This, from the Tate, is Canaletto’s View of Greenwich from the River (c 1750-2).
Beautiful, isn’t it? The view is from what is now called Island Gardens at the southern end of the Isle of Dogs.
Here’s the photo on Tower Hamlets council’s website.
It’s a public park, or as the council puts it, “this charming riverside park” – part of the green space our our politicians insist is so precious in our borough. It’s also in a World Heritage Site buffer zone, which means anything that obstructs the view is forbidden by international treaty.
Here’s another view:
Now, this one is particularly interesting because at the far left-hand corner of that photo, a parcel of land is now under threat. Someone wants to build on it. Not a visitor centre showing the history of the park and its famous heritage, but a portable cabin, where, according to the applicant, the activities of “peoples of Muslim faith and ethnic minorities will be of primary focus”.
The details of the application are here. The applicant’s own statement is here (more of who the applicant is in a bit). Note the language, the way he seems to have been coached into saying what he thinks is the correct thing. Thus:
-
- p1
-
- p2
-
- p3
To quote sections of it:
The applicant is local community based organization whose primary activities are local based. It has been searching for a base in the locasl area to be a social public provider and extend charitable activities to local communities *(faith and non faith) as a third sector organisation. (sic)
Members behind this local community organization have a diverse background in varies fields and professions as well as wide life experiences and are ideally suited to helping in the formation of a centre serving the general public locally… The active members of the organization are schooled in the UK and abroad and possess a good understanding of British culture as well as social, local government, business and education. Hence they are able to offer support and practical assistance to those most in need in their community in particular. (sic)
The property will allow this organization to offer some of the following services: 1. tuition and homework classes for school children. 2. Teaching cultural subjects such as mother tongue classes, religious instruction etc. 3. Health advice clinics on smoking, healthy eating etc in ethnic languages thus reducing the financial burden on the local council. 4. Provide life skills and employment workshops for the unemployed. 5. Provide advice sessions on domestic family problems such as domestic violence, drug taking etc. 6. Provide a venue for for interfaith and cross cultural interactions. 7. Provide services to the elderly and families
The building will allow the engagement of women of different social and ethical background through the use of a separate hall. This will allow the organization to deliver important seminars and workshops on health, life skills etc to women who would usually shy away from the presence of men.
..There will be space allocated to prayer as it is a requirement for some of those visiting and using the centre to set aside whatever activities they are involved in at times of prayer.
..The applicant, intends to provide meals to the homeless and low cost quality food to other charities. (sic)
Don’t you just love it? I particularly like the bit about herding women into a separate hall because they “usually shy away from the presence of men”. And the bit about doing the teaching in Bengali because that would lower the council’s costs. How very inclusive, and considerate.
The plans also include an area for ablutions. This is a mosque in all but name. Or perhaps a Trojan Horse for a mosque. In a Grade II listed public park that was set aside by its founders for the benefit of everyone.
I rang Tower Hamlets council’s planning department and said I wanted to erect a community centre inside Victoria Park. They said I’d have to submit an application and pay a fee. “But,” I said, “surely you must be able to give me some initial advice? What’s the likelihood of this getting planning permission?”
Highly unlikely, they said, because Victoria Park is designated Metropolitan Space.
So I asked, “But am I even able to submit an application because I don’t actually own the space in the park?”
I could submit an application for anything anywhere, they told me, but that doesn’t mean the owner will give permission to use their land.
Island Gardens is also designated Metropolitan Space. And it’s also listed and owned by the council.
This document was written by the council in 2008. It’s the 10-year “management plan” for Island Gardens.
Here’s some of the introduction:
2.1 Introduction to Island Gardens
Island Gardens is an extremely prominent site on the best known loop of the River Thames, visible from the river and from Greenwich. It is a small gem of an open space, 1.12 hectares (2.77 acres) in size. It is best known and was set aside expressly for its classic views over the river to the historic landscapes, buildings and sights of Greenwich, a World Heritage Site. Local residents and workers and thousands of visitors a year from around the world enjoy the park.
Its finest features are the views across the River and its London Plane trees. The park offers its visitors peace and tranquillity and a chance for quiet contemplation.
The Borough has 125 public open spaces, three quarters of them of 1 hectare or less in size. On average there are only 1.2 hectares of open space per 1000 population, half the national standard.
The recently adopted Open Space Strategy gave Island Gardens a score of 74.9% in the quality audit, a high score for the Borough.
2.3 Site history
In the late nineteenth century the trustees of Lady Margaret Charteris owned the land that is now Island Gardens. The land was leased to the Admiralty, which in turn let it to the Cubitt trustees, with a reservation that no buildings, except certain villa residences, were to be erected without their consent. The Admiralty’s objective was to preserve the site in order to maintain the important views to Greenwich. This was almost the only portion of the area’s river frontage that had not been developed over the preceding fifty years for shipbuilding and the many other industries associated with the docks.
Island Gardens was formally acquired for public open space in 1893 and opened in August 1895. The original purpose of the Gardens was twofold – primarily a vantage-point from which to enjoy the fine architecture and majestic views across the River but also as a recreation ground for local people, adults and children, to enjoy public entertainment and open space. It continues to provide for these two purposes.
So why would anyone waste a planning fee of £1500 on an application that is so likely doomed? Surely, they must have discussed the idea with someone at the council? Maybe someone gave them a wink and nod.
But who is the applicant? His application form is here. It’s a Mr A Hannan of Manchester Road. He doesn’t include his full address, and there’s no mention of the local community “social public service provider” mentioned in his application statement.
In fact, this is Abdul Hannan. He’s one of the trustees of the Tower Hamlets Parents Centre, a charity that earns £120,000 a year. I suspect this is the group behind the bid. The other trustees are:
DR HASANAT HUSAIN MBEMR MUFTI AMIN AHMEDMR ABDUL MANNANMR SHAHANUR AHMED KHANMRS FERDOUS AHMEDMR SAJJAD MIAHMR SHAFI AHMADMR MONIRUL ISLAMMR GULAM MORTUZA
Well, well, well…that last name is ex-councillor G(h)ulam Mortuza. He’s a former Labour civic mayor of the borough and defected briefly to Respect in 2005/6. He founded the Tower Hamlets Parents Network in 1996. He’s also, would you apple and eve it, the elder brother of Cllr G(h)ulam Robbani, a close ally of Mayor Lutfur Rahman and the author of those infamous invoices I detailed here.
[As a result of a comment by TH1 this evening (Tuesday, June 4), I’m deleting the last section of this post. It seems I’ve mixed up two Adbul Hannans. The Abdul Hannan who made this application is listed on the electoral roll for Manchester Road as aged between 35-39 and having lived at the address for 16 years. I’m informed this is a different Abdul Hannan to the one listed as a trustee of the Tower Hamlets Parents Centre. I apologise to all concerned and I’ll continue to look for the organisation behind this scheme.]
Not everything is as it first appears, is it…
…And the same goes for the objections to this proposal. When I was first alerted to this row last week, the headline was about building over the park. But that’s not quite the case.
The area where they want to put their community centre/mosque is, as I said above, in a small corner of the park.
I had a look yesterday. It may well lie within the park boundaries, but it’s not exactly the park. It’s in a walled-off area where the council’s gardeners used to have a storage shed. It’s now not used for anything.
Here it is from the inside:
And from the road outside the park:
And here’s the residents’ objection poster attached to the park gates:
There have been rumours that this parcel of land has already been sold off by the council and I know the Tories are trying to get that clarified by the council’s directors. If so, it would be a major scandal…but I doubt that’s the case.
However, we should actually be grateful to the slightly disingenuous planning application from Mr A Hannan. It’s clear that something should be done with the site they want to use. And a small community centre isn’t too bad a thing. But let’s make it religion-free, shall we: there are plenty of other places to pray.
