Did they try to keep this quiet?

Did they try to keep this quiet?

Seems that this particular planning application has been dealt with in a very low-key way, Why?

Further information: The planning notice appeared on the 18th August, just the one, on a lamp post outside the property? Further inquiries with the Planning Department confirm the closing date is from when sign went up, not what it says on RMBC site!!

See: http://rotherham.planportal.co.uk/?id=RB2016/1015

Image kindly supplied by labour out:

IMG_2387

More information thanks once again to labour out:

IMG_2397

Another piece of the jigsaw, some interesting conditions attached, spotted for us by Termite with our thanks:

Scan.pdf1Scan.pdf2Scan.pdf3Scan.pdf4

Readers may also be interested in these:

Scan.pdf1Scan.pdf2

This tells the story of a previous planning application, from Ridge Road Mosque:

Ridge Road Mosque – Akhtar clarifies his role?

31 thoughts on “Did they try to keep this quiet?

  1. The application is for extensions to the building.
    The Charge Register says there should be no building ‘on the strip of land forty feet long and eight feet wide measured from the building line towards the rear of the land’. A rear extension will breach the covenant IMV.
    Perhaps because the application is not from a WASP planning restrictions do not apply?

    Like

      • Xinsider & Kath Reeder & Trambuster

        Can I suggest that this isn’t left until the Planning Board meets as it is often too late. Councillor John Turner reported recently in the Advertiser that meetings were often a waste of time as ‘business’ had been dealt with outside the scrutiny of Planning Board.

        Winsze Lam does not in any way, possess a sound track record, often setting up serious problems through a lack of diligence and a failure to challenge.

        Check everything diligently and importantly, keep this under the eyes of the Chief Commissioner Sir Derek Myers, Director of Legal Services, Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive Director.

        Planning may have regained it powers but it is far from being ‘fit for purpose’ and needs to be kept under very close scrutiny.

        Like

  2. Pingback: Yet more Islam planned for the long suffering town of Rotherham. Probably the last thing it needs at the moment. – Fahrenheit211

  3. I heard about this application by word of mouth and put in an objection immediately ! Anyone living on Broom Lane wishing to object to this ridiculous , and underhand, application must do so today to avoid missing the deadline. There are several in already – please “swell the ranks” !

    Like

  4. am sure this mosque started life as a muslim girls school just how many mosques are needed in rotherham the russell st mosque half a million spent on a “extension” where does all this money come from ?

    Like

    • If you read the “Charge Registry the cost of the building is £ 196,720 yet there is no “Lender” !! Wish I had that sort of cash lying about the house !

      Like

  5. Big Bird – the mosque on Ridge Road started as a “learning centre” for kids (a madrasser ??) then the brown sign appeared at the St Ann’s Rd/Ridge Rd junction I am not aware there was ever a “change of use” asked for. Now look at it, towering over Eastwood and Fitzwilliam Rd ,with it’s gold minarets ! Someone is taking the p^ss here and it isn’t the general population !

    Like

  6. Ping back?
    Did they try to keep this quiet?

    I don’t think so, it’s every where in black and white.

    And most importantly it is still relevant and within the 21 days notice, and for suggesting that no objections will be heard, yeah! Pull the other one.

    I can understand the reasons for, it was not registered as a mosque, parking or noise nuisance or for that matter building covenant, but for the love of God linking mosques to the perpetual abuse found in Rotherham?

    Nazir Afzal, the CPS’s lead on child sexual abuse, suggests that the victims were targeted due to their vulnerability, and not because they were white.

    “There is no religious basis for this. These men were not religious. Islam says that alcohol, drugs, rape and abuse are all forbidden, yet these men were surrounded by all of these things. So how can anyone say that these men were driven by their religion to do this kind of thing?

    “They were doing this horrible, terrible stuff, because of the fact that they are men. That’s sadly what the driver is here. This is about male power. These young girls have been manipulated and abused because they were easy prey for evil men.”

    Nazir Afzal CPS

    Nazir Afzal: Rotherham scandal is about male power, not ethnicity
    http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/09/nazir-afzal-rotherham-scandal-about-male-power-not-ethnicity

    Have we been down this route before, maybe we have, end result Mohsin Ahmed.

