APPLICATION NUMBER: 10/02342/FUL

CHANGE OF USE FROM PUBLIC HOUSE (CLASS A4) TO PLACE OF WORSHIP/COMMUNITY HALL (CLASS D1)

AT The Plough, 95 Manor Road,

FOR Mr Mujibur Rahman

Target: 5th January 2011

Ward: Eaton Manor Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola McTeer Contact Details: 01908 252932 [email protected]

Team Leader: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site

The application site is an existing, detached, vacant public house with its associated parking areas located off Manor Road in Bletchley. The area is predominantly residential with properties of varying styles. The site does not lie within a conservation area. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal

The application seeks consent for a change of use from a public house (Use Class A4) to a place of worship/community hall (Use Class D1). Some internal alterations are proposed to provide prayer halls, washing facilities, toilets, mortuary and body wash room and cold room. The first floor is proposed to be priest’s accommodation (a two bed flat). There are no external alterations proposed, however it is proposed to remove the existing public house signage and replace it with a new suitable sign. This would be the subject of separate application for advertisement consent. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 This application was deferred at Development Control Committee held on 16 December 2010. The planning application was deferred to enable a quality impact assessment, including a traffic flow assessment, to be carried out to consider how the proposal would impact on the area as a whole and full resident consultation has also been undertaken in respect of the proposed development. A traffic assessment has been prepared by the applicant and

(91) was submitted on 29 March 2011 to the Council’s Highway Engineer for comment. The Highway Engineer’s comments will be included in the verbal update to the committee. In addition, the applicants and their agent have met with The Mill Residents Association and the Town Council prior to this meeting to discuss the proposals. With regard to the ‘quality impact assessment’, clarification of the content of such an assessment was sought from the Councillor that requested it. No response to the request has been received to date and the applicant’s have not provided any additional information with regard to a ‘quality impact assessment’.

1.4 Main Issues

The main issues in this case are considered to be the impact on the character and appearance of the area, whether or not the proposed development would preserve or enhance the setting of the nearby listed buildings, any potential impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the impact on parking provision.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.2 Local Policy Adopted Local Plan 2001-2011 The most relevant 'saved' policies within the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 are:

D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality; D2: Design of Buildings. HE5: Development Affecting the Setting of Listed Building C1: Location of Community Facilities C2: protection of Community Facilities T15: Parking Provision

Core Strategy CS20 – The Historic and Natural Environment

Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance - Addendum to 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005’ adopted April 2009.

(92) 3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site – this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)

3.1 None.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Conservation and Archaeology: No objections.

‘I note that no external changes to the building are proposed, and that the existing use is that of a public house. On this basis I consider that there will be no harm caused to the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

Having fully considered the application, discharged the duties of Local Planning Authority, considered national and local policy and guidance as outlined above, I have no objection to the proposed works’.

4.2 Development Plans: No objections.

‘The Milton Keynes Local Plan designates places of worship as Class D1 Community Facilities: Non residential institutions. The main policy that must therefore be referred to is Policy C1, which states that: “Planning permission will be granted for: (i) Non-residential community facilities within, or adjacent to Central Milton Keynes, town, district and local centres.”

Whilst this site is not within or adjacent to CMK, a town, district or local centre and therefore not suitable for the proposed use, there are several examples of places of worship that have been granted outside of these centres previously. The site is also in a fairly easily accessible location and appears to have ample enough parking for a use of this type.

My only concern would be related to any noise that could be created by a use of this type in what is a predominantly residential location. However, providing the case officer is happy that this will not be an issue, I have no objections from a policy perspective’.

4.3 Environmental Health: Initial Comments:

‘The above application does not provide sufficient information to make a judgement on the potential noise impact of the development.

- No detail is given regarding use of the building for festivals and weddings, this needs to include times of usage and approximate numbers of attendees. - It is not clear if any form of sound system is to be used within the building or if a call to prayer is to be used at the premises.

As stated during the pre-application work on this proposal full details of the

(93) use of the premises and any potential noise and mitigation are required to determine the impact of the use on neighbouring residents’.

A letter requesting further information was sent by the Case Officer to the applicant and further details were received from the applicant and passed on to the environmental health team.

Additional comment - following receipt of the additional information and clarification the environmental health team have raised no objections subject to a condition regarding a noise management plan. This condition has been included in the recommendation.

4.4 Cllr Reg Edwards (Neighbouring Ward Councillor):

‘The change of use for the premises is for a house of worship in which case I think it is only fair to mention that the parking facilities will be inadequate and the persons attending the building will be street parking in Mill Road, Larch Grove and possibly outside the Coronation Hall, Stoke Road because there is insufficient parking spaces on the former Plough Pub car parking area.

