Page 1 of 8

Committee Date: 19/02/2015 Application Number: 2014/07031/PA

Accepted: 22/12/2014 Application Type: Full Planning

Target Date: 16/02/2015

Ward: Aston

Madrassa Faizul Islam, 1-8 The Broadway, Perry Barr, Birmingham, B20 3EA

Erection of 1st floor prayer room extension above proposed undercroft parking with associated atrium Applicant: Madrassa Faizul Islam

221 Trinity Road, Aston, Birmingham, B6 6HL Agent: Alnoor Design & Build Services

503 Middle Road, Treboeth, Swansea, West Glamorgan, SA5 8EQ

Recommendation Refuse 1. Background 1.1 Planning permission for a proposed prayer room extension was originally sought last

year under application 2014/01411/PA (see planning history). The application was withdrawn as I was minded to refuse the application on parking grounds. This application seeks to address the issues raised in the determination of that application.

2. Proposal 2.1. This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 1st floor prayer room

extension to an existing mosque, above an undercroft car park and associated atrium. The extension would be situated at the front of the site which is currently laid out as a surface car park. The submitted operational statement shows an existing parking layout for 9 spaces.

2.2. The proposed extension would be 16.27 metres x 11.73 metres and would match the height of the existing two storey mosque building. The proposed layout shows the retention of 9 car parking spaces as an undercroft parking area beneath the proposed first floor extension.

2.3. The submitted supporting statement explains that the community has outgrown the

current building capacity (500 persons) and does not provide sufficient floorspace for female worshippers and for disabled worshippers. The proposed extension seeks to provide additional capacity for a further 88 people. The proposed floorspace is proposed solely for additional prayer space for women and children. The applicant states that the mosque serves a local need and that the use attracts a low attendance of vehicles.

Page 2 of 8

2.4. The applicant advises that the design of the proposed extension reflects the modern design of the existing building, replicating the flat roof, window detailing and fenestration of the original building such that the pattern and rhythm of window spacing is not disrupted by the proposal. They also comment that the forward extension of the building will better address the building line, even if only at first floor level, and would serve to improve the leakage within the streetscene.

2.5. The application plans also show that there would be a new Minara which would

extend 5.3 metres from the flat roof. The applicant explains that this spire has been set back from the front and sides of the building and aligns with the existing dome to provide a more harmonious balance in the appearance of the roof. The proposed materials would match the existing to include a lighter buff brick to the frame and a darker infill brick within the front elevation to create contrast and visual interest.

2.6. In response to the issues raised in respect of parking, the applicant has negotiated

the use of the coach park at Aston Villa Football Club during Friday prayer between 1pm and 2pm. A plan has been submitted to identify that this could accommodate 130 cars. The plan also shows a contingency parking arrangement to use 25 spaces at a site at Witton Car Care Centre in Manor Road.

2.7. The applicant states that the car parking within the confines of the Mosque at the

application site is to be used for disabled use (3 spaces) and a minimal number of spaces to be booked in advance. Any illegally parked cars within the car park will be clamped and removed. Provision is to be made for a mini bus to ferry people to and from the proposed off-site parking to the Mosque, and that there shall be at least two highway marshals/wardens present within the highway fronting the site to manage the arrival and departure of vehicles during Friday worship. The wardens will be responsible for directing users to the overspill car parking and to advise drivers to avoid parking unlawfully or inconsiderately including pavement parking. The premises manager will be responsible for actively promoting through announcements, leaflets and posters the existence and availability of off-site parking arrrangements and will advise users in advance of any rare incidences when the off-site provision is to be unavailable.

2.8. The applicant has also provided additional information regarding the users of the

mosque in the form of an attendee register undertaken between Monday 8th December – Thursday 11th September, and the applicant has used this data to produce a plan showing the distribution of these users within the surrounding area. This demonstrates a clustering of the majority of users within 1km of the site.

Proposed site plan Plans and Elevations as proposed Proposed off-site parking

Attendance survey plan 3. Site & Surroundings 3.1. The site is located within Witton Neighbourhood Centre as identified in the Shopping

and Local Centres SPD (see policy context). It contains a two storey building with a small car park to the front of the site. There is a mix of shops and other town centre uses, a petrol filling station and residential properties adjoining and nearby. The location is generally busy throughout the day with some on street parking in the

Page 3 of 8

street fronting the site, which tends to be in full use most of the day, but with a frequent turnover of vehicles from those visiting the neighbourhood centre. Site Location Street view

4. Planning History 4.1. 18/10/2001 – 1999/04200/PA – Erection of mosque/community building and

construction of car park – Approved subject to conditions.

