Saturday, 1 June 2013

Worcester Park Residents Association Newsflash

The Worcester Park Residents’ Association (WPRA) is gearing up once again to oppose the latest application to convert the old Bank Chambers in Green Lane into a Mosque. A ‘Newsflash’ letter from the WRPA will soon be dropping through letterboxes in the vicinity of Green Lane, followed in the next couple of weeks by people knocking on doors with a petition objecting to the application.

The blog has received an advance copy of the Newsflash letter which is copied below (the blog even gets a mention!) It needs no further explanation from me. Here 'tis...



JUNE 2013

New application for a Mosque at Bank Chambers building 2 - 4 Green Lane  WP

The application for a change of use to a place of worship as a Mosque at 2-4 Green Lane was first received by Sutton Council planning section on the 8th of June 2012. Since the 5th of July 2012. The WPRA led a campaign objecting to this application being granted in this location on the grounds of the traffic and parking mayhem it WOULD cause if granted. Our campaign received a very big response from the people who live in WP for the rejection of the application due to the inappropriate location.  We all know what the traffic problems are at the junction of Green Lane and Central Road as most of us experience them every day and to actually believe that someone wanted to use those premises as a place of worship or indeed for any public assembly purposes that would surely attract additional vehicles to that particular area, have no concept of the traumas we currently experience with the volume of traffic on our roads in WP.

During our campaign, the WPRA raised 3730 signatures objecting to this application, the vast majority of whom were all from people who live in the KT4 area, an additional objection petition was raised by the WP Tory Ward Councillor Stuart Gordon-Bullock, which swelled the signatures objecting to a magnificent 4,126. LBS planning department also received 473 letters of objection of which 441 were from people who live in the KT4 area.150 letters supporting the proposal were also received by the Council however only 17% of those supporting letters came from the KT4 postcode area compared to 93% of the letters objecting which 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.

The new planning application (A2013/67455) 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 in short refers to a temporary Mosque (for 4 years!!), for 95 worshippers(32% reduction but still too many!!). Further, it will be a "green" Mosque so worshippers will be forbidden from driving there!!

This is where YOU come in:-

In the WPRA’s opinion this is all a ploy by the applicant to achieve what he desires ultimately by gaining a permanent place of religious worship and public assembly  in what is totally the wrong location in WP. Therefore this reapplication needs to be resisted as strongly as the first one. We on the WPRA have every intention to make sure that it will be!!

Therefore, if you feel, as we do, that even this “amended reapplication” will still create 1) Undue loss of privacy; 2) Access or Traffic problems; 3) A need for additional car parking; 4) Unacceptable or incompatible use of the premises; and 5) Noise problems ( these are all Material Considerations that the planning department can consider), then I would urge you to submit fresh objections to this proposal either by hard copy letter or online via the comment portal of the council's website as follows:-

a) Click on to
b) Click on Planning;
c) Click on Online Planning Register;
d) Type in Planning 67455;
e) Click on the green comment section at the bottom of this page;
f) Fill in your comments and follow the instructions to submit.(tick the objection box)

If objecting by hard copy letter the address to write to is;
The Planning Division, 24 Denmark Road, Carshalton, SM5 2JG
Please remember to include the planning application number which is  67455/FUL
The last date for acceptance of your letter is Friday 21st June 2013.

We, in the Association will continue to fight the granting of this reapplication to the end as we feel it can only further degrade the locality in what is already an area that is often gridlocked by traffic (as locals will already know!), and really just cannot take anymore! This application is just not “fit for purpose”. We would therefore urge you to contact the council by one of the methods recommended, if you feel as we do. Furthermore if you have any neighbours that would like to do the same, please encourage them to do so, even if they are not members of our Residents Association.

At the time of this going to press, a new petition is being formulated by the WPRA. We will be knocking on your doors in the following week, when hopefully you and the members of your family will sign it objecting to the application. From then it will also be available to sign at the following shops in Central Road :- Pet’s Place; Ross’s Fruiterers & Woodwards the Butchers. There is also much useful information to be found on this issue on the website. Have a look at it.

59 COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

Stop Racism said...

It's a shame this blog is now used as a tool to pander to lowest common denominator xenophobes and racists, and to incite hatred and division while hiding behind the facade of a "traffic" issue.