I think the consultation will need to be extended to all residents in the Mill Road, Larch and Stoke Road, because these people could bear the brunt of additional on street parking and the area located at the junction on the Plough Roundabout.

Consultation will need to be addressed by The Mill Residents Association, Secretary Elizabeth A Rawlinson 55 Stoke Road Bletchley Milton Keynes MK2 3AB, also to the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council.

In the interests of the constituents I represent and the car parking difficulties that will emerge I cannot support this application’.

Further comments were received from Cllr Edwards and they read:

‘I accept that this application is a worthy cause for worshippers who have been upstanding good people for many years and respected for the manner in which they conduct themselves and have been part of the community for over 45 years to my knowledge and I can recall that many of the older people worked for the before it closed.

I feel that more thought should have been given by the applicant in obtaining a venue sufficient in size and with car parking facilities to suit the needs of the overwhelming number of worshippers. The conversion of the Plough Public House into a Mosque gives cause for concern that it might prove to be inadequate having in mind the following observations:

Traffic Congestion The Plough Public House car parking facilities are inadequate to accommodate the number of vehicles that will be parked when using the proposed worship/community hall and this will give cause for concern about

(94) additional parking that will take place in Mill Road, Larch Gove, Chestnut Crescent, Drayton (service) Road, Appleby Heath and the corner plot of land outside the Coronation Hall in Stoke Road.

There are existing car parking problems and highways congestion in the location of the Plough Roundabout due to the usage of the Coronation Community Hall, Veterinary Centre, Water Eaton Church Centre, Sycamore Club, Doctors’ Surgery, Co-operative Store, Newsagents and Eaton Mill School.

Heath and Safety There are no pedestrian crossings in the close vicinity to the Plough Roundabout and the roads are dangerous due to the high volume of traffic. There is anticipation of greater volume of traffic to the Plough Roundabout due to the massive new development of the site comprising Housing (up to 1650 dwellings), a primary school, employment areas, community facilities, shops, new park, playing fields, hotel and leisure facility.

Residents’ Associations The Mill Residents’ Association and the Water Eaton Residents’ Association have been actively involved in outlining their views in opposing the planning application for a change of use from the Plough Public House to a worship/community hall for the aforementioned reasons.

In addition The Mill Residents’ Association have completed a survey of the use of the Duncombe Street Mosque and the statistics show the number of worshippers cars using the Sainsbury Car Park (close to the Duncombe Street Mosque) and other worshippers cars parked in neighbouring streets and some on double yellow lines; also contained in the survey is the number of pedestrians using the Mosque’.

Councillor Edwards submitted additional information on 02 March 2011 regarding highway problems. The comments are as follows:

‘Highways problems at the Plough Roundabout, Bletchley: Roads that converge at this roundabout Water Eaton Road, Manor Road, Stoke Road, Mill Road and Drayton Road

Health and Safety There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that health and safety has been taken into account at this very dangerous junction and there are no pedestrian crossings adjacent to the roundabout to stop traffic to allow persons to cross these roads.

Terms and Conditions placed upon the application Conditions placed on this planning application will imply that 48 car parking spaces are being created in the car park and no more than 200 persons can attend the premises at any one time, based on four persons using each car that enters the car park.

(95) Controlling the Terms and Conditions It will be highly impossible to police the terms and conditions and it is inevitable that cars will enter the car park with less than four persons and this will lead to parking in the nearby roads and spaces to the roundabout creating congestion to the area.

There are existing car parking problems surrounding the Plough Roundabout and the Co-operative Mini Supermarket has only four car parking spaces, the Coronation Hall Community Centre has only four car parking spaces, the Veterinary Surgery is limited to six car parking spaces and the Doctor’s Surgery has limited car parking spaces. The Water Eaton Church Centre car park provides spaces for numerous services and other organisations activities, including the Sycamore Club functions.

Highways – Volume of Traffic and increased development The Plough Roundabout is part of a highly populated urban area, including the Barton Road Industrial Estate, four schools and a massive new development at the Newton Leys site comprising Housing (up to 1650 dwellings), a primary school, employment areas, community facilities, shops, new park, playing fields, hotel and leisure facility.

Liz Rawlinson, Chair of the Mill Residents’ Association to MKC Planning Department The Coronation Hall Committee has since created marked parking bays and explored other ways of alleviating the problems, but with limited success. You and I have also spoken on many occasions about how soon it will be possible to enforce the restriction of parking on footpaths and grass verges in this area. You agreed to let me know when local signs to this effect are scheduled for erection.

