Revamped mosque on Charles Street - objection

[Deleted]

Are they using the area that was supposedly set aside for a community garden? I've certainly seen many cars parked there from time to time.

[Joe K]

It wouldn't surprise me, Kay.

True story. Couple of days ago, I was leaving the Asda carpark, cycling on to Widden Street, and a car driven by a Muslim woman passed me, heading for the corner. I pulled over to see what she'd do, and she stopped at the 'No Entry' sings for about ten seconds, then drove on to Charles Street, and parked halfway down, still facing the wrong way.

Toyota Auris, silver grey (the colour of choice for lawbreakers these days, it seems), reg GP07 WJU, if any authorities are reading. 4:45pm, March 11th.

[Joe K]

Hi Mr Taylor*,

As you are the chair of the city council planning committee, it is to you that I'm addressing this complaint that the decision to approve the application for change of use and an extension of buildings at 14 Charles Street was not discussed in the presence of members of the public who were concerned about that decision. I'm told, as you can see below, that this is not always necessary, but I argue that the objections of residents merit that public consideration.

I'm also not satisfied that the request for an archaeological overview has been taken seriously enough, and will lead to a thorough investigation of the site prior to construction work.

*current chair of the planning committee

[Joe K]

This is from the 'delegated decision report', dated 27th February:

Site description and proposal:

The application site currently comprises a detached single and 2 storey building set within a courtyard area laid out as a hard standing and to the rear of residential, terraced properties at nos.10-16 Charles Street and 2a and 3a Widden Street. The site itself is accessed through a roller-shutter/garage door between nos.12 & 16 Charles Street. The application site is enclosed by a substantial white painted brick/block wall, which also forms the side and rear boundaries to adjoining residential
properties.

Planning permission was granted in 2011 for the use of the building as a community centre which enures for the benefit of Ghousia Community Centre. It has since become apparent that the building is also used as a place of worship (contrary to a restrictive condition) and that enlarged facilities are required to meet the requirements of the Sufi Islamic community.

The application seeks planning permission for a single storey extension to the existing building and the change of use of the site to a mixed use, place of worship and community centre. The proposed extension would be single storey and would extend across the whole of the back ‘north and eastern’ part of the site and would be set inside the existing boundary walls to the site.

The building would have a flat roof and would be approximately 2.85 metres tall in the areas adjoining neighbouring gardens. The extension would also have a pitched roof part and front entrance feature to the central part of the building. This roof would be 3.85 metres high. The proposal also included the replacement of the roller shutter door onto Charles Street with a wrought iron gate.

The development would also provide on site bicycle parking and 2 no. disabled parking spaces.

The applicant has advised that the extension is required in order to expand community uses and the space available for worship and would provide an area for women to pray.

As well as generally improved facilities there would be space for the washing of the deceased prior to funeral.

The applicant has advised that in addition to the community meetings and groups at the site the proposal would formalise the use of the site as a place of worship. The applicant has advised that prayers are said 5 times a day for approximately 20 minutes and 6 to 8 people would typically attend. The largest congregation would be on Friday lunchtime with a congregation of approximately 60 people. The site would also continue to be used for a variety of community uses outside these times.

Pre-application discussions:

Concerns relating to the height and scale of the previous application and subsequent impact on neighbouring amenities were discussed - applicant suggested a single storey development instead.

Representations:

The occupiers of 15 neighbouring properties have been notified of this application by letter and a site notice was also posted. The objectors were also re-notified following receipt of amended drawings.

In response to the consultation, representations from three interested parties have been received. The comments raised are summarised below:

• Object to site being used as a place of worship

• Not suitable for use – located close to neighbouring houses

• Only access to site is past property, resulting in a lot of people waling past, several times a day

• Object to extension as it will result in noise and disruption

• Lights are on in the building at night and shine into bedrooms

• Noise from cars and doors slamming

• Sunday is Sabbath and don’t want to hear chanting and shouting

• Community centre caused trouble at the ‘Old Labour Club’

• Programme of archaeological mitigation & recording is a good idea.

• Whether dead bodies are still to be kept at the site will continue to be of concern to residents

In addition to these representations a petition with 32 signatories has been received in support of the application.

Gloucestershire County Highways – no highway safety objections

Conservation – Alterations have been made to improve the scheme. This includes a reduction to the mass of the building and a change to external materials proposed such as the proposed use of aluminium windows. The introduction of metal gates to the frontage are also an important introduction to the street scene.

Civic Trust - The site is back land, unsuitable for the use proposed, and the buildings fill it almost in its entirety, to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring houses in the conservation area.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions.

Environment agency – No objections.

Highways - No objections subject to condition

Archaeology – No objections subject to condition

Above this passage is a table which suggests that the only objection came from 'neighbours', whereas, as seen above, Conservation, Environmental Health, Highways and certainly Archaeology had concerns which they raised. The table is therefore misleading.

