it would cause.

Since then a few people have been found to be using the building as a Mosque without the necessary permission requiring a Planning Contravention Notice to be served and it has also seen squatters move into the building and back out again.

It seems the applicant wants to have another try at converting it to a Mosque. Local residents have until 21st June 2013 to submit their comments, support or objections to this new Worcester Park mosque application.

Update Sunday 26th May (around 12:30am)

There is now more information available with the application. Thanks VR for spotting it. As VR points out below, the application is specifying that it will be a 'Green Mosque' and that worshippers will walk, use bicycles and public transport. The additional documents can be seen here. The most relevant ones are the Planning Design & Access Statement, the Transport Statement and the Travel Plan. Also the Appendices may be of interest too. Please remember these document are subject to copyright. We can only use them "for consultation purposes, to compare current applications with previous schemes and to check whether developments have been completed in accordance with approved plans".

Interestingly according to the Transport Statement (paragraph 1.2.4) they "will prohibit journeys by car". While I am sure they can and may very well encourage people not to use their cars, I'm not sure there is any legal basis by which they can "prohibit journeys by car". No doubt this will be explored more deeply as the next few weeks and months unfold...

Update Sunday 26th May (around 4:30pm)

Many readers have asked how to object to this application. If you want to object to it you can do so here.

You can also send a letter to:
Planning Division,
24 Denmark Road,
Carshalton,
Surrey
SM5 2JG,

You can also send an email to: developmentcontrol@sutton.gov.uk

Please remember that any correspondence regarding objections, comments or support is not confidential and can be read by the public, including the applicant and other people affected one way or the other. So don't write something you wouldn't want other people to know you wrote.

Update Monday 27th May (around 4:45pm)

A very sensible set of suggestions has just been submitted as a comment and I hope the anonymous author doesn't mind if I copy them here:

First, if you submitted an objection first time around, please do so again, since this is being treated as a new planning application. The previous letters of opposition almost certainly won't count in the numbers of objections.

Second, if you still have the original objection in your 'sent items', it shouldn't take long to update. If you really can't spare any time reading the amended application and amending your previous version, simply change the date on the last one and send in the same objection again. (After all, the amended application is barely changed and the central objections will be barely changed - if at all).

Third, you should receive confirmation that your objection has been received. If you don't, send an email asking for confirmation, otherwise, there is a risk that it won't ever get read or count in the numbers.

Finally, last time around, at the planning meeting, you may recall the Worcester Park Residents Association (WPRA) submitted an impressive case, objecting to the application and they can be contacted via WP library. Please give them your support.

Update Wednesday 29th May (around 3:45pm)

Councillor Stewart Gordon Bullock has de-delegated the application which means it will now have to be heard by the full Development Control (planning) Committee. It can not now be just approved by Council officers in Sutton's planning department.


65 COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

local said...

Have the reasons for the original rejection been addressed in this new
panning application? If not I suspect the original unanimous rejection still
stands and they are wasting their time and money.

Am i the only one to have noticed a lot of comings and goings from the property recently? Are people living in there?council

Spud said...

Don't think anyone should be supprised about the new application, its not an unusual proceedure. I just think the timing for their application coinciding with events at Woolwich will probably mean an even bigger outcry within the local community!!

Notablogger said...

How bizarre that the applicant thinks that we (and Sutton Council) will be fine with disruption and chaos if it is just for for 4 years.

Perhaps if he had turned up to the planning meeting last year he would have a better understanding of the scale of opposition to this ludicrous plan.


DT said...

It appears identical, the only change is to being temporary (4 years), however if it succeeds, it is very much easier to make it permenant, even if it causes traffic and parking chaos.

Another change seems to be that it is an officer decision not committee, though that will I'm sure change if there are a large number of objections, particularly if the local councillors come on board again.

The application was made on the 10th and as Spud has said, it is very unfortunate for them that the incident in Woolwich occurred a few days later.