And let’s encourage people to mix. What about a One O’Clock Club, a children’s activity centre, such as the one in Victoria Park?
Trial by Jeory 
Here’s the petition from local concerned people.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-threat-of-prefabricated-portakabin-being-erected-in-island-gardens-a-world-famous-grade-ii-listed-park-situated-in-a-conservation-area-and-bordering-on-to-greenwich-a-world-heritage-site.html
“Gifted to the people”, That is ALL of the people, not one section of the people. Ted could you give details of the objection group?
Why do I continually get the faint smell of corruption when I read any reports about the TH Council?
Faint smell? You just have a cold…
TOP detective work there Ted. Bravo.
NewSpaniard – Probably because it is rife.
Tim.
I am speechless………..and signed the petition.
Except that the planning class D1 applied for covers a range of community-type options, which would cover both religious and broader community uses, and the trouble with the objections is that they aren’t actually based on planning considerations. “Amenity” and “heritage” concerns are, as you point out, not really applicable. The proposed building would have a roofline no higher than a building behind it outside the park, and far lower than the inelegant brick cafe in the middle of the park – never mind the piled up portakabins and hoardings around the foot tunnel entrance, which have been untouched for ages now without a peep from the objectors to this proposal.
So what ?
This is happening all around England. Not necessarily for any religious group but certainly where the local authority is disgustingly abusing PUBLIC LAND entrusted into the good, caring and safe stewardship of the local authority.
The fundamental problem is local authorities think PUBLIC LAND belongs to the uncaring local authority bureaucrats and not to all the LOCAL PUBLIC.
Until we get an English Constitution with genuine rights for the public this type of local authority abuse of valuable and irreplaceable PUBLIC ASSETS will continue.
I suspect the well-managed and excellent borough of Tower Hamlets will merrily and gleefully give away every bit of public treasure they can get their slimy hands upon.
The public have no legal right to retain PUBLIC LAND for the greater good of ALL the residents in the area. Local authorities no longer care about the public. They are divorced from the public they are supposed to serve with respect.
Its going to be a difficult battle because in planning law objectors have no legal rights.
Surely, the council as owners of the park have to give permission to build, regardless of planning merits.
Don’t know who controls planning approval in London. Could be Boris or LBTH.
Certainly the landowner should authorise building permission. These days the planning application forms usually have a declaration to be signed by the planning applicant that the OWNER is aware of the application.
Curious Cat.
Ted,
Have a look at the planning application page 5
http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/doc/791211-Page-5.pdf?extension=.pdf&page=5&id=791211&contentType=application/pdf&location=VOLUME5&thumbnail=true
section 25
certificate A
KAMRUL ARIF states 21 days before the application was made nobody except him was the “owner”
Owner, the form states, includes those with at least 7 years left of a leasehold or freehold interest.
Comments ???
Curious Cat.
V interesting. I’ve seen emails between Owen Whalley and Tory councillors discussing this plot and he makes no mention of any ownership. Will post later.
You’ll see that Owen Whalley was the officer who gave the applicant advice.
Also, section 8 of the application form is interesting because the applicant declares he’s not related to any councillor. Given the applicant talks about an unnamed and undeclared organisation behind this proposal, and given we suspect that’s Tower Halmlets Parents Centre, that declaration might be misleading.
I’m surprised the council hasn’t asked the applicant to state the organisation involved. How can residents be consulted properly when they haven’t been given the full facts? Surely grounds to make this application invalid, as it stands.
http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Application%20Form-791211.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=791211&location=VOLUME5&appid=&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=6
And as I mentioned in the post, the planning officer I spoke to when I rang as a member of the public wanting to start a community centre in Victoria Park said my venture would fail because it was designated Metropolitan Space.
So why would a different standard apply to Island Gardens?
I think you know the answer. There is “a secret agenda” being pursued by those who have taken our local council… what can we plebs do about it though? The only solution is a national government prepared to do what it takes to save this country from ruin. An English Constitution is rather like putting the roof up before the walls. UKIP is the only option to start getting anywhere near that.
