Success For Locals In South Hereford.


Great news from South Hereford , where local residents have defeated and application for an Islamic Centre and Place of Worship.  The application was described as “Proposed change of use of ground floor retail unit to day centre (D1)” , and lay in the middle of a residential area.



More than 30 local residents objected , and another 300 signed a petition against the conversion of a ground floor shop  in Holme Lacy Road. Their objections were lack of parking , increased noise and disturbance , increased traffic and the loss of employment land.


The case officer in his decision said :-

The proposal fails to provide safe, convenient access and parking provision within the site and would therefore be detrimental of highway and pedestrian safety contrary to the requirements of policy DRS and CF5 (4) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and to guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. On the basis of the information provided, the proposed use is likely to significantly impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents contrary to the requirements of policy DR2 and CF5 (3) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and with the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.


Great work  by the local residents.  Keep fighting !!



Chettisham Mosque Finally Refused !


The long running saga of a mosque application on an industrial park in Chettisam (Cambridgeshire) is at an end.. The application had been previously submitted and withdrawn earlier in the year. Local business owners have been fighting this case for most of 2014 , and must be delighted that the application has been refused .

It was in January that the Ely Muslims applied for planning permission to take over part of the former Aquarius Furniture warehouse on the Chettisham Business Park, in Lynn Road. Their proposals involved turning a 230 square metre area inside the warehouse into a meeting point for local Muslim families where they could worship and celebrate religious activities and cultural festivals. We estimate the capacity at over 300. But the scheme, led to a raft of objections from companies based on the business park who were worried about pedestrian safety and access, was withdrawn in April. A new application was made in June.

The location of the proposed mosque was always a poor choice , we always say that worshipers and lorries don`t mix.

The case officer gave his reasons for refusal as :-

1. Insufficient parking for the proposed use and remaining business use
2. Inadequate loading and unloading facilities
3. An access road which has an inadequate width, poor alignment; lack of passing places and defined routes for pedestrians
4. No details to demonstrate that the entrance gate will remain open during the hours of the proposed use.

This would be likely to encourage inappropriate parking within the public highway and result in a conflict with the existing businesses and would thus be harmful to highway safety. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies S6 and S7 in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009 and policies DCREFULZ COM7 and COM8 in the Draft East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (Pre-submission version as amended June 2014).

Congratulations to all involved , common sense has prevailed !!

Dudley Muslim Association Get Approval For Supermosque….But Don`t Own The Land.


More proof that our Planning Laws are bonkers. The Development Control Board in Dudley last night approved plans ( by 5 votes to 3) for a Supermosque complex , despite the applicant not legally owning the land ( Dudley Council do ) . The ownership matter will be decided at a High Court appeal next year , leaving the victorious Dudley Muslim Association unable to break ground.

This new application again sparked local outrage , and nearly 1,000 local residents objected. The objectors were represented by Tim Wright ( ex deputy council leader) who previously refused a similar application when he was Chairman of the Development Control Board. His speech contested the application on design , scale , mass and appearance…which did not match or enhance local distinctiveness. Once again supporters camped out all day to make sure very few objectors got into the public gallery for the hearing (46 to 4). Angry scenes followed the hearing , and the police needed to intervene outside the Town Hall.

Local residents are already considering selling up and moving , if the High Court allows the appeal. It`s a sad conclusion to a case that Dudley Council have been trying to resolve for 9 years. The DMA have doggedly held out for this prominent site for their “landmark” , that will dominate the skyline and draw attention away from the famous Dudley castle.

Lets hope the High Court hearing ends this matter for good !! Fingers crossed everyone.

Great Result For Plymouth Residents.


Another fine win by local residents in Plymouth , Devon. The Salahuddin Trust, based in London, had applied in September for permission to change the use of the former PDSA surgery in Durnford Street, Stonehouse. The trust also operate two other mosques in London and Ipswich. The Ipswich premises is well known for anti social behaviour and anti social parking.

The plan submitted to Plymouth City Council stated: “The use would incorporate social, religious, educational and cultural aspects as well as providing office space for the applicants and a part that could be used for occasional overnight accommodation for visiting speakers.Regular readers of this blog will have seen this description used before , basically its a mosque ! Strangely the local Kurdish community group also objected , claiming they were nothing to do with this application,

Local residents objected in their droves , citing problems with parking and traffic flow. The delegated officer decision cited as reasons for refusal :-

(1) No adequate provision is proposed to be made for the parking of cars of persons residing at
or visiting the development. Vehicles used by such persons would therefore have to stand on the
public highway giving rise to conditions likely to cause:-
(a) Damage to amenity;
(b) Prejudice to public safety and convenience;
(c) Interference with the free flow of traffic on the highway.