Planners: we can’t inspect every site

EXCLUSIVE

PLANNING inspections are often not carried out on developments in Oldham leaving the borough at risk of hot-spot rows — such as a local mosque being built 5ft too high.

Neighbours have complained that their properties have been overshadowed by the “monstrous” building that takes away privacy — leading to an outcry from Chronicle readers for action to be taken.

But the Chronicle can reveal that work to build Madina Mosque and Islamic Centre in Clydesdale Street, Coppice, should never have even started and breached a planning condition.

Planning officer Gareth Salthouse told the Chronicle that developments are not routinely inspected as the authority does not have the resources to visit every site and it can be years before work starts on some developments.

“They don’t have to tell us when they are starting,” he added. “We would not know they had started work.”

Instead, officers rely on people noticing that something is wrong with the construction and alerting them.

In this case, planning permission was granted in March and a neighbour brought it to the council’s attention in May. The lack of enforcement emerged as planning chiefs defended their roles in allowing the building to stand.

The Chronicle revealed last week how furious neighbours had no problem with the mosque being built but were upset by the size of the building — with one saying it could force her to put her home of 20 years up for sale.

The builders were accused of incompetence but the mosque’s leaders blamed the architects saying the ground should have been excavated to a depth of nearly 5ft and the mosque built partly below ground. The architects said the plans were misinterpreted.

A resubmitted application was approved by Oldham Council’s planning committee but residents felt they had been ridden-over roughshod by mosque bosses to get what they want.

Questions have been raised as to how inspectors didn’t spot the building was being constructed far too high with some Oldhamers even calling for it to be pulled down - although it now has planning permission.

But work should never have even started as a condition attached required more information on floor levels, so officers could be doubly sure they were appropriate, before it began.

Mr Salthouse said: “We went out to have a look and the steel structure was up and it was clear that in relation to the neighbours’ houses it was higher. And any development shouldn’t have taken place before they had submitted further information.”

It’s up to the local authority’s discretion as to whether any enforcement action is taken. It was also noticed that a neighbouring house had been misrepresented on the plans. The work was halted and the applicants asked to submit a fresh application to regularise the development.

Planning Committee chairman Councillor John Hudson defended himself against criticism, some of which he felt was politically motivated, by pointing out he had followed procedures.

He said: “If an applicant has not adhered to planning consent they can apply for planning consent for a variation. The officers provided a report to members and a full and detailed debate then took place. A member of the public attended and spoke about privacy issues and was questioned.

“We knew it was too tall the second time around but it was put further back because of the terraced houses across. This has improved the site and there’s a need for this facility. No one was happy about things going wrong but we had to look at the new application.

“I repeatedly asked for any other proposal before being obliged to put the motion forward for approval, which was eventually supported by the committee with no council members voting against.”

A report from planning officers to councillors recommending approval said: “Although the proposed scheme would be higher than the previous approved one I still consider its design, scale and appearance to be appropriate. The potential impact does not warrant refusal of permission

and such a refusal on this basis would be difficult to defend at planning appeal.” The revised plans, raising the height above ground by 5ft, were approved subject to the issue of two windows overlooking neighbouring properties being reconsidered with planning officers.