Andy said...

You need to get over yourself. Do you truly think that racism is a one way ticket or that religious intolerance only goes one way?

Simon Densley (Consv Activist) said...

Your inability to see the situation for what it is, is astounding. If you lived in one of the many hundred's of homes that need to use Green Lane to reach Central Road you would realise that this is entirly a traffic issue. Your misguided belief that the 473 who sent letters of objection and the 4,126 who signed the last petition are all just racists shows how out of touch you are and is insulting to all of them. As someone who collected many of those signatures I can tell you that some of those who signed were themselves Muslim. Like everyone else they realised the terrible impact on local traffic of any development that would bring a regular influx of people to that point, be it a Mosque, a Church or a supermarket.

Unfortunately there have been some racist comments made as well but these must not be confused with the real issue here.

It is actually comments like yours that are intent on inciting hatred and division and I would suggest you examine you own motives before commenting again.

guest said...

This is not a racism or islamophobic issue. When this was last proposed there were individuals on this blog suggesting more suitable locations for a Mosque within WP.

However, as Mr Aziz has shown he can't be trusted and is determined to get his own way against reasonable objections of the local community it has perhaps become an anti Aziz issue in addition to the clear and valid reasons that it was objected to last time.

To call it racist is as Simon Densley says insulting and to play the race card when it clearly isn't is a sign of desperation.

Instead of taking that approach, search out suitable locations with WP that are not at the intersection of the two main roads in the town, that would allow enough parking, for example the developers of the Queen Victoria might be persuaded to include a Mosque?

Stop Racism said...

I think it's willfully ignorant to recognize that a traffic issue that would otherwise generate indifference or apathy is being used as a platform to espouse hatred and to inflame the ignorant masses; if only we could see such reactions and condemnation to the explicit vitriol. Sadly the anonymous Worcester Park Blogger has assumed the role of chief rabble-rouser.

Some recent comments from the Worcester Park Facebook regarding the "traffic issue" (spelling mistakes, poor grammar etc all taken from original posts):

"Keep extremists out of wp maybe we should all do a march"

"If mosque gets go a head i promise you 100 % I will leave the area"

"Thats exactly what they want so they can move in and overtake."

"Support them! Give them bacon sandwiches and pork chops, park outside and continuously blast your car horn to show your approval, pat them on the back as they leave..............with a club hammer!"


"Its probably for muslim extreemists I wouldn't trust any if them any more not after what happened in woolich the other day!!"

"I don't trust any of them now either.
So sad it's come to this.
We don't want this on our door step.
We need to protect our children and family's"

want to take over our country....have all the benefits....bleed us
dry...and do we want to live in fear....not have freedom of speech..."

Stop Racism said...

Of course it's a racism issue; sadly this isn't specific to Worcester Park but the barrage of media-incited fear and hatred especially over the last decade is clearly evident when looking at this particular issue.

This is merely a microcosm of a wider national issue, but nevertheless it's sad to see the distasteful underbelly of suburban ignorance and division rear it's ugly head in this town.

Stop Racism said...

While I'm not sure the WP blog is the platform to conduct a deep examination into the complexities of the racist paradigms, in this particular case it's evident to see that a mere "traffic issue" is being used as a catalyst to positron the issue as the "invaders and their way of life" threatening the traditional hegemony of the suburb

shelokay said...

yh and as admitted there are a few idiots.. the world is full of them. so how many people commented against the mosque in a non racist way? many more as i saw

Dave said...

Have you read the Planning Application?
Have you read the fiction?
Have you seen the plethora of inconsistencies?
Do you seriously think that Mr.Aziz can discourage the attendees from using their cars, let alone prohibit them from doing so?
Have you seen the traffic queuing back to North Cheam in one direction, to New Malden in the other, and down the length of Green Lane?
Do you really believe that adding 40-odd more cars, for the supposed 95 maximum attendees, will not add to the congestion?
Do you seriously believe that the 95 maximum will not be exceeded, up to and beyond the 140 mark?
Have you seen that the Stone Place car park is full for much of the day? That's where the attendees are likely to park, and in already congested side roads, before walking to the "green" mosque, to demonstrate its "greenness".
Have you been to Green Lane?
Have you ever even been to Worcester Park?

Judging by your ranting and raving the answer to most, if not all, of the above has to be "no".