There should be site adverts and in the immediate area by the 31st.

bee said...

i am against this,think this is a heartless thing to do after all that has been going on.
our community will not stand for this.
parking will be a nightmare,roads will be blocked and accidents are sure to happen,there are enough mosques in this country as it is.
also we do not want this on our door step after what happened to that poor guy,this could happen again,do you really want to risk our children getting hurt.
i say NO

Andrew page said...

would they hounstley let us build a church and spread the word of christ out there no so theres my answer to ur application its not about the roads and congestion it would cause its just why is it we should all have a mosque in our area !!!!!!!!!!! i WOULD rarther submit an application to turn it into a gym and or add another restaurant :) or sum were for youth of worcester park to go as i feel this would bring down crime more if there was somwere for them to go aka a youth centre

Parkerilla said...

They have security guards protecting the property since the squatters moved out and I believe they sleep there overnight. They also use the premises to store goods, being a nosey so and so who walks past their everyday I have a peek through the window [slap wrist], can't remember the type of goods off hand but it's shop merchandise, toys or something, can't remember just now (but I'll have a snoop tomorrow morning!!) So yes there are comings and goings but I don't think it's anything to worry about, indeed it's good that they are guarding the property against squatters and they're entitled to store goods there, they do own it!!

Parkerilla said...

Thanks Dubya Pee blogger for this post, just shows what a hugely valuable asset to Worcester Park this blog is. I'll be cut and pasting my strongly worded letter of objection to Sutton Council from last time forthwith!!

Parkerilla said...

By the way, just noticed, your blog as I see it on my pc screen is loudly and proudly advertising Muslima.com Muslim Matrimonials in a big advertising splash ... you old interfaith cupid you ;)

Worcester Park Blogger said...

Glad to be of use! Thanks.

vr said...

The new application is NOT identical to the previous one. It states clearly
that it has been amended to overcome the reasons for refusal. The main
argument now is that it's going to be a "green mosque", i.e. it will
only be accessible by walking, cycling or public transport. Getting
there by car will not be allowed. My question is: who's going to control
this? (...) They have even named the building "Green Mosque" in the
application form. I'm half way through the application and start having goose bumps... We need to send a few constructive responses to the Council, otherwise our arguments won't be registered at all. They are better prepared this time and they have already knocked down a few of our main arguments. God help us!

Green mosque or green planner said...

When you trivially write "the incident in Woolwich".
Do mean a late train?
Do you mean a broken down bus?
Or do you mean the brutal murder by hatred preaching Islamic militants of a soldier? A British soldier, who had just returned home from protecting an Islamic community, from Islamic militants exactly like those who carried out this appalling act of terrorism.
Would the latter be "the incident at Woolwich" that you trivially write of and express regret only in the sense of its timing in relation to a clash with this planning application?
And by "it is very unfortunate for them", presumably you are not thinking of the soldier's family, but those pursuing the planning application?

Nick said...

If it genuinely were a 'green mosque' and everyone walked, cycled or caught the bus there I would actually support the plans. However, given that the vast majority of worshipers/supporters seem to reside outside of KT4, I really don't believe this will be the case. Several hundred people turning up on a Friday - you can't tell me none of them would drive .... How would you enforce it? I therefore again have to oppose these plans. Why didn't the mosque leaders engage properly with our local councils - Sutton, Kingston, Merton and Epsom/Ewell - and work with planning departments to identify a suitable location first? There is clearly some demand for this across South West London and North Surrey so do it properly. I hate to see all the tension this repeated application is causing in our community.

Green mosque or green planner said...

Nick, the word "green" and the word "temporary" represent poorly conceived attempts to covertly achieve the original objective of a permanent mosque, attended by those driving to and from it. There is no substance to the amendments, which are there simply to disguise the original and unchanged agenda.

There are already at least 2 mosques in Merton (including the largest in the country). There are 2 in Kingston (with plans for expansion - see their website) and at least 1 each in both Epsom/Ewell and Mitcham, and at least 3 in Croydon. And most of the above mosques also have on-site car parking, unlike this location!