    Like

  7. We have been a little diverted from the subject matter at hand, that of this as a planning application.

    Looking at this, surely this should not have been accepted as a valid application, due to the covenants prohibiting further building works, or have I got that wrong?

    Like

    • Entirely correct Rothpol. No doubt the PC brigade in Town Hall Towers will be worrying about so called “community cohesion” and wringing their hands over the ethnicity of the applicant instead of simply looking at the facts and non racist, reasonable objections, from the general public !

      Like

  8. the parking problem will be a major issue look at any mosque at friday dinner time its out of control . do not let them kid you with we all walk to mosque rubbish . good luck people of broom .

    Like

  9. “nationwidecarers” say
    Many people wish to object about the planning application for an extension on a little plot of land at 158 Broom Lane. used as a mosque planning applied to more than double the size it is at the moment. This building is supposed to be a reading room for children now used also by adults. The planning regulations should be altered to stop this happening in the future. This small plot of land only has parking for 6 vehicles. No planning application been put forward to increase the car park.
    They have been given permission by Broom Methodist church that the residence are now contesting. for Friday prayer only. Not for a month during Ramadan where the car park is used from late evening till after one O’Clock in the morning while the residence are being disturbed while they are in bed. The residence wish to meet the committee to discus this Manchester head office are aware of this.All the disruption is on film.Should the church continue the near residence are going to apply to RMBC for a rates reduction. The application on this small plot is to make it a two storey building with a further building at the back.

    Where do the people park at the moment who attend the READING ROOM / MOSQUE they illegally mass park on both sides of Broom Lane on cycle lanes this is unlawful those lanes are there legally for the protection and well being of the cyclists. Cones are used to reserve parking cones should not be used.Should any cyclist be knocked down because a long line of cars are parked on the cycle lane they have a very strong case for litigation against the authority that allow it. Mr Ferguson a senior officer of highways is aware of this. South Yorkshire police have been asked to clarify in writing the law on parking on cycle lanes and the use of cones being used. residents have evidence of this. If there is a violation they authorites must do something about it. This is before an application to more than double the size of the building that puts cyclists at serious risk.

    Next door to the Mosque is Broom Nursing Home for very sick elderly residence who need emergency ambulance and doctors access at all time to the home that could be life threatening this Mosque could put even more lives at risk when the Mosque is double the size. Those residence expect and must get peace and quiet.this is not happening.

    The planning are aware of the situation as are the highways the environment the police and the press. Many people who object are to old and infirm and they have rights some are unable to write or complain and every one had so little time to complain, if you have just gone on holiday you miss out.. Simply remember parking on a cycle lane is a serious offence and must be stopped not just the odd car but long rows of cars are parked. Planning permission must be rejected.

    Anyone who agrees with this letter copy it and just add your name and address and sign it and send it ASAP to The Planning Department, Development Management, Riverside House, Main Street House, Rotherham. S60 1AE . ,

    Like

  10. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 27th August | Rotherham Politics

  11. Nice to see this conversation has digressed into anything (grooming) but the matter at hand.

    Am I right in saying that there should be letters sent out to local residents to once an application has been submitted requesting comments, which as far as I understand, hasn’t been done in this case?

    Secondly, there have already been objections notified in the Council’s online page for the application. Rightly so from residents who live on Broom Lane. Slightly baffling why residents from Stag and other streets further out are objecting as it should primarily be the views of people who LIVE on Broom Lane. I’ve seen countless times EDL and the far right encouraging anyone and everyone to object when they don’t live in the same street, never mind the the same town!

    As I live on Broom Lane and know many people who visit ReM, it’s important to have a rational, organised debate on the practical issues to hand and not, like this thread seems to have turned into, a generalisation on what this extension could become.

    As far as I know, the nearby Church and ReM have a good relationship and the former kindly allow the mosque to use its car park (do feel strenous encouragement is needed to request people to walk to the mosque). The ReM provides a valuable space which if it hadn’t been there could easily have led it to become derelict and anti social behaviour.

    Like

  12. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 3rd September | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.