Traffic Speeding on Stoke Road and Drayton Road – Response from The SID is in great demand from all parishes and we try to satisfy as many requests as possible. However, the SID resources are limited and have to be spread thinly throughout the authority. I would like to thank you for your information about the speeding problem. It is only through local knowledge that we can effectively target our scarce resources’.

4.5 Cllr Jan Lloyd (Neighbouring Ward Councillor):

‘I should like to register my comments about this application for the site of The Plough public house, Bletchley.

Whilst I understand and support the need of the local Muslim community to have a new mosque to replace the very overcrowded accommodation in Duncombe Street, I do not believe that The Plough site is an appropriate venue.

For many years local councillors and residents have tried to improve the

(96) safety of The Plough roundabout without much success. There are no pedestrian crossings close by and the complicated junction of four heavily used roads, together with two community centres and the Water Eaton Centre make the whole complex very dangerous.

The amount of traffic generated at the moment by the mosque in Duncombe Street is between 80 – 100 every Friday lunchtime with around 300 worshippers congregating at this time, with lesser numbers at other times, but still sufficient to inconvenience residents of the area. The Friday traffic already causes great difficulty around Duncombe Street with parking along all the side streets even on double yellow lines and filling the car park outside Sainsbury’s.

The parking at The Plough is insufficient to accommodate this number and the surrounding areas are already very heavily used. There is no equivalent to Sainsbury’s car park to accommodate overspill.

The amount of traffic will cause even more danger on the roundabout and the 300 pedestrians making their way to the mosque will be in danger from the increased traffic.

I deplore the fact the some elements of the community are seeking to make this a racist matter which it is not. My objections are based purely on the safety aspects of the increased volume of traffic and the inability of the site itself and the surrounding area to accommodate the parking.

I should be grateful if you would accept this as a formal objection to this application’.

4.6 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

11 - 14 (inclusive) Saffron Street Bletchley 1-15 (inclusive) Appleby Heath Bletchley 2 – 62 (evens only)Chestnut Crescent Bletchley 8 – 12 (evens only), 3 - 117 (odds only) and 121 – 151 (odds only)Larch Grove Bletchley 1 – 11 (odds only), 8 -16 (evens only), 15 – 25 (odds only), 29 – 33 (odds only), 26 – 28 (evens only), 37 – 41 (odds only), 30 -48A (evens only) and 51 – 57 (odds only) Mill Road Bletchley Sycamore Club, Sycamore House, Water Eaton Church Centre, Drayton Road Bletchley 2 and 20 - 22 (evens only) Drayton Road Bletchley 165 – 179 (odds only), 192 - 198 (evens only)Water Eaton Road Bletchley 3 - 7 (odds only), 17 – 19B (odds only), 22 - 24 (inclusive) and 26 – 36 (evens only)Stoke Road Bletchley

A total of 212 letters were sent to neighbouring properties.

169 letters of objection have been received and one letter of support from

(97) local residents and one letter of support from a member of European Parliament (Keith Taylor – Green Party).

The letter of support from the local residents raises that people will use public transport to access the proposed place of worship.

The letters that raise objection are regarding: - The impact that the proposed change of use would have on the character of the area. - Highway safety and access to the site. - The impact upon traffic and congestion in and around the area. - Potential parking issues in and around the area. - The need for another place of worship? - Noise implications as a result of the proposed change of use. - The inclusion of a mortuary and cold room within the building. - Emergency service access to the nearby roads and area. - Alleged potential violence, anti-social behaviour and crime that the use may bring. - Potential for future extensions. - The impact on property values. - The impact of the proposed change of use on the setting of nearby listed buildings. - The impact on neighbouring amenity.

Comments have been received from Spurgeon Baptist Church (Water Eaton Centre). Although they have no objections to the principle of a Mosque within the area, they raise concerns regarding future extensions, car parking, future use of the first floor, the inclusion of the proposed mortuary/cold room, highway safety.

A petition against the proposed development was received with 268 signatures on it.

Since the Development Control Committee meeting took place on the 16 December 2010, a further nine letters of objection have been received. No new issues have been raised in addition to the points detailed above.

4.7 Highway Engineer: No objections.

Initial comments:

‘I have looked through the plans and visited the site. I note that the building will be configured so that the public areas will be to the ground floor (339m²) with a two bedroom residential unit on the first floor.

Under the council’s parking standards the ground floor use as a community hall / place of worship has a maximum parking requirement of 16 car parking spaces (1 space per 22m² in zone 3). Taking the floor area for the whole building (460m²) the parking requirement for D1 use is 21 spaces. The

(98) applicant has stated that the number of parking spaces will be 48. There is no plan showing these as being marked out and some changes to the existing layout will be required to bring the number up to this level.

