Qu’rani Murkaz Trust of South Woodford Community Centre has re-submitted plans for a mosque following previous refusal

Controversial mosque plan re-submitted

The new proposal takes into consideration concerns about lack of privacy for Mulberry Way residents

The original design rejected by councillors in December

First published in News East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter, covering Chingford, Highams Park and Woodford. Call me on 07795 476 625

A plan to build a mosque in South Woodford has been re-submitted four months after a controversial proposal was rejected.

The Qu’rani Murkaz Trust (QMT) is proposing to demolish its existing South Woodford Community Centre Mosque, in Mulberry Way, and erect a new three-storey building. 

The development includes a ground floor prayer room, a community hall on the first floor and four residential flats on the second floor, but has resticted the overall height and removed the balconies after residents complained about a lack of privacy.

In December 2013, the original application was rejected following a tied vote in which planning committee chairman, councillor Robin Turberfield, refused permission.

Following more than 300 objections, the proposal was rejected on the grounds of its scale, density, mass and height and the design was considered not in keeping with the character of the area. 

Imam Dr Mohamed Fahim, of the Trust, described the reasons for refusal as 'unconvincing', but the plans have now been revised.

The original facade has been changed, the flats have been re-arranged to improve privacy for neighbouring homes and the overall size of the third floor has been reduced.   

The re-submission was received by Redbridge Council on March 31 and has so far received 13 objections, with people claiming the design is not in keeping with the area and will bring further parking congestion.

Members of the public have until April 21 to comment on the application. 

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:52am Tue 8 Apr 14

Villagecranberry says...

I note there is no minaret shown in the drawing, no doubt omitted to ensure this did not panic the locals. Should this building be approved, the the application to add this will ensue. Slowly, slowly catch the monkey is the general approach.

This building has had a very interesting history of applications, there was an application for a mini cab office and then a chicken shop and now a new mosque!

Parking will obviously be horrendous as it is terrible round this location already. They will cite that most users will attend on foot or public transport which of course will be far from the truth.

I must say that last week the Iman was on TV and came across as being a very nice gentleman, so perhaps the locals could try and reach a compromise with him?
I note there is no minaret shown in the drawing, no doubt omitted to ensure this did not panic the locals. Should this building be approved, the the application to add this will ensue. Slowly, slowly catch the monkey is the general approach. This building has had a very interesting history of applications, there was an application for a mini cab office and then a chicken shop and now a new mosque! Parking will obviously be horrendous as it is terrible round this location already. They will cite that most users will attend on foot or public transport which of course will be far from the truth. I must say that last week the Iman was on TV and came across as being a very nice gentleman, so perhaps the locals could try and reach a compromise with him? Villagecranberry
  • Score: 11

10:01am Tue 8 Apr 14

MorrisHickey says...

I remember an application in, or around, the year 2000 when councillors were expected by the promoters of the original scheme to accept that all worshippers using it lived within 10 minutes walking time. It wasn't true then, and now......
I remember an application in, or around, the year 2000 when councillors were expected by the promoters of the original scheme to accept that all worshippers using it lived within 10 minutes walking time. It wasn't true then, and now...... MorrisHickey
  • Score: 14

10:35pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ruby newbie says...

no t much different to the first one,i do not understand why it needs flats above let alone a terrace that is imposing to others living close by I think that a house is unable to get permission for a terrace/balcony from a second or third floor level so why should this.planning application number 0925/14 Redbridge I website
no t much different to the first one,i do not understand why it needs flats above let alone a terrace that is imposing to others living close by I think that a house is unable to get permission for a terrace/balcony from a second or third floor level so why should this.planning application number 0925/14 Redbridge I website ruby newbie
  • Score: 6

1:01pm Wed 9 Apr 14

cynicalsue says...

Just hope this application goes the same way as the others.
Just hope this application goes the same way as the others. cynicalsue
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree