Agenda item

Further to minute 46 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th July 2009 where Panel considered a position statement, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a Mosque and community centre to existing deport site with new vehicular and pedestrian access and basement car park.

In line with Members’ comments at the previous meeting, a short presentation on Islamic Architecture will precede consideration of the report

(report attached)

  Further to minute 46 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th July 2009, where Panel considered a position statement for a mosque and community centre on land at Catherine Grove Beeston LS11, Members considered the formal application

  Prior to consideration of the Officer’s report, the Panel received a presentation on Islamic architecture, for Members’ information

  Members were informed that the different religions now encompassed within Britain needed to be accommodated and that whereas in the late 1950s Muslims had worshipped in converted houses and warehouses, since the 1980s purpose-built mosques were increasingly being constructed

  The architecture of mosques was unique and ensured they became landmarks in society.  They comprised five elements, the dome, the minaret, the grand entrance, the mihrab (a niche within the prayer hall which indicated the orientation to Mecca) and the minbar

  The dome was centrally located over the main prayer hall and was designed to echo the preacher’s word

  The minaret which could be round, square or octagonal-shaped traditionally had steps up to it and was from where the preacher would call worshippers to prayers.  A minaret acted as a beacon or marker as well as being a spiritual symbol between heaven and earth and was reminiscent of the number 1 or letter A for Allah.  A mosque would feature at least one minaret, with one mosque in Bradford featuring 12 in its design

  The grand entrance was self explanatory and the larger it was the grander it would be

  The mihrab was a prayer niche, with two thoughts existing on this, ie that it was a place where people could go to avoid distractions whilst worshipping God, or that its function was decorative.  The mihrab could be either flush to the building or projecting from it

  The minbar was the pulpit and was usually raised with three steps up to it

  The function of these elements was explained, with Panel Members being informed that in the past, strangers to a city would be guided where to pray by the architecture.   The huge dome, which in the Middle East was usually gold, would immediately be seen, approaching this the minaret would come into view, then the grand entrance leading into the mihrab and minbar

  Images of several mosques which were under construction and some recently completed schemes were provided, for Members’ information

  The Panel then considered the application for a mosque and community centre with basement car parking and new vehicular and pedestrian access on land at Catherine Grove Beeston LS11

  Plans, photographs and graphics of the proposed scheme were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and corrected a minor typing error at paragraph 6.7 to read ‘expected figures of 700 people plus will lead to no chance for residents to park’

  Members were informed that revised plans had been received which removed the 6 lower ground parking spaces and reduced the overall height of the scheme by approximately 1 metre on average.  Additionally an updated Travel Plan had been submitted although Officers had indicated that some further amendments to this were required

  Officers also stated that some minor amendments were required to address access from the disabled parking spaces and details of cycle storage and that these could be controlled by conditions

  If minded to approve the application further amendments to conditions 7 and 9 relating to use of the mosque and a requirement for no tannoy system to be audible from outside the building were proposed

  Members were advised that Highways Officers had expressed concern at the proposals in relation to road safety and on-street car parking and that in reaching a decision Panel would need to consider this issue along with the benefits of the scheme

  Officers reported receipt of eight letters of support, including one from the Ward Members and one letter of objection relating to residents’ parking

  Regarding the requirement for a Travel Plan monitoring fee of £2500, Officers had noted the comments of Members at the Plans Panel East meeting of 30^th July and the offer from the applicant to assist in the work required from Highways, rather than pay the fee as the applicant was a charity.  However, the fee covered the work undertaken by the Travel Wise team to monitor the data and identify any areas for improvement and there was not the scope to exempt this

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  that the presentation on Islamic architecture had been useful in assisting Members to understand the design in context

·  that the development would be an asset to the community

·  that the majority of worshippers would be local people and would walk to the mosque, although for large religious festivals there was the likelihood of some impact on parking in the area

·  that the position statement had not made reference to a monitoring fee; whether the requirement for such fees had been presented to Members and that in this case the fee should be waived

·  that the Council had an obligation to collect this fee

The Head of Highways Development Services informed Members that

a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) had been approved for development control purposes which required a fee to be paid for an analysis of the data the applicant was required to provide on an annual basis.  This had been adopted in the last 2 years and was now being applied to planning applications; there were no exemptions in the SPD

  The Head of Planning Services stated that Panel could consider this matter but that if the fee was waived then Officers would need to look again at the SPD in relation to charities which could have implications

  Members considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  

(i)  To approve in principle and to defer and delegate final approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a legal agreement within 3 months from the date of resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include the following obligation:

·  Restriction of use of the existing mosque to education facility only

and that a further report be brought back to the next meeting on the issues raised regarding the requirement for a Travel Plan monitoring fee

(ii)  To note the presentation and to thank the architect for providing this