The applicant has stated that the hall will be used for a maximum of 200 for special occasions. It could therefore be argued that in this case the council’s parking standards are not appropriate. I would therefore refer you to the Highways comments made for application 08/00745/FUL. This particular application (which was an extension to the Christian centre on Oldbrook) raised the congregation capacity to 650. Parking for this consisted of 104 on- site along with 118 provided off-site. This represents approximately 1 space per 6 of the congregation (on-site parking) and 1 space per 3 of the congregation (on-site plus off-site).

We have been working on revised parking standards for non-residential uses but these are not adopted so little weight can be attached to these as a stand alone document. The figure we are working towards within this is a maximum of 1 per 4 of the congregation; minimum 1 per 5 of the congregation. This level perhaps provides a more realistic figure of the actual usage of places of worship (that is one based on capacity rather than the existing standard which is floor area based). Using these represents a maximum requirement of 50 spaces and minimum of 40 spaces.

In summary, the site more than meets the council’s parking standards for D1 use. The site is also consistent with the figure of 1 per 4 to 1 per 5 of the congregation size although as stated this is not an adopted standard that weight could be attached to it. The site is also broadly consistent with the level of parking approved with the Oldbrook Christian Centre application. I therefore have no objections to planning permission being granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Notwithstanding details on the submitted plans no part of the building shall be used for a place of worship until details of the parking layout have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter the parking spaces shall be marked out in accordance with the approved details and not used for any other purpose.

Reason: to enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

In order to prevent the residential unit being converted to use as additional place of worship / community rooms which would attract additional visitors to the building it would be prudent to attach a condition that the first floor can only be used for residential unless there has been prior written authorisation from the planning authority.

I am aware that there are concerns with this change of use regarding pedestrian safety and access. While I accept that the accesses are not in

(99) ideal locations, these are existing and I have no justification that they will represent a higher risk to road safety than if the use was a public house. Pedestrian access is provided with strategically placed crossing points and lengths of guard rails are present to prevent crossing at inappropriate locations on what may be a normal desire lines. With other church and community facilities in the vicinity it would be difficult to justify that this is an inappropriate location’.

The Development Control Committee meeting on the 16 December 2010 included a verbal update with additional comments from the Highway Engineer. The comments read:

‘Having had the opportunity to look further at parking issues and how the existing northern access impacts on the applicant's ability to improve the parking provision, it appears that the closure of this access would allow both an increase in the on-plot parking provision coupled with a more efficient overall parking layout. The following is a recommended condition to deal with the access closure:

No other part of the development shall commence until such time as details of the northern access closure has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until such time as the access has been stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb / removing the existing bellmouth and reinstating the footway and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway and highway boundary in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway user.

The following is the required condition for the Travel Plan: -

No part of the development shall be occupied until an interim Travel Plan has been submitted, approved and signed off by the Local Planning Authority. Within three months of occupation of the development, a site co-ordinator shall be nominated to manage the Travel Plan and conduct a Site Audit and Staff Travel Surveys, leading to the submission of a site-wide Travel Plan report. The Plan shall either be produced utilising the iTRACE Travel Plan management software or mirror its outputs in a format that is acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Targets for modal shift must be agreed in line with Milton Keynes Council targets to achieve a reduction in single occupancy vehicle usage. The approved full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained within and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied with a minimum of annual reporting for the first five years, biannually thereafter’.

A traffic assessment was submitted to the Council on 29 March 2011. This has been passed to the Highway Engineer for comment. Any comments received will be included in the Officer verbal update at Development Control Committee.

(100) 4.8 Scheme Development Officer for Street Safety and Management

Comments: ‘Concerns have been raised by representatives of Coronation Hall and local residents over parking. It has been noticed that visitors to the Hall and other local businesses are parking inconsiderately within this area. Vehicles are parking at junctions and in front of residential driveways. An increase in visitors to the area will have a massive impact on the already existing parking problems at this location’.

4.9 Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council

Objection. The comments read:

‘1 Technical Advice

(a) The increased pedestrian movements at this busy road junction will lead to potential pedestrian and vehicle conflict. A busy double mini roundabout is an unacceptable location to site a building that will generate high pedestrian activity at peak periods. It has frequently been demonstrated that this junction is dangerous under existing pedestrian/vehicle conditions and will become unacceptable with this application.

(b) The development will generate considerable extra vehicle movements during the day and during peak periods that will lead to additional vehicle conflict at an already busy junction. The accident potential will similarly increase to an unacceptable level.