If you see anything xenophobic or racist in the above then it can only be because you want to see it.

Try contributing something useful to the discussion. Whether your views are pro-mosque or anti do please contribute something relevant to the Planning Application.

Stop Racism said...

I have lived here since the 1980s, sadly your patronizing questions make it hard to engage in further meaningful discourse. I will leave it up to you to judge whether I "see anything xenophobic or racist" or whether you are merely ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room.

This is not a traffic issue - it is a xenophobic issue, perhaps inevitably given the attitudes that years of fear-mongering have become entrenched in the minds of the population.

Stop Racism said...

I would rather deal with the idiots and underlying racist attitudes first and worry about the effect that has now and in the future; if one were to apply a little perspective, that is the real cause worth fighting.

Dave said...

There is nothing patronizing in asking if you have read and understood the planning application, but I shall take that as a "no". You evidently don't regard local democracy as of the slightest importance or you would engage in discussion of the Planning Application rather than hi-jack the blog for your raving. I take it that you would not raise any objections to your next-door neighbour's planning application if that person were non-English - that's what your argument amounts to.

Making wild statements does not make them facts.
Stick to responding to any, and all, postings to this blog which you regard as xenophobic and/or racist and take the individuals to task. Then, and only then, can your claims can be properly discussed. So far you have not challenged a single posting in context on this blog.

There is definitely an "elephant in the room", producing what elephants do!

shelokay said...

thats fine.. but dont deflect from the real issue here that is traffic. thats all people are saying. ignore the idiots as they are only few in number.
why do you call the traffic issue a facade?

shelokay said...

everyone is only asking they find somewhere more suitable to put a mosque, apart form a few idiots who are clearly being racist.. yet you are accusing us all who object as being racist.. maybe you would like to tell my mixed race son that his mother is a racist..

shelokay said...

so if it had been anything else we all objected to at the same site that encouraged more traffic.. we would be what then??

Stop Racism said...

I call it a facade, since as much I was would love to believe the theory that this is a "traffic issue", my judgements have their basis in hard evidence, that being the tone of reactions I have seen for countless months on this blog and elsewhere.

Whether explicitly (the "we dont want this dirty lot here" type responses) or implicitly ( the "I'm not a racist but..." type responses), there is not only a disproportionate level of outrage resulting from a "traffic issue", there is also a clear indication that this can be used as a bandwagon to carry the types who froth at the mouth while reading The Sun or Daily Mail.

The hard reality justifies my belief; it has been a sad lesson to learn that a large number of people who I see in the high street and train station share these views. Even more concerning is the lack of condemnation for the racists, and the defensiveness if this is challenged.

Stop Racism said...

The facts are evident, and can be found looking through the comments section on this site over the many months of this story, in addition to other media such as Facebook, which often ranges from misguided ignorance regurgitated from tabloids, to actual criminal racist abuse.

I'd love to live in naivety and think that it is merely a "traffic issue" that is causing this disproportionate response, however the evidence (and lack of condemnation) paints an entirely different picture.

shelokay said...

if you read all my comments i have put on the facebook page of the WP blog you will see i have written out against the racist comments on there.. also if you read my yahoo comments i have stuck up and spoken out against this hate incitement against all muslims.
i am astonished that you clearly seem to think there is no traffic issues already at the junction of green lane and worcester park which would make me believe you are not a regular user of green lane!

also by your theory you are calling the council racist.. if you feel so strongly that you have hard evidence against their decision beiong racist then challenge it.. but i guess if you lost then the courts and whoever was involved would then be branded racist!
all my life i have fought against any kind of discrimination and now cos i object to the mosque as it already takes me long enough to get out of green lane onto central road, and there is already enough people causing havoc outside my home who want to nip to chip shop or poundland.. i am now being branded a racist. excuse me if i am offended.
your thinking is judemental and judging people is the root of discrimination, so maybe you should take alook at your own actions before critising others..

shelokay said...

yes there are racists, and racists exsist in all cultures.. but that shouldnt be reflected onto everyone within that culture group.
its disgusting that the actions of the 2 soldiers being killed is being blamed on all muslims.. and now you are clearly blaming all non muslims of being racist cos of the actions of a few racist non muslim idiots.. does this not make you the same?

Dave said...