In short, many of those who wanted this mosque already had one nearer to them - and with an adjacent car park! So why do they genuinely need to travel to one further away, without a car park? [And officially have to travel to and from it by bus/train/cycle or walk, five times-a-day?]

The whole requirement is nonsense and its supporting claims of green/temporary are even bigger nonsense. Last time, the few local supporters of the application thought they would be smart in bumping up their numbers, by getting everyone attending other local mosques for miles around to add their name and address in support.
The flaw in the cunning plan was that the far flung addresses showed they lived nowhere near Worcester Park! ...Doh!

Dave said...

"Green mosque" is highly misleading and an entirely inappropriate description. Encouraging people not to arrive by car would in no way make the mosque "green".
For the mosque to be "green" it would require a serious attempt to achieve a near-zero net carbon footprint - solar panels, double-glazing, A-rated boiler, efficient insulation, recycling of waste-water, etc. As yet, I can find none of those in the re-application.

grrrrrowl said...

I'm voting for broken down bus

shelokay said...

there is no way they can enforce the rule to stop people using their cars! - let snot forget that their blatant disregarded to the rules and regulations and had to be served a notice as they were using the site as a plac eof worship, shows how they cannot be trusted in whatever they say!

Green mosque or green planner said...

Dave aka Guest, Alternatively, I suggest, for the mosque to most appropriately fulfil the requirement to be called green, all anyone need do is simply paint it with green coloured paint. Even if it's premium, environmentally friendly green paint, it'd be a whole lot cheaper than your shopping list, wouldn't you agree?

If you to look at use of the word 'Green', I think it encompasses more than your narrow understanding. It relates to activities that seek to support the protection of the environment. For example, TFL's "low emission zone" signs, like the ones at the beginning of Green Lane. You can find out all about LEZs on the GLA emission zones under "GREEN Transport". [See what I mean?]
No solar panels or water recyclers to be found on those signs (although there are probably quite a few footprints). Take it up with Boris if you believe the GLA's use of the word 'Green' is 'inappropriate'.

Dave said...

I posted as Dave, only to find that I had been automatically signed-up to some nonsense called Disqus - i.e. without being asked if I wanted to join - that, I suspect, is illegal - poor software anyway. When I cancelled my enforced membership the posting changed to 'Guest', so I shall subtend my name in case it happens again.

Quite what the rest of your diatribe has to do with the "green" mosque I have no idea. I repeat, the claim that people not driving to the mosque would somehow make it "green" is an nonsense, a deceit.

DAVE

Guest said...

Where can I object these ludicrous plans?

Worcester Park Blogger said...

I put in an update to answer your question...

Objection No 2 said...

May I add a few suggestions:

First, if you submitted an objection first time around, please do so again, since this is being treated as a new planning application. The previous letters of opposition almost certainly won't count in the numbers of objections.

Second, if you still have the original objection in your 'sent items', it shouldn't take long to update. If you really can't spare any time reading the amended application and amending your previous version, simply change the date on the last one and send in the same objection again. [After all, the amended application is barely changed and the central objections will be barely changed - if at all].

Third, you should receive confirmation that your objection has been received. If you don't, send an email asking for confirmation, otherwise, there is a risk that it won't ever get read or count in the numbers.

Finally, last time around, at the planning meeting, you may recall the Worcester Park Residents Association (WPRA) submitted an impressive case, objecting to the application and they can be contacted via WP library.

Little Smiff said...