(c) Parking at the site is of considerable concern. Whilst the public house generated general all day use, this application will generate tidal flow demand at existing peak traffic periods. It is also probable that the car parking spaces contained within the application site will not be sufficient to meet the peak parking demand. This can only be met by off site parking in existing adjacent residential streets. This is not acceptable and will only add to the on street parking problems caused by the nearby Coronation Hall. One parking problem on its own is bad enough but together is totally unacceptable.

2 Character of the Local Area

(a) The surrounding area is predominately residential with some village style houses. Old farm buildings are located at two adjacent locations. In addition 1940 and 1950 designed residential properties exist in close proximity to the planning site. The proposed development will substantially detract from this existing style of residential development. The impact on both the physical and social style of the neighbourhood will be considerable.

(b) The social character of the existing neighbourhood will be adversely affected by this development. The surrounding area is one of long standing

(101) that can ill afford a cultural change that this development will bring.

(c) In the planning advice document issued by MKC entitled ‘Planning Applications – Your Chance to Comment (What does the Council take into account?), it states – ‘the views of the public’, etc. It is clear that the public are totally opposed to this planning application for a variety of justified reasons but the overriding criteria remains the desire to continue in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

3 Previous Decisions

The land use proposed at other sites in Milton Keynes has always been a vital consideration of the Development Control Committee. The Committee have in the past refused planning applications that do not fit sympathetically with the surrounding developments. In this case no similarities can be found and it is expected that this policy will be continued. The land use change in this case is significant.

4 Over Development

The current building and associated land were designed in an era when amenities at sites were not a high priority and only the basic planning requirements were stipulated. Any proposed development should now be required to meet the current planning guidelines regarding landscaping, surface finish, textures and design. This proposal meets none of these requirements. The retention of a 1960’s public house façade will not suffice now that we are given an opportunity to enhance the site ready for a development that can bring design excellence and continuity of development to the surrounding area.

5 Location

This planning application is located midway between two important regeneration areas. One being the Lakes Estate and the second in Fenny Stratford. The proposed planning application would not enhance either regeneration proposal and could undermine the social cohesion work that has been and is being undertaken by all local agencies.

6 Preferred Use of Site

With the predominantly residential character of the area it is highly desirable that this site should be used for residential development. This prime location should be used to enhance the neighbourhood and to create a quality gateway into Bletchley and Fenny Stratford. Other uses would not be appropriate’.

(102) 4.10 The Mill Residents Association

Objection. The comments read:

1. ‘The background information given in the Design Statement regarding current and potential usage of the new premises is inaccurate and misleading. The Residents’ Association Committee has monitored current practice on Fridays for two consecutive weeks to assess the number of people using the Mosque in Duncombe Street and the volume of traffic associated with it. From the evidence we have collected we can report that on both occasions well over 300 people entered the Mosque and on average 100 cars were parked in Sainsbury’s car park alone. In addition, large numbers of people attending the Mosque were able to use residents’ parking spaces in surrounding streets, and eleven were parked on double yellow lines without displaying a disabled person’s permit. The maximum of 200 people attending the Mosque quoted in the Applicant’s Design Statement is therefore an underestimation and the number of vehicles associated with the main weekly congregation is actually between 100 and 130.

2. The Design Statement makes it clear that the new premises will become the main Mosque and Community Centre, and it is easy to see why. The location of the new mosque will be more accessible by car than the existing one and is further from the town centre so we can expect the number of cars to increase here. Sainsbury’s car park holds approximately 220 cars. The Plough car park holds 42. Even with a revised layout, it is unlikely that more than 50 cars could be accommodated safely on site, nowhere near enough for the number of cars that will be generated by the proposed change of use. Observers noted that arrival at the Mosque is indeed somewhat staggered, with the vast majority of worshipers arriving within a one-hour period and finishing when formal prayers are over at roughly the same time, so it is critical that adequate parking is provided.

3. A parking problem already exists in the vicinity of the Plough. The Coronation Hall, which has no car park of its own, can accommodate only 4 vehicles at the front of the building and regularly has far more visitors than these spaces can accommodate. The Hall is used daily for communal activities (line dancing, karate etc.) as well as for Saturday evening functions, and problems occur when large numbers of cars spill over and cause congestion and obstruction in Mill Road. The Coronation Hall Committee has asked the Council for help in finding ways of overcoming these parking difficulties, but no solution has yet been found. At the shops in Water Eaton Road parking is inadequate at busy times and there is frequent traffic congestion especially when delivery vehicles are present. At other times the parking problems are exacerbated by traffic generated by the Sycamore Hall, which shares limited parking with the Church centre, and congestion caused by the close proximity of Eaton Mill School.