So, who else are you going to drag into your accusatory net?
The Planning Officer for putting each application out for comment? i.e. Acting professionally and doing his job.
The democratically elected Councillors who unanimously rejected the first application?
The hundreds of people who sent in objections?
The several thousand who signed the petition?
All of them xenophobic and/or racist by your measure.

Utterly absurd.

I'm beginning to think you are a troll, an agent provocateur.

Simon Densley (Consv Activist) said...

If the traffic issue would otherwise generate indifference or apathy as you claim, then of course there would have been no objection to the building or expansion of the Hamptons when that occurred a few year back. Yet back then there was so much concern about this that even the Local Lib Dem MP became vocal about the traffic issue in Green Lane. (Where is he now? Will we see the him supporting local people this time or pretending to have too many other important engagements to be able to wade into a *difficult* issue.) See

You are clearly happy to misrepresent reality to push your personal political agenda that wants to paint the people of Worcester Park as all racists. I ask you Mr 'Stop Racism': Why are you doing this? What is your divisive purpose that you need to misrepresent the facts in order to advance this view? (If it were true you would not need to misrepresent the facts to do so.) You clearly do not understand the good people of Worcester Park, the situation they face and merely wish to judge everyone on a few comments made by a handful of people. How about coming out from behind your own keyboard and telling us what your own hidden agenda is?

Stewart Nonsuch Mackay said...

I guess Stop Racism has routed as an agent provocateur. I say that if a community stand together against something / anything whether it be a new housing estate an incinerator or a place of worship (of any religion) Then it should be listened too.

Stewart Nonsuch Mackay said...

I am starting to think that Stop Racism is intolerant of the general population of WP and surrounds... How many people has Stop Racism actually spoken too? You have misrepresented the facts in order skew your argument.. These arguments have no grounding to the reality. I am wasting no more time on this inflammatory, judgmental and frankly laughable individual.

WorcesterParkian said...

I would just say that I doubt a mosque with 100 capacity will attract 50 cars. The mosque in Morden has a capacity of anywhere between 4,000 and 8,000, and I don't think that there are between 2,000 and 4,000 cars present there, even ad peak times.

Also is there any discussion regarding the social/sports club nearby? During matches or functions the whole road is absolutely crammed with cars, making the nearby bend in green lane a seriously hazardous place. No one seems to be complaining about this escalation in traffic or parking in the slightest.

KT4 Resident said...

I've just logged on and stumbled upon the militant scrawling of 'Stop Racism', which shouts of an unpleasant political agenda. Last time, both the planning application and the objections were scrutinized on their merits and were evaluated via an established democratic process that was seen to be fair and unbiased - and all in full public view.

This transparent procedure was seen to work extremely well and we have no reason to disbelieve this will be openly and successfully concluded again. 'Stop Racism' clearly sees this fair and honest process as an obstacle to their desired objective and is desperately trying to hijack, escalate and polarize this issue.

The fact that they desperately attempt to attach the word 'racism' to an issue patently neither racial, nor religious, but exclusively planning related is an insult everyone's intelligence (whatever their religion or race). It is they and they alone, who write here, seeking to "incite hatred whilst hiding behind the façade".

Though writers have successfully starved 'Stop Racism' of the oxygen they craved, I suggest rather than engage with them, we isolate them as we would do any hate filled racist. And continue the debate on this important issue in the methodical, balanced and largely mutually respectful way that had been in operation, before these malicious remarks of theirs started appearing.

Given their unproductive efforts thus far, probably their next step will be to utilize an ID that appears to be someone of indigenous British decent, to write abjectly racist responses to their own comments - in an attempt to use this as evidence to further their own momentum of radicalization. [WP blogger, do watch out for this covert tactic to undermine your blog and everyone who contributes to it].


You seemingly can't tell the difference between web-trolls and residents with valid comments that happen to differ from your own opinion

guest said...

You may see it as Xenophobia and I fully accept that.

But, there are only two opinions that count in this debate, that is the planning officer advising the committee and the planning committee.

They are both bounded by statute to arrive at their decision, only with regard to the laws of the country and the local planning guidelines.