Although not a Sutton resident I am affected by the possibilty of the increase in traffic in Green Lane and the surrounding area.Apparently, because I live in the wrong borough my protestations will go unread by LBS. I don't, for one minute, think that there is the minutest possibilty that worshippers will not use their cars to attend this mosque. Are that many prospective worshippers living within walking distance of Bank Chambers? Is it the applicants intention to close this mosque after four years or put in a further application for expansion, because their attendance numbers have grown to the point where the original premises are too small? As a previous blogger has stated this group have already broken the terms of the last rejection of their application and, it is my observation, that there are now people residing in the property. Have they applied for permission to change from commercial usage to residential? Also where is the public notice being displayed relating to this latest application? Basically, the group behind this application can't be trusted or, for that matter, respected. They appear to have nothing but contempt when considering the wishes of the residents of Worcester Park. I've no doubt protests against this application will be labelled as racist but they're not. It's simply a case of this bulding not being suitable for mass public usage. I would complain if it were to be a church, community centre, cinema, night club, pub even a doctors. It's not suitable.....the end.

Objection No 2 said...

"Apparently, because I live in the wrong borough my protestations will go unread by LBS."
No, let me reassure you, ANYONE with a valid reason (like they have to travel to or through Worcester Park) can object - and the more objections the better.
It is absolutely clear from the previous application that the worshippers live far from WP and well outside walking distance. The addresses on the (vastly outnumbered) letters of support proved it was not going to be a mosque for local people.

NOTOMOSQUE said...

Why is the new application to be decided by 1 person : Decision Level/Committee (DELEGATED. OFFICER DECISION) whereas the previous application was decided by : Decision Level/Committee (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE).

Is this more or less likely to be approved because of this ??? I'd be happier if a committee presided as there would be a greater chance of people seeing sense, rather than perhaps one Officer who is under pressure to approve applications to clear any backlog.

NOTOMOSQUE said...

Also I'm assuming the previous petition everyone signed is no longer valid. Will a new one be organised ?

Stewart Nonsuch Mackay said...

I believe the local conservative group is mobilising again and is organising a petition against this latest planning appeal.

Worcester Park Blogger said...

I see that add too! I think that Google AdSence tries to link ads with what it sees as related content on the page.

disqus_r2HNEdVlL8 said...

Whilst I am not against the mosque in principal, I don't see how the applicant has addressed the concerns of the local population, or indeed the reasons for refusal given by the planning committee.

Both the submitted reports attached to the application, Cunnane and RGP, refer to there being 'realistic alternatives to the use of a car as a means to travel to the premises'. However we do not live in an ideal world, and hence how can 'ideal world' arguments be used to support a legal process?

In an ideal world people would walk their children to school, when invariably they live within a few streets of the school itself. However that does not happen, for a myriad reasons, be it time constraints due to work etc, number of different schools to drop off at, injury/disability or just laziness.

The mosque will be no different. People WILL travel there by car, without any shadow of a doubt.

The Baitful Futuh mosque in Morden COULD NOT BE BETTER SERVED with 'realistic alternatives to the car', being within walking distance of Morden tube station connecting the entire 8 million population of the city of London, being positioned right next door to a train station which serves Sutton, Rosehill, Wimbledon, Tooting, Streatham and the City, and being directly served by the 93 (North Cheam/Wimbledon/Putney), 80 (Belmont/Sutton/Hackbridge), and 154 (Sutton/Wallington/Croydon) bus routes.

Yet still the 350 odd parking spaces are not enough to hold the number of people who DRIVE to the mosque each day, with cars lined up and down the road under the railway bridge, local roads crammed with cars parked in the unregulated side streets, and police needing to be drafted in to help people enter and exit the mosque due to the traffic congestion. And there is no indication as to whether or not the mosque in Morden is running at its full capacity at these times. This does not include, of course, people who are dropped off and picked up, which add to the traffic congestion but do not count towards the parking tally.

On the flip side, if we assume that the mosque in Morden attracts perhaps 500 parked vehicles at its peak time, with its capacity of 4000 worshipers (potentially 6000 and beyond taking into account the ancillary areas) - then based upon the quoted 95 worshipers in the Green Lane mosque, on that basis we would be dealing with approximately 11 extra vehicles at peak times in Worcester Park. Drop in the ocean?

KT4 Resident said...

