Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Headlands

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application N/2010/1037 and referred to the Addendum that set out further representations on behalf of the applicant and objections from Coaching Walk, Silverdale Road and one unaddressed objection. In answer to a question he noted that the word “Muslim” in the title of the application had no significance in planning terms.

Councillor Garlick, as ward Councillor commented that this application had generated a great deal of interest: he stated that he had only received one letter in support of the proposal. He commented that car parking at school times was already very difficult and that when the premises had been operating as a pub the publican had allowed parents the use of car park to drop off and collect their children. He believed that noise would be an issue and the mitigation proposals in the report were vital. He noted that he had never received any complaints about the premises when it had been a pub. In answer to questions, Councillor Garlick commented that the Applicant had contacted him and the application reflected the matters they had discussed; and that the noise concerns centred around very early or late use of the premises, comparisons having been made with much larger premises around the country.

Mark Ludlow, a nearby resident referred to the photographs displayed in the Head of Planning’s presentation in respect of traffic congestion and observed that at peak school times people also parked in the middle of the road. He was worried that the community and education centre would be exclusively “Muslim” and which branch of Islamic faith would be catered for. He believed that the site would become a place of tension and had been chosen on the basis of local demographics ie, that the make up of the local community was such that they were unlikely to object to the proposal. Mr Ludlow commented that he had lived in Stimpson Avenue but had moved from there because of the impact of a similar facility and felt that he may have to consider moving again if the application were approved. In answer to questions Mr Ludlow commented that whilst the former pub had been busy people did not tend to arrive or leave enmasse; accepted that as private land it was up to the landowner as to whether parents were to be given access to the car park; and believed that the afternoon peak period would be similar to his experience of Stimpson Avenue as “teaching” was also part of this application.

Councillor B Markham, as ward Councillor commented that it was a Councillor’s role to listen to local residents concerns and to advise and inform them on how to make objections. In doing so he had been accused by the BNP who had stated that he should be in jail and by another group as being “shameful”. He lived close to the site and was aware of the issues. His concern was in respect of disruption to neighbours and was pleased that the applicant had volunteered restricted hours of use. He was pleased by the proposed conditions and accepted that parking issues were the province of the Police and the Highways Authority. In answer to a question Councillor Markham noted the hours of operation of the former pub and concerns about early morning prayers and that the agreed restriction of hours of use resolved these issues.

Darren Allen, as agent for the applicant commented that as part of the application they were proposing that parents would still have access to the car park to drop off and collect their children and that an “in and out” system would be instituted to help traffic flows. The Head Teacher of the Primary School was aware of this. The hours of use of the premises would be restricted to 10.00am to 11.00pm and so there would be no conflict with the morning school peak period. The Trustees had carried out a survey of the usage of their current premises and the peak usage was on Fridays between 12 noon and 2.00pm by 45 to 60 people and which did not conflict with the start or end of the school day. A noise assessment had been undertaken at 20 metres from similar premises in Luton with the nearest property in this case being 25 metres away and had got readings of 26db where the acceptable standard was 39db. 

Hassan Shah, Solicitor for the Applicant and a member of community that would use the facility, commented that the Trustees were from Northampton and had grown up in Northampton. Currently, the Trustees used premises in Wheatfield Road South and had had no complaints over the seven years they had been using them. The people that would be using the facility were Suni and Sufi Muslims who were spiritual people. This project was self funding and the community were raising the £500,000 necessary to bring the buildings back into use themselves. The centre would help women, the elderly and children in particular. This project had received support from other sections of the Community , residents had been leafleted and the applicant had tried to take their concerns on board. Mr Shah believed that opposition to the application had been stoked up: he asked that the Committee approve the application. In answer to questions Mr Shah commented that the Suni community were principally of Pakistani origin but also from East Africa and India; that other sections of the wider community would be invited to use the community centre; that the Trust would move from the premises that they currently used; that the size of the prayer area was largely prescribed by the existing layout of the rooms but would be used for other things; and that the peak use was anticipated to be on Fridays as previously stated- the premises were too small to hold weddings. 

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:      That the application be approved, subject to the conditions

                           set out in the report as the proposal is for a community use, compatible with the surrounding predominantly residential area and would operate without detriment to the amenities of that area or highway safety. The proposal was, therefore, compliant with the requirements of PPS1, PPS23, PPG13 and PPG24 and Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.