4. Alternative parking in surrounding residential streets is both inadequate and wholly unsuitable. The slip roads adjacent to the Plough - Larch Grove and Chestnut Crescent on the Manor Road side, and in Mill Road on the other – are in effect cul-de-sacs. Problems already arise when cars block the turning circles

(103) at the ends of these slip roads (for example by allotment holders) meaning that vehicles using these streets have to reverse all the way down onto a main road. Many of the immediate neighbours are elderly people requiring regular health care visitors. They are deeply concerned that cars will be parked in turning circles and in front of their homes preventing access by residents, care workers and emergency vehicles alike. Based on our observations of current practice in the vicinity of Duncombe Street we have every reason to believe that serious problems will result for these neighbours from inadequate parking provision at the Plough. It is unreasonable to expect residents to put their own safety and well- being at risk in order to accommodate the volume of extra cars that will be generated by the Mosque.

5. The Residents Association and Coronation Hall Committee have explored with the Town Council the possibility of creating additional parking around the green in Mill Road to alleviate existing parking problems. After researching the ownership of this land, we were told by the Council that this was deemed a public green space and its erosion for car parking could not therefore be allowed.

6. The Plough double roundabout is already a very busy junction and there is no safe pedestrian crossing at this point. It sits at the junction of four very busy roads on what is in effect a major grid road into Bletchley and the southern part of Milton Keynes. Over the past 5 years the volume of traffic using these roads has risen sharply and will continue to do so with completion of Newton Leys and other nearby developments. Despite pleas from residents and Ward Councillors, requests for a pedestrian crossing have been consistently refused. Improved pedestrian access will be paramount with the extra traffic generated by the Mosque and the need for most of the worshipers to walk or park elsewhere. This will aggravate an already dangerous situation and pose a real threat to existing residents and visitors to the Mosque.

7. For many years the Plough has been the target of vandalism and its new use as a Mosque makes this likely to continue. The front wall of the car park is in poor repair and bricks are thrown at windows and vehicles. Taxi drivers use the car park between fares and throw their litter out of car windows adding to the unkempt look of the premises and inviting more vandalism. As there are no plans to improve the external look of the building we feel strongly that the building will continue to be an eyesore for residents and visitors to the area to endure. This poses a potential security threat to the property and its users and certainly makes it unlikely that the new Mosque will earn the respect of local people that a place of worship truly deserves.

8. A valuable opportunity for the Applicants’ representatives to meet with the Residents’ Association to find potential ways of overcoming the problems listed above has been missed. The Police helpfully passed contact details to the Applicant several weeks before the application was lodged, but no attempt to make contact was made. Rumours about the change of use to a Mosque have been around for many months since the Plough was sold. Police and Council Officers were apparently consulted but failure to meet with residents’ representatives has caused bad feeling in the community and a fear that there is something to hide. The inaccuracy of the design statements and inconsistencies

(104) of quoted statements in the recent press have done nothing to reassure us.

Finally, based on our own observations, we acknowledge a genuine and pressing need for the Muslim community to find additional space for worship. Although the footprint of the Plough itself may appear to offer a solution, the full implications of this potential site have not been properly or accurately thought through. The Plough is not the solution. The figures presented to the Council have been grossly underestimated and the detrimental impact on the surrounding area of the new location has not been recognised. We therefore believe that planning permission for this change of use should be refused.

If, despite these objections and those raised by other members of the community, the Council is minded to approve this application; we ask that a condition be imposed to allow attendance at the Mosque to be solely dependent on the number of cars that can safely be accommodated within the property itself. Arrival by bus could be strongly encouraged as the Plough is on a good bus route, but cars should not be allowed to spill over into the surrounding streets. Those arriving late and unable to park should be asked to attend the Mosque in Duncombe Street instead. This accords with existing practice at the Church Centre and would help to ensure that any adverse impact of the Mosque on the neighbourhood is minimized’.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Proposed use

This application is for a change of use from public house (use class A4) to a place of worship (use class D1) and the applicant has specified that the place of worship would be a Mosque. The applicant currently operates a Mosque in Duncombe Street and although this is a permanent site, an alternative suitable site for a Mosque is sought.

5.2 The main use of a Mosque is as a place where people pray and memorise the Qur'an. Salat or prayer is performed five times daily between sunrise and sunset, although this need not be done at the Mosque and is often done privately at home. The Mosque would be a place with many functions associated with prayer and teaching. The applicant has advised that the Mosque is visited by approximately 15 – 20 people visiting 5 times a day for prayers. These times vary during the year depending on the lunar calendar e.g. summer between 4am and 11pm and in the winter between 7am and 8pm. It is expected that 100 – 150 people would attend the Friday congregation that is between the hours of 12:30pm and 2pm.