According to the original planning application, the Baitful Futuh mosque now has (or then had) a capacity of 10,500. It has been growing and extending steadily since the original 4,000.

"Drop in the ocean?" That's what was said in Morden, and each time it has expanded and now look at the streets there! This is what happens when a planning officer reads an application and swallows every word, ignoring the plain fact (conveniently or otherwise) that the application isn't a realistic, balanced evaluation, but simply the applicant's attempt at PR, to get what they want.

The applicant simply wants permission for a mosque and will use any data and make any claim that assists their case. First their plan was to utilise the Waitrose car park. Then it was claimed they would pay to use the station car park! Now they claim nobody will drive there! What next? That everyone will fly in by airship?And most significantly, the post codes of those supporting this mosque showed last time that the overwhelming majority don't even live in Worcester Park, so they clearly don't intend walking there for prayers, five times a day.

By the way, I popped into Waitrose about 1pm today and walking down the hill from the library, I could see the entire car park was full - I mean FULL to capacity. There were several cars just circling, waiting for someone to drive out, so they could grab the slot. It could not take 1 extra car, let alone 11. More likely, a mosque will mean 100s of extra cars, 5 times each day, from early morning 'til late at night. It will be a nightmare, just like Morden.

Dave said...

Off topic, but if you use Chrome and install the Adblock extension it's bye-bye adverts.
Dave

Wparker said...

I'm not one for supporting the mosque on green lane as it would add traffic cause congestion etc but why shouldn't they have a local place to have one ? Somewhere that it won't effect us all and there's quite a few churches round here so that doesn't actually make no sense, and as for youth it would only attract more disturbance in Worcester park

B K Jason said...

So, in the middle of winter when it is below zero outside the worshippers will be standing out in the cold waiting for a train or bus to turn up instead of jumping into their nice warm cars. Yeah, right......

Dave said...

As at 10:30 this morning there was still no "Planning Application" notice being displayed on the building.
Is such a notice not a legal requirement?
Without it, how will most people know that they have the opportunity to "comment" on the application?

Dave

guest said...

Dave,


They still have a day according to the planning portal to advertise.

NOTOMOSQUE said...

Maybe its located within Ryan Gate Grocery Shop - along with their petition which showed "...the majority of local residents have supported the proposed development by signing the petition..." for the mosque. (Section 6.25 of the Planning & Design and Access Statement, as part of the application)

Dave said...

Section 6.25 refers to Appendix 7 which, as in the previous application, has multiple signatures in the same hand-writing. Evidently some people think it is proper to sign on behalf of the whole family, including children.
With so many falsehoods, deceptions and contradictory statements the LBS Planning Department would be fully justified in throwing the application out.

Dave

shelokay said...

what is the difference with it being heard by the full development control committee? what difference does that make?

guest said...

it means the decision will not be made by a planning officer alone, it will be voted on by the planning committee, based on the planning officers advise. As last time it will probably go to a public meeting where the proposer and the opponents have an opportunity to state their views.

KT4 Resident said...

The planning committee being made up of our local councillors.
It will also give a couple of representatives of the local community the opportunity to put cases to the committee (Worcester Park Residents' Association & Worcester Park Traders' Association), and two local Councillors, which gave an opportunity to highlight that a number of claims in the planning application were deceptive nonsense.
Three Cheers for Councillor Stewart Gordon Bullock!

Dave said...

If this does again go to a public meeting It will be interesting to see if Mr.Aziz turns up to support his own application. I doubt Mr.Khan will want to give another performance, entertaining as it was.

Dave said...

No doubt there would be a series of re-applications, each reducing the proposed capacity, until it became a meeting place for half a dozen people. At which point the traffic argument could no longer be used. How many would actually turn up is another matter.

WP Resident said...

After the last application was denied the owner proceeded to ignore the decision of the planning committee and proceeded to use the property as a mosque without planning permission. The owner clearly demonstrated a lack of respect for the decision that has been made.
There is a term is Islam called Tiqiyya, which means that a Muslim is allowed to lie to none Muslims if it furthers Islams cause. This is clearly what is happening here. The applicants will say whatever needs to be said to get the planning permission, but once they have permission they will proceed with their origional plans.