Additionally, the passage mentions a 'petition in support' signed by 32 people (many of whom seem to have identical handwriting), which can indeed be found in existing documents, but a petition objecting to it, signed, IIRC by about a dozen people, seems to have vanished.

That the city council are trying to present this as an uncontroversial application which didn't require any review by the planning committee is stagering, yet I received this letter, in file form, from Gavin Hodges, Development Control Service Manager:

Dear Mr Kilker,

RE: Planning application for a change of use to place of worship and community centre and construction of a single storey extension. Planning ref: 13/00002/FUL

I am writing further to your complaint that the above application was determined using the Council’s ‘delegated powers’.

I understand that you have been provided with a link to the Council’s constitution and I can confirm that this application fell within the scheme of delegation. The case officer, Mr Ristic, had written a comprehensive report that set out all the relevant issues and taking into account this report, the consultation responses received, and the scale and nature of this amended proposal I did not consider that there were any overriding reasons why this application should not be determined under delegated powers.

I trust this answers the matters you have raised but if you wish to escalate your complaint then you should do so in writing and a more senior Manager or Director will investigate it. For your information I attach a link to the Council’s complaints procedure: forms.gloucester.gov.uk/contactusforms/ComplaintForm.aspx

Yours sincerely,



Gavin Jones
Development Control Service Manager

This application is thus regarded as less controversial than whether a commercial sign on Painswick Road is too overt for the residence next door, which the planning committee did have to discuss. You have to wonder who's pulling the strings here...

[Joe K]

That council planning application url again, for convenience:

glcstrplnng12.co.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MFZV84HMC0000

[Joe K]

There's an article about this in today's Citizen, presumably as a consequence of me cc'ing them into my last exchange with the council (moved up to stage 2 with the complaint).

Unfortunately, I can't seem to log in, but here's the comment I tried make, anyway (perhaps it's a glitch that will clear up later, it wouldn't be the first time):

I should point out that every quote in this article apart from the last one is from the documents submitted to the city council's planning website. This application has been covered in detail, with links, on my own site (http://trollhunterx.proboards.com/), but until I involved the Citizen, I was facing a brick wall with my efforts to query why an application which had aroused such ire from householders could be judged in private, not even going before the planning committee chaired by Gordon Taylor.

I'm not, I should also stress, a 'resident' of Charles Street, but I guess I am the only one who's persisted in challenging this. I was ready to drop it until about a week ago, when it became evident that that petition in favour had mysteriously replaced a petition against signed by about a dozen neighbours. If the lady who submitted that original petition would like to contact me, we can see about getting it restored as a document, unless she had a reason for withdrawing it.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, the idea of needing to wash a body that has just come back from the hospital, prior to cremating it, seems a little redundant, but presumably has been done without any difficulty prior to this application (there are several mosques in Gloucester).

It's ironic that benefiting women has been cited as grounds for this extension, though, as its main purpose is to guarantee the separation of male and female worshippers, with separate entrances, and this will make it superior, apparently, to other mosques, where only men are allowed to attend presently? If the owners really want to help women, they could try treating them as equals.

[Joe K]

Unbelievable. They've changed the application again...

From my comment on Citizen website (had to register again):

Incredible. They've changed the documents again, this time naming the building as the Ghousia Islamic Centre and removing half the documents, including my objection, and even the petition in favour, but although the date at the top is 12 June 2013, the main page says comments are no longer accepted, Fresh comments were permitted when they updated the proposal before.

glcstrplnng12.co.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=M8WB8XHMC0000

[Joe K]

Can't be bothered with this one. It may be that I missed spotting the application when the list was sent to me (hard to believe), but if the notice was put up and residents didn't object (none seem to have), fair enough. Nice building.

Demolition of existing office block and warehouse and erection of two storey building to form additional prayer areas and classrooms to adjoining mosque. Single storey rear extension to form additional prayer area and library. | Former 2D All Saints Road Gloucester GL1 4EE

TiG:Jama al Karim Mosque to be extended in Barton

Incidently, since the Ghousia application for £16,000 to fund an archaeological survey, as required, was rejected, I don't know what their plans are now...

[Joe K]

I only noticed this article, on the Echo's site of all places, from way back in 2011, as a result of discovering that companycheck.co.uk/director/905661810]Howard Francis used to [own/run?] the company, Brunswick Press Ltd, based at 14 Charles Street, before presumably selling the property to the Ghousia group (who then knocked down No 14 to get access to the rear of three properties?).

Community centre for Barton

Same people, but lowkey on faith issues, and no-key on mosques.

[Deleted]

Astonishing. That's the way they get all of their planning applications approved - constantly using the word 'community', which turns out to mean them and their friends, all of the same faith, and no-one else.

[Deleted]

By the way, the Howard Francis link isn't working for me. Could you put the content on this website so that it can be read easily?