5.3 The applicant advises that other than Friday’s, the only time there would be large congregations is at times of religious festivals. The applicant advises that such occasions are attended by a maximum of 200 people although their arrival time would vary as they do not arrive en masse. Eid (religious festival) is twice a year, at the end of August and the beginning of November. It is expected that around 200 people would visit and the visiting times are

(105) staggered throughout the day. Ramadan (religious festival) is a month long event, whereby people attend prayers during the day, but mostly to the last prayer of the day. It is expected that 150 – 200 people would visit, again at staggered times throughout the day. The Ramadan month itself is not fixed and varies year to year.

5.4 The applicant states that the building would not be used for weddings but would be used for funerals. There is a classroom area within the Mosque and the applicant has advised that the classroom would be used Monday – Friday from 5 – 7pm and would have approximately 30 students. The classroom use is in addition to the people expected to visit for prayers. It is intended that the mosque will operate in a similar manner to the Duncombe Street Mosque, which is intended to be retained but play a lesser role.

5.5 Similar facilities in the area

There are other Mosques within Bletchley and it is not proposed to close the Mosque in Duncombe Street, however within the Muslim faith there is a need for different groups and communities to have their own Mosque and hence the need for the one in this location off Manor Road. The applicant advises that it is expected that the number of visitors to the Duncombe Street Mosque would reduce. The majority of people visit the mosques by foot so some will go to Duncombe Street and others to The Plough, it depends on which is closer.

5.6 Planning Policy

Saved policy C1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted for non-residential community facilities within, or adjacent to Central Milton Keynes, town, district and local centres. The application site is not within or adjacent to CMK, a town, district or local centre and therefore not suitable for the proposed use. However there are several examples of places of worship that have been granted outside of these centres previously and, as this site is fairly accessible; it is considered that this proposed community facility would be suitable in this location.

5.7 Saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan states that planning permission will be refused for proposals that involve the loss of an existing community facility or the loss of a site allocated for such a purpose unless there is no longer a need for the facility for any type of community use, or an acceptable alternative facility can be provided elsewhere. The existing use of the site is as a public house (use class A4) which is generally considered to be a community facility (although it is in a different use class); however the building is currently unused and vacant. The proposed change of use would replace the existing community facility with a new community facility which would bring the building back into use whilst meeting the needs of the local community. Therefore it is considered that the proposed change of use would not be contrary to policy C2.

(106) 5.8 The application does not propose any external alterations to the building and the existing footprint would not be altered. It is considered that the visual impact on the character of the area would be negligible, given it is a change of use with no external alterations, and the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would be in compliance with the design/appearance elements of saved policies D1 and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

5.9 Conservation issues

The Conservation Officer was consulted on the proposal given that there are listed buildings near to the application site and the impact of the proposal on the setting of such listed buildings should be considered. The Conservation Officer considers that there would be no harm caused to the setting of the nearby listed buildings and has no objections to the proposed change of use. As previously mentioned in para. 5.6, there are no proposed external alterations, also the existing use is that of a public house. It is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the setting of the nearby listed buildings and would not be contrary to saved policy HE5 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

5.10 Impact on Amenity

The development would lead to some impact upon the amenities of nearby residents within and around the area of the Mosque. However the issue to be considered is whether or not the level of activity generated by the use would create significant harm to neighbouring amenities.

5.11 The application site is in a predominantly residential area with residential properties to the north and south east of the site. There is however a minimum gap of approximately 21 metres from the side elevations of the application building and the side elevations of the nearest neighbouring properties. This gap would be retained as the application is not proposing any external changes or increasing the footprint of the building.

5.12 It is difficult to establish the exact numbers attending the Mosque, in particular during festivals. However, the applicant advises that visitors to the Mosque would arrive over a period of time rather than en masse. It is also considered that some noise would be generated by the prayer activity and further information was requested from the applicant for the exact detail of sound systems and music from the premises. This information has been received and the applicant states that the sound system used would be an internal PA system and there would be no external speakers. The call to prayer would also be internal as an internet service would be provided whereby locals can log in and listen to proceedings at home if they are unable to attend the place of worship.

5.13 A condition is proposed regarding a noise management plan to demonstrate how the noise breakout from the building and noise from outside areas will be controlled. The Environmental Health Officer was consulted on the

(107) application, as noted above, and has no objections to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the condition

5.14 Highways and Parking

The comments of the Council's Highway Engineer set out above in paragraph 4.7 address the merits of this proposal and it is not considered appropriate to repeat them in this section of the report. The floor area for the whole building is 460m² and the parking requirement for D1 use for this area in this location is 21 spaces. The applicant states that 48 parking spaces can be provided; therefore the site meets the council’s parking standards for D1 use. The Highway Engineer has no objections subject to a condition regarding additional details of a parking plan, a travel plan and the northern access closure. The proposed change of use would be acceptable in terms of saved policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

5.15 It should also be noted that the proposed level of car parking is in line with draft revised standards. As noted by the Highway Engineer these revised standards are at an early stage of development and can only be given very little weight in the determination of this application.