Do we really believe that there wont be loud calls to parayers, cars blocking Green Lane, an increase in peak time traffic coming into Worcester Park from outside of the area, the limited parking spaces used by shoppers taken for visotors to the mosque? I dont believe it and if our elected leaders fall for this then I suggest they do not remain our elected leaders for much longer.

WP Resident said...

I for one do not want hate preachers on my door step. I dont want to appear to be a NIMBY, but maybe I am. I dont want to be subjected to the vile and continued misbehaviour of Islam, even if it is just a few bad apples. I dont want my family exposed to the vile rancid ideology that preaches hate, is racist, sexist, biggoted and refused to denounce terror. Say No To the Worcester Park Mosque AGAIN.

WP Resident said...

God save the Queen

KT4 Resident said...

OBJECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS OBJECTION WILL NOT COUNT: IT'S OFFICIAL:

I have been forwarded an email from the planning officer (Richard Green), which states...

"As this is a new application anyone who wishes to object or support will have to write into us again quoting the new application reference*. I’m afraid case law confirms that we cannot just transfer letters from a previous application. For instance, we cannot assume that everyone who objected previously would still have the same concerns on this revised application."
*A2013/67455/FUL

Richard Green
Deputy Planning Area Manager | London Borough of Sutton

So, be in no doubt, in order for your views to count, you actually have to engage. Of course, it's a no brainer that anyone who took the trouble to object last time will feel at least as strongly this time - especially since we learnt afterwards that the mosque was unofficially up and running, and had to be served notice. However, in order to fulfil the legal requirements, we all have to object again - or make the conscious decision not to bother, and have our opinions ignored: It's up to us to make ourselves heard.

KT4 Resident said...

Sorry about the typo: it should read:
OBJECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WILL NOT COUNT: IT'S OFFICIAL:

KT4 Resident said...

I doubt the argument of "only half a dozen people" would wash: if only half a dozen people are turning up, why would they need a building with an official capacity of 140?
But that's for the future - let's take this one application at a time. Also, I believe there is a limit to how many times a planning application can be made for the same request. [I thought it was three, but I may be wrong].

KT4 Resident said...

Thanks for the link. Reading the criteria, a mosque would not fit the change of use amendments, so it shouldn't affect this kind of application.

Dave said...

I was being facetious; well up to a point.

Dave said...

On the LBS "Comments" page it says :
"Please refer to our leaflet 'Can I Comment?' which gives instructions on how to comment on a planning application."
But the hyperlink is broken and clicking it gives a 404.

What a mess the whole LBS Website is.

middleground said...

1) total gridlock. bad enough as it is

2) no problem with increase in muslim community but anytime there is trouble and when large groups gather especially in an area not specifically populated by the muslim community there is more risk of trouble, any action by shop keepers, police etc will always be deemed as racist.

3) has there been justification for having the mosque in this location and how will it benefit WP? it must go both ways. benefit for both partys.

maybe treat like a bar. too much problem and get closed down. thats the deal

Matthew Connolly Sutton CPA said...

When I sat in the galley at the last planning committee I
thought this may well go the way of Abbey Mills Mosque in Newham (look on wiki)
with numerous planning applications, temporary use etc. and that continues to
roll on after 16yrs with a recent High Court hearing.

What it means is that every planning application has to be
met by new objections and petitions, it becomes very tiring on local community
activists. Also if or when you get to the realm of public hearings local
community groups have to raise significant funds if they want legal
representation. It would not surprise me if the mosque is significantly funded
to purchase a position which by any normal assessment is completely unsuitable
for a mosque or church or anything which draws in large numbers of people.

Dave said...

LBS have changed the URL of the Planning Application to

http://gis.sutton.gov.uk/FASTWEB/detail.asp?AltRef=A2013/67455&ApplicationNumber=A2013%2F67455&AddressPrefix=&submit1=Go

planning permission said...

