Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/01630/FUL in respect of change of use of 2 Pound Court from commercial (Use Class E) to a Place of Worship (Use Class F1), Pound Court, Pound Street, Newbury, RG14 6AA.

1.      Ms Sian Cutts (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

2.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard (Principal Development Control Engineer) if he had any observations relating to the application.

a.    The site was observed during Friday lunchtime prayers. There was a steady arrival of worshippers, with on-street parking on Pound Street becoming full. Some vehicles circled to find parking and some drop-offs occurred on the carriageway. The number of worshippers observed was around 50, which aligned with the applicant's data.

b.    The existing traffic and parking issues would continue even if the application was refused, as the current mosque had been in the street for 25 years.

c.     The introduction of Use Class E meant that the building could be used for other intensive purposes like a convenience store, restaurant, or nursery without needing planning permission. This made it very difficult to object to the proposed use on traffic generation grounds.

d.    To mitigate concerns, he had worked with the applicant on a Parking and Allocation Management Plan. This would utilise the on-site car park for staff (two spaces) and for the drop-off and collection of worshippers, which should be sufficient based on his observations. The plan would be enforced by on-site stewards, with CCTV and clear instructions provided to worshippers to use public car parks.

e.    On balance, the Local Highway Authority raised no objection, subject to conditions to finalise the car park layout.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andy Moore, Town Council representative, Ms Clare Struthers-Semple, objector, Mr Mohammed Hussain, supporter, Mr Alban Henderson, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.      Mr Moore addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Town Council

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.      Ms Struthers-Semple addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

7.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Observations had been conducted on two separate occasions, counting 258 and 273 attendees respectively.

·       The pre-application advice had asked the applicant to demonstrate that vehicles could enter and exit in forward gear and provide tracking plots, which had not been carried out.

·       The objector estimated that the two mosques would have a capacity of 700, based on the current mosque’s stated capacity of 300 on its website, plus an assumed capacity of 400 for the new, larger site.

·        The objector had not collected data on how worshippers travelled to the mosque but noted the applicant’s own transport report concluded that 32.4% would arrive by car.

·       The entrance was not wide enough for simultaneous entry and exit of modern vehicles and she highlighted that minibuses were being used to transport worshippers.

Supporter Representation

8.      Mr Hussain addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Supporter

9.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The existing mosque would be closed once the lease ended. The applicant could not afford to run two mosques.

·       The new building was larger than the existing mosque as it had two floors, but the supporter deferred to the agent regarding details about its specific size and capacity.

Agent Representation

10.   Mr Henderson addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Agent

11.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The agent did not have a breakdown of attendees’ travel methods with him, but he reiterated that the new site was in a more sustainable location.

·       As a “place of worship”, the planning use class, could apply to any faith’s building. He did not have the specific capacity numbers.

·       The agent had not seen a traffic swept path analysis produced for the car park, but he noted that the car park operated for the existing office use.

Member Questions to Officers

12.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       He confirmed that the two staff car parking spaces could be relocated. This could be addressed through Condition three, which required a final parking layout plan to be submitted and approved.

·       The parking management and enforcement would be secured through Condition Two. If conditions could not be discharged, the development could not take place.

·       Officers advised that the “Keep Clear” road marking could not be upgraded to a yellow box junction, as they were reserved for junctions, not private accesses, but the existing marking could be repainted.

·       Swept path diagrams had not been produced, but they would be required as part of the submission for Condition three.

·       Officers maintained that the 4.5m width was sufficient for two cars to pass according to the Manual for Streets, the use was already in the area, and the Class E fallback was a critical consideration. The proposed application, with a managed car park, was considered to be a suitable  improvement over an uncontrolled Class E use.

·       Ancillary food provision for worshippers was considered to be acceptable, but commercial cooking would likely require a separate planning application.

Debate

13.   Councillor Paul Dick opened the debate. He felt that the key issues were traffic and parking. Having visited the site again, he was reassured there was capacity. He was confident in the professional advice from officers that the parking could be properly managed through conditions and was keen to propose the application.

14.   Councillor Nigel Foot agreed. He drew a comparison with St Nicolas's Church in Newbury, which had no dedicated car parking and whose attendees walked or parked elsewhere. He noted that he often saw worshippers walking to the current mosque. He was happy to second the proposal for approval.

15.   Councillor Adrian Abbs spoke against the proposal. He stated his concerns were purely on planning matters, not the nature of the use. He argued that the new location was worse due to its proximity to the traffic lights and being on the busier side of the road. He believed the 4.5m entrance was inadequate for safe two-way traffic and pedestrian access, and that relying on a future condition did not provide certainty. He cited the NPPF's requirement to consider cumulative traffic effects and felt the proposal would have a negative impact on the wider area.

16.   Councillor Tony Vickers indicated that he lived near to the application site, and had never noticed any traffic problems from the existing mosque in 25 years. He had observed 21 free on-street parking spaces in the vicinity of the site during Friday prayers the previous week. He referenced the Equalities Act and the need to support a growing faith community. He expressed faith in the Highways Officer's ability to secure a workable solution through the conditions and indicated that he supported the proposal.

17.   Councillor Martin Colston agreed that traffic was the key issue. However, he noted the officer’s point about the Class E fallback position. He argued that this application provided an opportunity to improve and control the situation with an enforceable management plan, which would not be possible with an uncontrolled Class E use. He indicated that he supported the application.

18.   Councillor Dick proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Foot

19.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Foot to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons:

Conditions

Reasons

Continuation of meeting

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution point 7.13.5, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(3)