Colin James Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 Herefordshire Council have rejected an application for an Islamic Centre in Holme Lacy Road Hereford. THE COUNTY OF HEREFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL hereby gives notice in pursuance of the provisions of the above Acts that PLANNING PERMISSION has been REFUSED for the carrying out of the development described above for the following reasons: 1.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. 2.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. Full details of this application here Original application form and Decision notice attached. AppForm.pdf Decision Notice 167100.pdf
Steve Major Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 Parking would be the obvious issues here.
Mick Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 Herefordshire Council have rejected an application for an Islamic Centre in Holme Lacy Road Hereford. Full details of this application here Original application form and Decision notice attached. AppForm.pdf Decision Notice 167100.pdf A lot of objections to this I see but I can see that there was inadequate parking.
M. Preece Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 I read one person concerns were about dead bodies being present during worship and that there were obviously health concerns involved but yes lots of objections to this application. Good to see HV leading with this story hours ahead of the HT again.
Aylestone Voice Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 Hardly leading when the decision was made on 2 October
M. Preece Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 Hardly leading when the decision was made on 2 October I was not referring to when the decision was made, I was referring to HV being among the first to publish the story, ahead of the HT by hours yet again HT Article
Alex Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 I am not surprised that this planning application was refused, so many objections.
Roger Posted November 20, 2014 Report Posted November 20, 2014 Hardly leading when the decision was made on 2 October I saw this story trend on the internet generally this morning and looked at the Council site to see the decision. I saw the date was 2nd October. I don't know how long that had been there for viewing. Seems a big delay between the decision and the story breaking. The parking decision might well be valid but has anyone seen the parking provision behind Eignbrook Church on Eign Street? Not very brilliant in my view. But it has been there a very long time. The Colleges up Aylestone get adaptations which I assume attract more students and The Council are quite happy there to approve stuff and swamp Whittern Way with students' cars. Regarding planning (I'm no expert) it seems you can change a pub into a shop but you can't change a shop (Magenta) into a religious meeting place. All very confusing to me. What if Sainsbury's moved into the disused Magenta shop? Would they even need planning permission? This would attract cars. That being said I am aware of the local opposition to the application for a 'mosque' type building. The profile of the population in that area (1% declared Muslim in the census) would rule it out on common sense grounds I would think.
Alex Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 This was a non starter imo anyway, so I am pleased that HC rejected this one.
Cambo Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 Some very strong comments about this on HT Facebook page so much so that they pulled it!…they then put up a apologie for doing so. but that has not stopped the strong comments from still being posted on this subject as it's continued onto HT's apologise's post!
Alex Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 So it's not just HV that has stronger opinions then, which is good to hear. I expected a big hot controversial debate on this topic.
Roger Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 Some very strong comments about this on HT Facebook page so much so that they pulled it!…they then put up a apologie for doing so. but that has not stopped the strong comments from still being posted on this subject as it's continued onto HT's apologise's post! We don't want any 'rag heads' here was one post ... I think the HT are far too safe with their Editorial decisions ... Also with their totally random permissions on comments on articles ...
dippyhippy Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 If the above comment is typical of the quality of comments left, then I'm not surprised that The Hereford Times pulled it. This sort of offensive remark adds nothing to a debate. There is a need for sensible, rational discussion to take place. This sort of comment ticks neither box. In my humble opinion, the minute name calling is resorted to, the argument is lost.
Roger Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 This subject started up a huge debate on the HT facebook page and they ended up having to delete the item due to inappropriate comments. So they make it today's front page and launch the debate again on facebook ... Hereford Times (comments enabled on story)
dippyhippy Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 I just hope that any debate is a rational one. Given the example you provided us with Roger, I have reservations that this can be achieved.
twowheelsgood Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 Early editions of the HT had the unfortunate typo of 'pan' instead of 'plan'.
Chris Chappell Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 If I may just make a comment about the planning refusal. It was turned down because of a lack of parking facilities and because of the extra traffic movements. I opposed an ATM going into Tesco as there is already enough cars parking there and vehicles parking, even for a short while, would cause a problem on Holme Lacy Road. It was suggested in the application that there might be 100 people attending the proposed centre at any time. This could generate many more vehicle movements at this point where Holme Lacy Road starts to narrow towards the traffic lights and so close to two other road junctions and the Tesco exit. There were never going to be any bodies either buried there or at services. Change of use permissions are required in certain circumstances. A pub to a shop, and visa versa, will always need change of use permission but not necessarily planning permission. A shop to a day centre needs planning permission as they are different types of purposes. The Ward Councillors and local residents were told in October that permission had not been granted for the day centre. Our advice was, as usual, sought by the planning officer before the decision was made. I hope this helps.
Roger Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 There were never going to be any bodies either buried there or at services. Ta for clearing that up! I think you are 'out of touch' to even mention that to be honest!
Recommended Posts