4.2. 28/05/2014 - 2014/01411/PA – Erection of 1st floor prayer room extension above proposed undercroft parking with associated atrium – withdrawn.

5. Consultation/PP Responses 5.1. MP, Ward members, residents associations and neighbouring occupiers notified. 12

representations received, of which there are two are in support of the application and 10 raise concerns and objections.

5.2. The supporters comment that in their view the proposal is well thought out and would provide much needed capacity and benefit the local community immensely. They comment that aesthetically, the extension would not detract from the current design of the mosque and would enhance its appearance.

5.3. The objectors grounds of objection are as follows :

• There is no need for an extension as the mosque is not full at prayer times • There are ample other mosques in the area including 3 on Witton Road, 1 on

Albert Road, 1 on Serpentine Road, 1 on Fentham Road, 3 on Trinity Road and 1 on Victoria Road all of which are in the same catchment area.

• The proposal will reduce the amount of space for parking within the existing car park.

• There are existing parking problems with double parking on fridays outside the mosque causing problems for local road users and the bus service that gets stuck.

• The proposed extension will increase demand for parking that cannot be appropriately accommodated and will cause further parking problems in the area

• The proposal to use the proposed off-site car parks does not make sense when users could go to the mosques which are closer to those car parks

• The car park at Aston Villa is also used by a banqueting hall and the car park at Manor Road has already been closed to be redeveloped soon.

• loss of light 5.4. In addition, a member of Perry Barr Residents Association comments that they wish

to object stating that having discussed with local residents they feel that a bigger mosque is not required as the mosque is not used to capacity and the majority of people only use it for Friday prayers. They also comment that parking between 4pm-7.30pm everyday is a problem as parents drop off their children at these times.

Page 4 of 8

5.5. Transportation Development – Recommends refusal. Comments that the site was visited on Friday 30th January at prayer time, where a similar situation was observed with regards to traffic and parking as observed during the site visit undertaken for the previous application in 2014. A marshall was observed covering the site frontage during an initial period until he went into the site. A number of vehicles associated with the visitors to the site were observed overriding footways and parking inconsiderately at highway junctions within the area causing highway safety issues. A number of vehicles associated with visitors were again observed double parked on the carriageway of The Broadway effectively blocking that side of the traffic lane causing an obstruction to vehicles travelling to Witton Road. Some of the vehicles stayed parked in this manner for a time even after prayer was finished and other vehicles started to wait in the same way to pick up visitors from the mosque after prayer. The proposed off-site parking facilities at Witton Lane & Manor Road are located approximately 500 metres from the site. It is considered unlikely that visitors would use these off-site parking facilities and walk from the car park to the site, given the observed evidence of parking to avoid having to travel further. The presence of a warden was noticed to not prevent vehicles parking inconsiderately at highway junctions, on pavements etc as well as the double parking on The Broadway. The proposed increase in prayer capacity would therefore add to these issues to the detriment of highway safety and free flow of traffic. The proposed parking management measures are unlikely to be effective.

5.6. Regulatory Services – No objections.

5.7. West Midlands Fire Service – No objections. 6. Policy Context 6.1. Adopted UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Aston, Newtown and Lozells

AAP, Shopping and Local Centres SPD, Places of Worship SPD, Places for All – SPG, Car parking guidelines SPD.

7. Planning Considerations 7.1. The UDP sets out that a high quality of design is required and that good design may

also help to promote and secure sustainable forms of the development (paragraph 3.14). Paragraph 3.14D sets out a number of good urban design principles in which all development proposals will be assessed including the impact of the proposal on the local character of the area. The scale and design of new buildings and spaces should generally respect the area surrounding them and should reinforce and evolve local characteristics.

7.2. The proposed design rationale to follow the design of the original building makes sense in this case, and the Council’s City Design officer has commented that the building would sit comfortably with the adjacent building on the site and would fit with the local character of buildings sitting at the back of streets. Subject to matching materials, I am satisfied that the design of the extension would accord with the relevant urban design policies and guidance in the UDP and Places for All.

7.3. There is more detailed policy guidance for this location in the Aston, Newtown and

Lozells AAP, the Shopping and Local Centres SPD and the Places of Worship SPD that also needs to be considered. The AAP sets out policy LC3 that the Council will continue to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the Witton Local Centre.