If gaining building planning permission on this site is indeed dangerous, then why it is even being given consideration on the grounds of 'enforcing' other modes of transport is ridiculous. It should be thrown out with the other. A place of worship causing obstruction in the form of congestion to emergency services has a certain irony to it, no?

RNS said...

I think the planning committee need to take these points into
consideration!, I have submitted this to the council and hope they look into
them.

I do not believe the site of the proposed Mosque is suitable as a place of worship.

As a fully operational Mosque The building would be expected to carry out many functions for it congregation, One of which is to hold & carry out funerals.

When a funeral takes place, many more people than normal attend the place of worship.

This automatically brings its own problems, In this case where would the actual funeral car park, before, during & after the service.

Where would the mourners attending the funeral
park?

Where would any disabled mourners park?

Those attending such events could come from near or far, It would be imposable to police the use of private cars. We can not over look the fact that this proposed mosque is at the junction of a very busy traffic-lights & crossroads The traffic directly out side is single file only (on both sides of the road) Plus a bus route, double yellow lines and box junction directly out side.
To the other side of the building is a very narrow private service road this is for the sole use of the resident of the flats above the shops in the high street, is the only parking & access to the flats that must be kept clear at all times for safety.

The other user of this passage is the main sorting post office & B.T. substation, again all of the above points stand for then too. The quantity of traffic that uses this junction is
already very high.

I also believe all of these point would be the same
at other times in their calendar such as weddings & other important events.

WP Resident said...

Is there any news on when this planning application will be heard?

katie4 said...

They have now appealed the first refusal to the Planning Inspectorate.

giving residents until 26th August 2013 to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate.

Pembury said...

Can somebody please help explain to us all what the hell is going on with the planning application for the Mosque as a lot of people I have spoken to feel we are all being kept in the dark so it slips through without the residents knowing!

Just Say NO said...

I believe (though our WP Blogger may wish to put me straight) that the applicant is BOTH appealing to the original refusal AND pursuing the second (more recent) application.
The idea of bombarding a council with impractical applications to wear down opposition, eventually resulting in a very small, very limited, seemingly insignificant and notional approval. Its purpose is to get the necessary toe in the door and then implement the original, unchanged plan in full.

Still Confused said...

Having become totally confused by the outcome of the latest Application I contacted the Council and got this reply on 25 July - "Until the officer has made his recommendation to grant or refuse the application it is not clear whether this application will go to committee or not, if you have logged comments with us you will be notified if there is a meeting”. I am therefore presuming that all those who contacted the Council prior to the latest Application deadline will, as stated, be kept informed. Although I am guessing that if this second Application is in fact refused, a third Application will follow shortly thereafter.

Pembury said...

I do hope councillor Stewart Gordon Bullock can give the residents some idea what we can all do as we feel we are not being heard by the council or the owner of the building.

Community Commuincations said...

Pembury, 'Still Confused'...and anyone else in the same boat!

I'd recommend joining the Worcester Park Residents Association (WPRA), who send out an email with updates on this and all other local planning applications (I'm guessing about once a week). It costs (from memory) £2 a year for all these updates, which now saves me a lot of trawling websites to find out what's going on. [They've also been actively updating everyone w.r.t. the mosque]

[By the way, if you try phoning the Planning Dept. you won't be able to speak directly - I've tried! You have to leave an email address with an enquiry desk and the Planning Dept. send you an email answer so many days later].

Community Commuincations said...

PS Forgot to add, you can join/contact the WPRA via WP library.

anamul said...

Hi! That is the finish of this post. Right here you will cover out some essential sites that we feel you’ll value...Masjids in queens Traffic school is the obligation of the educators to give quality moral incorporated training to the Muslim learners worldwide, since kids are important stakes of future eras.

Post a Comment

The Worcester Park Blog welcomes your comments and opinions!