5.16 Concerns have been raised by residents regarding the proposed change of use and the impact upon pedestrian safety and access. The Highway Engineer commented that the existing accesses are not in ideal locations; however, he comments that he has no justification that they will represent a higher risk to road safety than if the use was a public house. He comments that pedestrian access is provided with strategically placed crossing points and lengths of guard rails are present to prevent crossing at inappropriate locations on what may be a normal desire lines. In addition, with other places of worship and community facilities in the vicinity it would be difficult to justify that this is an inappropriate location and I agree with the Highway Engineers assessment. The Engineer also recommends closure of one of the existing accesses in order to limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway user; this would also allow a slight increase in the amount of on site parking that could be provided. This matter is addressed through proposed condition 5.

5.17 Other issues

Local residents have raised concern regarding the proposed mortuary and cold room within the building. The proposed mortuary/cold room would be ancillary to the use as a religious building and the storage of bodies is in accordance with Islamic customs and practice. In accordance with Islamic custom and practice, bodies are usually cleaned and then buried quickly therefore the storage of bodies is very short term. There are many funeral directors and chapels of rest located in residential areas. It is not therefore considered that the inclusion of a mortuary/cold room within a place of worship is inappropriate, nor would it generate significant additional activities to the site.

(108) 5.18 Neighbouring residents have raised concern regarding potential future extensions to the building. However the current application proposes a change of use with no external alterations and should be assessed as submitted. If in the future an application is received for extensions then this would be assessed on its merits.

5.19 It is recommended that a condition is placed on the application that the flat at first floor (Priest’s accommodation) remains ancillary to the D1 use to protect the surrounding area and neighbouring amenity and to ensure that the impact of any proposal to use this area for other is properly assessed. This has been included in the recommendation.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS (The officer advice to the Development Control Committee on the appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report)

6.1 The issues raised by the application are both complex and sensitive. Deciding what weight to attach to the various factors involved is not straightforward as the place of worship provides an important facility for the local community, while on the other hand the use of the building as a place of worship does cause some disturbance upon the nearby area. However it is considered that this disturbance is over a relatively short period of time and would not be so significant to the general amenities of the area to warrant a refusal of this application. Therefore on balance, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below.

7.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable ) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)

2. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, a noise management plan which demonstrates how noise breakout from the building and noise from outside areas will be controlled shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use of the building shall be in accordance with the approved management plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To limit the detrimental effect on adjoining occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance.

3. The area of the building used for a place of worship (Use Class D1) shall be limited to that shown on Drawing Number TP/10/101 (received on

(109) 11/11/2010) and the use hereby permitted shall not extend into any other part of the premises without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. The area of the building shown as "Priest's accommodation" on Drawing Number TP/10/101 shall remain ancillary to the main D1 Use and shall be used as a two bedroom flat and for no other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Using the building completely for D1 use may result in inadequate parking, access and vehicle movement within the site and would therefore be contrary to policies T15 and D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

4. Notwithstanding details on the submitted plans no part of the building shall be used for a place of worship until details of the parking layout, including the means of marking out spaces have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter the parking spaces shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before the building is brought in to use and shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: to enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

5. No other part of the development shall commence until such time as details of the northern access closure has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until such time as the access has been stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb / removing the existing bellmouth and reinstating the footway and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway and highway boundary in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway user.

6. No part of the development shall be occupied until an interim Travel Plan has been submitted, approved and signed off by the Local Planning Authority. Within three months of occupation of the development, a site co- ordinator shall be nominated to manage the Travel Plan and conduct a Site Audit and Staff Travel Surveys, leading to the submission of a site-wide Travel Plan report. The Plan shall either be produced utilising the iTRACE Travel Plan management software or mirror its outputs in a format that is acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Targets for modal shift must be agreed in line with Milton Keynes Council targets to achieve a reduction in single occupancy vehicle usage. The approved full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained within and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied with a minimum of annual reporting for the first five years, biannually thereafter.

(110) Reason: In order to improve travel arrangements to and from the site to promote sustainable transport.

7. The building shall be occupied by no more than 200 people at any one time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the occupancy of the building does not exceed the capacity of the car parking on site, and lead to on street car parking problems in the locality or give rise to adverse impact on residential amenity.

(111)

(112) (113) (114)