If the appellant, feels they have failed in this duty he has the right to raise it with his MP and to take out a civil action against them.

shelokay said...

i live right opposite the sports club and have rarely seen anyone park illegally.. the area down green lane is always full thanks to commuters using the station or people using the sports club etc..
but they do all park in legit parking spaces, and i have never considered it dangerous to park that far up green lane if everyone is in a legit space.

however further along towards the lights it is doubel yellow lines and even the bus stopping there gets my goat, as well as vehicles unloading..

so we clearly do not need anyhting else in the area to attract more people doing this kind of behaviour! so thanks parkian for pointing out a very valid fact.. that it is bad enough as it is without causing anymore trouble!!

shelokay said...

your totally right. i refuse to pander to racism of any kind.. even those who are claiming they arent with a name like "no racism"
oh the irony

People's Front of Buckland Way said...

Just a thought, is there a generic response letter that the residents could submit to the planning website that the WPRA could draft and post on here for residents to use. It would still be an official objection as it would be in the residents name and address and it would cover all the important aspects. This isn't a case of being lazy, just ensuring all the important points are picked up by everyone.

Hettie said...

Clearly the residents of Green Lane and the many people who struggle to get to and use Central Road each day
do not see this as a "mere" traffic issue. For them it is a daily
struggle. For you to trivialise the negative impact that further
congestion from opening the proposed mosque could bring to the area shows little empathy or consideration for the local residents. The only conclusion I can draw from your comments is that
you are so selfish, blinkered, and determined that there must be a
mosque in that location... hang the consequences and rather than admit
that the residents and regular users of Worcester Park have a valid
argument ( which was unanimously supported by
Sutton’s Development Control Committee on the 3rd of December 2012) the
racist card is being waved once again. I have stated many times before
and clearly state once again this is about congestion, traffic and
safety. Nothing more, nothing less.

john said...

Have added my objections to the council page and hope everyone else does the same.

Luke Dale said...

Stop comments for racism as it would be creating a more tense situation and invoke police to take legal actions on whosoever raises a finger against the law and authority.Instead respect the nation and politely raise your issue.

security badges| police badges

lauren said...

anybody know if there are any peteions around Worcester park yet? please let me know! thanks

Stewart Nonsuch Mackay said...


The local conservative party is petitioning against using the building as a place of worship. I believe there will be a push for signatures in the next week or so.

lauren said...

great, thanks for the info, so I guess we will start to see them in the local shops so all us locals can sign it? :)

bazza said...

Looks like everyone is sticking together on this one.Lets hope Mr Aziz will get the message and leave Worcester Park alone.He has ignored the outcome of the previous hearing and continued to use the building illegally and at the same time let the building decline .Hope he has the guts to turn up at the next hearing then he can see for himself what the residents of Worcester Park think of him.People are fed up with his pathetic lies and many of us still remember his original website regarding the building.As soon as word started spreading around relating to the website he removed it.So Mr Aziz if you really believe so much what you stand for WHY DO YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME TRYING TO COVER IT UP.

Spud said...

Well, I grant you, there are always going to be some knuckle heads that spout crap like that hiding behind this application but you can't just tarnish every single person who objects to this application with the same brush...that is just absurb and actually equally racist.

Spud said...

Does anyone know the actual percentage of muslims living in Worcester Park? Is there such a concensus?

clive said...

I am a resident in WP and I don't care if I'm classed as racist we don't need a bloody mosque in WP its busy as it is and making it worse with a mosque is stupid having this pumped into our kids in schools is bad enough I don't want to see it on our streets too and I don't care who disagrees with my comments so don't bother trying to tell me I'm wrong or racist NO MOSQUE IN WP !!!

Emlouise12 said...

Hello, i have objected - below is the message I have written:


A mosque on the site in question would be a completely unreasonable and unlogical use of these premises. The traffic down Green Lane and Worcester Park High Street is a nightmare at the best of times, to bring a place of worship means more people and more cars. There is limited space on this site and I cannot see how there is a space for an adequate sized car park. I can see people parking where they shouldn't be causing even further mayhem and problems down Green Lane. Considering that we are not far from Morden, which poses one of the biggest Mosques in the South or even the UK, to have one only 10 minutes down the road seems completely unnecessary. The Station is only 2 minutes away and having travelled to there myself by car, it is a nightmare to get to in the mornings and Green Lane is backed up on weekends and can sometimes take 3 or 4 turns of the lights before anyone can get through.