Page 5 of 8

The Shopping and Local Centres SPD establishes that the site is within the centre boundary and therefore contributes to the mix of uses within the centre to meet local needs. The Places for worship SPD gives more detailed guidance on the issues to be considered for proposals involving such uses. The location of the existing mosque within an established existing centre accords with the overarching principles contained within this guidance which seeks to maximise accessibility by locating such uses, particularly those that serve a larger number of worshippers within centres and accessible transport corridors. The guidance also sets out that the impact of development proposals on traffic and parking and noise can also be significant considerations to be taken into account.

7.4. In respect of traffic and parking, the applicant has stated that the mosque serves a

local population and that this does not generate a large amount of car borne users. The existing mosque can cater for up to 500 worshippers and has a relatively small car park for 9 cars at present. The applicant advises that the proposal will add capacity to the building (a further 88 worshippers within the proposed extension which equates to a 17 % increase) and has provided a plan to demonstrate the retention of 9 spaces including space for a mini bus.

7.5. The comments of Transportation Development are noted. They have observed and

photographed the problems that the existing demand for parking is causing in the locality because the existing car park cannot meet the needs of the existing use. Parking has been observed to be in illegal and inconsiderate locations, including causing obstructions on the footways, around highway junctions and double parking thereby obstructing other parked cars (see attached photos). The location of such uses in a centre allows some flexibility in applying the car parking guidance because this offers alternatives for travel. Nonetheless, it is evident that the proposed extension to the mosque would increase demand for parking and that this is likely to exacerbate the existing parking problems in the area.

7.6. The applicant has sought to address these issues by proposing a car parking

management plan, which includes making provision for additional car parking off-site and providing a shuttle bus service to ferry users to and from the site. The applicant has submitted a users survey concluding that the majority of the users come from the local area within 1 km of the site. I note that the survey was not undertaken during Friday prayer and is therefore not necessarily representative of the catchment at this peak time. Nonetheless, it is evident that for Friday prayer the existing mosque attracts users who choose to travel by car regardless of how close they might live to the site. I do not consider that these users would be minded to travel past the site away from the mosque to use the proposed car parks and then await the arrival of a shuttle bus or to walk back to the site.

7.7. The users that park inconsiderately are considered to most likely be the late arrivals

that would therefore not have the time required to use this park and ride facility before the beginning of prayer. The presence of parking wardens is not likely to prevent such inconsiderate parking occurring in such circumstances where users arrive late as has been observed by the Transportation officer at his site visit. It is notable, that in the time between the withdrawn application and this application, the applicant has not been able to address the existing parking problems. This does not persuade me that this situation would be improved if planning permission for additional capacity were to be granted. For these reasons, I consider that the proposal should be refused.

7.8. In regard to noise and disturbance, I note that Regulatory Services raise no

objections. The site is located in a busy local centre where there is a high degree of

Page 6 of 8

activity from pedestrians and vehicles moving about and through the local centre, which also extends into The Broadway at times when the mosque is in use. I do not consider that the proposed extension would give rise to an adverse impact on nearby residents.

7.9. Notwithstanding the objection raised by the resident regarding loss of light, I do not

consider that the extension would have an undue effect in this regard to warrant refusal for this reason, taking into account the relationship to the adjoining flats.

8. Conclusion 8.1. The proposed extension will lead to additional on street parking to the detriment of

the safety and free flow of traffic in the highway and the safety of pedestrians. Refusal is recommended.

9. Recommendation 9.1. Refusal Reason for Refusal 1 The car parking facilities proposed are inadequate and would lead to additional

parking in nearby roads, to the detriment of pedestrian and highway safety. As such it would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 6.39 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, the guidance contained in Places for Worship SPD, Car Parking Guidelines SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: Stuart Morgans

Page 7 of 8

Photo(s)

Figure 1 : Front elevation

Page 8 of 8

Location Plan

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010

295

1

1

36

97.2

m

NELSON ROAD

97d

98.1m

98.9m

TCB

97f

97e

97g

NORRIS ROAD

ElSub Sta

98.1m

98.8m

JAR

DIN

EN

DIC

OTT R

OA

D

97b 97

c

WIT

TON R

OAD

WOODALL

ROAD

183

1624

12

420

100.0m

THE BROADWAY

330

320

20

to

29

17

26

61

22

28

81

26

49

13

2

328

230

12

16

a

13

281

4

48

97a

18581

Kingdom Hall

118

91

27

25

46

Works

36

32

95 to

97

25

47

324

1236

0

21

76

99

297

Garage

59

279

229

4

37

22

58

89

47

37

4

20

93

15

37

13

2

62

Wor

ks

336

243

74

364

2

265

255

113

233

297

Works

318

8

322

3

26

60

Works

263

75

1 to 8

Mosque

226

45

214

104

48

40

Works

50

116

93

33

57