Planning decision over islamic centre overruled by inspector as council slammed for 'unreasonable behaviour'

A council has been slammed by Government planners for “unreasonable behaviour” after it refused to allow an Islamic centre to extend its opening hours without evidence to back up the concerns around the plans. The Government’s Planning Inspectorate has ordered Basildon Council to pay costs of the planning appeal to The South Essex Islamic Trust after the dispute, regarding its centre in High Road, Vange.

The centre replaced the former Barge Inn, which dated back hundreds of years. It shut down as a pub in 2015 and plans had been mooted for a small Morrisons store at the site.

The council agreed plans for the religious centre with a condition around the opening hours, but the Planning Inspectorate has now overruled that, stating the concerns around the opening hours had “not been substantiated by any evidence provided by the council in defence of their reason for refusal.” The inspectorate also found the council’s refusal and behaviour resulted “in unnecessary or wasted expense” for the religious charity which runs the site. The owners of the centre told the Government planners the council has “acted unreasonably in that it has failed to substantiate its reason for refusal and made vague, generalised, or inaccurate assertions” about the proposal's impact.

READ MORE: Taxi driver loses licence after making lone woman feel 'extremely uncomfortable and threatened'

READ MORE: Premier Inn's expansion plans for Essex town after 'considerable demand'

The condition in dispute states that the hours of opening shall be restricted to 7am and 11pm daily. The appeal decision means the centre can open between 4.30am and 12.30am, following the planning dispute. These opening hours were trialled with the council temporarily allowing it but it then refused to allow permission for this on a permanent basis, stating concerns about the impact on the community. The inspectorate has criticised the authority as it “failed to grasp the nettle” of the trial and the inspectorate also says that “evidence clearly indicates that no harm was identified.”

The planning appeal decision states: “I have no reason to doubt there is a perception of harm regarding the additional hours of operation, particularly during unsocial hours. However, this has not been substantiated by any evidence provided by the council in defence of their reason for refusal, other than anecdotal third-party comments setting out their own experiences of limited and isolated incidents of disturbance when the site was in use. Nor has the council provided any noise reports or evidence to support their suggestion that the resultant noise levels arising from the development would result in undue harm to living conditions of local residents. Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the hours of operation as proposed by the appellants would not lead to significant harm to the living conditions of nearby residents in respect of noise and disturbance.”

A document for the costs decision says: “The applicant has submitted the council has acted unreasonably in that it has failed to substantiate its reason for refusal and made vague, generalised, or inaccurate assertions about the proposal's impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. The applicant further contends that in refusing permission the council delayed a development that should clearly have been permitted.

“Furthermore, little new evidence has been put forward by the council to support their reason for refusal or establish what levels of noise nuisance or disturbance have been experienced during the trial period, and if so, how this would be made worse by allowing the same extended operation times on a permanent basis. Nor has the alleged harm to living conditions been substantiated, other than a significant reliance on a potential or perceived impact.

“As such, it appears that the council has failed to grasp the nettle, regarding the aims and objectives of the trial period, which was to categorically establish whether or not the extension of the operating hours would cause harm to the neighbouring amenity. The evidence clearly indicates that no harm was identified. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, despite the arguments advanced in the council’s costs statement, I consider that the council has acted unreasonably by failing to substantiate its reason for refusal by making a vague assertion about the proposal's impact. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.”

A Basildon Council spokesman said: “We are grateful to the Planning Inspector for their time and diligence in hearing this appeal. We acknowledge the outcome and will consider the findings of the decision carefully as we move forward.”