Land at Riverine Centre, Masjid Ilyas, Canning Road, London E15
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mr Peter Weatherhead Our Ref: APP/G5750/A/13/2198313 Weatherhead Planning APP/G5750/A/13/2206531 44 West End Lane APP/G5750/C/13/2203432 Esher Your Ref: C124.1 Surrey KT10 8LA 28 October 2015 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTIONS 78 AND 174 APPEAL BY MR SOLAD MOHAMMED LAND AT RIVERINE CENTRE, MASJID ILYAS, CANNING ROAD, LONDON, E15 3ND 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, D. E. Morden MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 3 - 6, 10 – 13 and 17 - 20 June 2014 into your client's appeals against the decisions of the London Borough of Newham (the Council) to refuse outline planning permission (Appeal A), to fail to determine within the prescribed period (Appeal B), and to issue an enforcement notice (Appeal C) as follows: Appeal A: outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval apart from layout for the continued use of existing buildings as a mosque; demolition of existing buildings for the construction of a mosque and ancillary facilities (including 8 accommodation units for guests and Imam, library and dining hall) including temporary use of the ancillary facilities as a mosque during the construction phase; multi-use games area, tennis courts, sports pavilion and open space together with associated access, parking and landscaping at land at Riverine Centre, Masjid Ilyas, Canning Road, London, E15 3ND in accordance with application number 12/00358/LTGOUT dated 12 July 2012. Appeal B: the renewal of temporary planning permission for a further two years for the retention of a security building, change of use of land to a mixed composite use of vacant land and place of worship and change of use of all buildings as a place of worship and retention of hard standing as a car park at the same address in accordance with application number 13/00831/VAR dated 16 May 2013. Appeal C: made against an enforcement notice issued by the Council reference 13/01138/ENFC issued on 16 July 2013. 2. On 19 June 2013, Appeal A was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Christine Symes, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Planning Act 1990, because it involves proposals which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy. Appeals B and C were recovered subsequently because they were considered to be most efficiently and effectively decided with Appeal A. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that Appeal A be dismissed and planning permission refused and that Appeal B be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 3B to his report. The Inspector also recommended that, in the event that both Appeal A & Appeal B are dismissed, subject to the variations set out at IR595, Appeal C should be dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis in respect of Appeal A and Appeal C apart from where stated. He has decided to dismiss Appeal A and refuse planning permission and to dismiss Appeal C and vary and uphold the enforcement notice. For the reasons given below, he has also decided to dismiss Appeal B and refuse planning permission for it. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and the environmental information submitted before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR6, he is satisfied that the information provided in the Environmental Statement is sufficient for it to be an Environmental Statement in accordance with the above Regulations. Procedural Matters 6. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (for the reasons given at IR15-16) that the plans submitted with the Appeal A scheme provide sufficient information for a reasoned assessment of the proposals and issues in this case to be properly undertaken and a formal decision made (IR16). 7. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s remarks about Appeal C and, for the reasons given by the Inspector, has proceeded to determine Appeal C on ground (g) only (IR17-18). Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 8. The Secretary of State has received a large number of post inquiry representations which were submitted too late to be considered by the Inspector. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to all these representations, but he does not consider that they raise new issues that would affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties. Copies of the representations are not attached to this letter but will be provided on application to either of the addresses at the bottom of the first page of this letter. Main issues 9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR495) that the main issues in this case are those laid out at IR27-33. Policy and Statutory Considerations 10. In deciding appeals A and B, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 11. In this case the development plan consists of the London Borough of Newham Core Strategy (CS) adopted January 2012; the saved policies of the Newham Unitary Development Plan adopted in 2006; and the London Plan (TLP) adopted in 2011; the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (REMA) published October 2013; and the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) published March 2015. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to these appeals are those summarised by the Inspector at IR35-37. 12. Further policy documents which the Secretary of State has taken into account are the Mayor of London's Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance (OLSPG) adopted in July 2012 and Planning for Equality and Diversity in London Supplementary Planning Guidance (PEDLSPG) adopted in October 2007 (IR34, IR38 and IR39). 13. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (the Framework), the accompanying planning practice guidance (the guidance) and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations. 14. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the appeal schemes or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. The Secretary of State has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, as required by section 72(1) of the LBCA Act. Appeal A Impact on the planned use of the site 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis at IR496-533 and with his conclusions at IR534-536. Like the Inspector (IR536), he too concludes that substantial weight should be afforded to the objection to the development due to the loss of housing provision on a large important site in the Council’s strategy to reach 40,000 new homes by 2027. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the appellant has not demonstrated a need for a mosque of this size on this site and that the proposal does not further the Council’s convergence aims set out in the Core Strategy (IR536). In common with the Inspector, the Secretary of State acknowledges that there would be less employment provision than envisaged and that provision for better pedestrian movements through the site and to West Ham station would be provided, but he does not consider that this outweighs the matters that count against the development in considering this issue (IR536). Impact on highway safety 16. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s analysis of the impact of the proposal on highway safety at IR537-548. For the reasons given in those paragraphs, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR549-550 and he too is satisfied that refusing permission on highway grounds is not justified. Impact of the previous use of the site - contamination 17. For the reasons given at IR551-556, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s finding (IR557) that, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, contamination should not be a problem either for the permanent development proposed or for the continued use of the existing buildings during construction of Phase 1. He also concurs with the Inspector that it should not be a problem for the use of the Phase 1 buildings whilst Phase 2 is under construction (IR557). Impact on the character and appearance of the area 18. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s analysis of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area at IR558-572. He agrees with the Inspector that, in the circumstances described at IR559, the plans are sufficient to assess the impact of the development on the adjoining Conservation Area (CA), the nearby statutory listed buildings and the area generally.