It would be a complete nightmare and would be an unreasonable use of resources.

Kind regards


Dave said...

Is the Site Notice being displayed?

Dave said...

I've worked with several muslims over the years none of whom was a regular attendee of a mosque. I would expect that most people who call themselves muslims are no different in their attendance to people who subscribe to other religions, i.e. Weddings, funerals etc., which could not be conducted at Green Lane.
So, the number of muslims living in the area would not readily be a measure of the "need" for a mosque.

Nichu said...

Yes, it's been there about a week now on the lamppost opposite the site.

Stewart Nonsuch Mackay said...

I believe they are now out in the local shops.

A said...

There are two churches opposite each other at the other end of Worcester Park, but of course you realise that this is because they serve separate denominations of the Christian faith. The same applies with the mosque in Morden.

Emlouise12 said...

Thank you for pointing that out, this aside, traffic issues are already present in the area without adding this to the fray, the same would be said if something else that required parking was seeking to site themselves there, like a gym for example. It's not workable and would be a nightmare for residents of Green Lane and anyone that had to use that road. Even saying that attendees wouldn't be allowed to use theirs cars, we all know that this isn't the case and cars will be used. It wouldn't be fair to ask attendees not to use their cars and no one could stop them if they wanted to.

Green lane resident said...

Can somebody comment on something I heard a while ago, this Mosque application is temporary because the telephone exchange lease is due to run out and they will eventually use that as a Mosque thus creating a much bigger problem than the one we are facing with the Bank Chambers application. This may be pure speculation but I thought I'd post what I've heard. Sorry for any scaremongering but as a Resident of Green Lane I will fight these applications all the way

guest said...

I would guess that the application is temporary as it is easier to get temporary permission after the first permission has been refused, on the basis of let's suck and see. A good example of this (though it wasn't rejected in the first place) was the London Eye, this was granted a four year temporary permission, now extended to 150 year by Lambeth Council.

In this case, it would be a temporary permission is granted and even though the predicted chaos ensues, Sutton would be hard pushed to refuse to make it permanent as it would infrige the rights of the Mosque attendees to worship.

There would be no issue in it returning to 2b (office use) at the end of 4 years, and new planning permision would have to be sought at the end of the 4 years.

KT4 Resident said...

Indeed, "temporary" represents an attempt to achieve the original, unchanged objective of the rejected application, by reaching it in two stages: First temporary, then upgrading it to permanent.
Note in the planning statement, page 24 ,paragraph 6.46 "During the trial period..." Why define the operation of a temporary mosque as a 'trial period' if there is no intention of it leading to something more?

The idea is simply to insist that everybody always walks to and from the mosque or by public transport. In which case, it cannot possibly have any impact on parking or traffic (despite what is seen to be happening outside and on the streets around it). And therefore, there is absolutely no justification to stop it becoming permanent.

If anyone should witness people arriving at the mosque by car, obviously those witnesses' eyes will simply be angrily dismissed as racist...

Dave said...

And, of course, parking in the LBS Stone Place (aka Waitrose) Car Park and walking to the "green" mosque would not count as arriving by car!

W.P. said...

The location of this Mosque is absolutely wrong place in ALL aspect. A big problem happen to wait. Temporary period for four years is for permanent for sure. It say some of them been using as a Mosque without the necessary permission which means these people do not obey any law, can not trusted.

Any Ideas? said...

In the light of the second rejection of the proposed Application, does anybody know what is currently going on in the building as there appeared to be people coming and going to Bank Chambers and illegal parking of cars in the entrance to the sorting office today.

Mr Cynic said...

Has this officially been rejected ?

Rejection said...

The second Application was unanimously rejected at the beginning of July.

Dave said...

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee, which last met on 26th June. The next meeting is scheduled for tonight. Application A2013/67455 doesn't seem to be on the agenda of either of those meetings. Ploughing through Sutton's tortuous and badly designed Website is something I can only take so much of, so perhaps there's some relevant information there somewhere. More details please.

confused said...

I have seen so many different men entering this property so I thought it had already been given the go ahead.

guest said...

It's Ramadan, so you would expect a 'Not a Mosque' to be busier than normal.

guest said...


Post a Comment

The Worcester Park Blog welcomes your comments and opinions!