I disagree with Grave Maurice. The UKIP nutters, so loved by the Daily Express, are not the answer. Every country, je pense, has a Constitution except the English and their colonies such as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc.
Scotland has never ever been an equal partner in Britain alongside England – but that is a matter for debate elsewhere.
The overall answer for the latest Tower Hamlets calamity is for the disorganised, and lazy certainly to an extent, residents of the wonderful borough of Tower Hamlets to start contesting local elections on the basis of kicking politics out of local government and ensuring the council exists to serve the local residents – not serve councillors and bloated bigwigs such as the local mayor. Local government is not a game. Its the future of your life whilst you live in excellent LBTH !
The Mayer and his cronies are exhibiting typical Labour behaviour. Where on earth do you genuinely think these clowns learned all their tricks ?
Its YOUR borough (and Ted’s too) so stop moaning and start getting active. Don’t leave it to Labour or anyone else to sort-out YOUR borough. They are never ever going to do as good job as you, Ted and the other peaceful revolutionaries.
Regarding the planning issue, get a copy of the planning application and let me see it or post a link to it. Is the application for outline permission or detailed ?
Curious Cat.
Een Engelsman
It depends on the zoning of the land which is likely to be in LBTH’s Local Plan. Copy available from LBTH’s planning department.
Interested people should sort-out what type of LISTING, if any, applies to the site = English Heritage and grade or Locally Listed (by the local council and for what purpose).
Then find-out what the planning zone is for the land.
Obviously post the info on this blog.
Curious Cat.
P.S. I love the first view. A real historical classic. Those were the days (for some people but not for the poor, the hungry, the weak, the elderly, the ill and the dying). As a society we should fight to retain everything which is good, even if wonderful LBTH objects.
If everyone had the ‘so what’ out-look then as a nation we would continually lose our identity, piece by piece. Take one look at Luton and this is evident. There are some success stories, however few. I whole heartedly disagree with the erection of a place of worship in an area such as this, and agree with the author that a community centre for all would be a much better use of this space.
To: building planning permission,
Luckily everyone does not share the dismissive, but factual, feeling of helplessness when dealing with the consequences of a local authority doing what ever it likes.
This is about the democratic wishes of the usually forgotten, accept at election time, majority in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
Why should any group be able to buy council property secretly ? especially English Heritage Listed property ?
Either the local council (LBTH) is genuinely committed to serving ALL the residents without favour or it is out of public control and unaccountable to the residents of LBTH. I think the latter.
This alarming and worrying matter should never have arisen. Now this nightmare is underway, what is needed is leaflets to be printed in English, Arabic, Bengali, (Polska for any Poles or Panjabi for the Sikhs) and put through every residential letterbox telling the public what is happening and urging them to protest or to contact named ward councillors demanding an end to this dreadful and shocking event.
If you in LBTH really care, then get together and start fighting for the public and common good. Actions speak louder than words.
Protests about building on public park land in islamist Turkey aren’t doing so well, how much better will they do in islamist Tower Hamlets? In both cases, money is obviously changing hands somewhere.
http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/policies/3d-10.jsp
“Improving London’s open environment
3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land
The Mayor will and boroughs should maintain the protection of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) from inappropriate development. Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken by boroughs through the DPD process, in consultation with the Mayor and adjoining authorities. Land designated as MOL should satisfy one or more of the following criteria:
land that contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built-up area
land that includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport, arts and cultural activities and tourism which serve the whole or significant parts of London
land that contains features or landscapes of historic, recreational, nature
conservation or habitat interest, of value at a metropolitan or national level
land that forms part of a Green Chain and meets one of the above criteria.
Policies should include a presumption against inappropriate development of MOL and give the same level of protection as the green belt. Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of MOL.”
———————————————————–
Local authorities are renown for ignoring government guidance and manipulating things to get their already chosen result.
Stated above is “Island Gardens is also designated Metropolitan Space. And it’s also listed and owned by the council.”.
Is that listing by English Heritage (grade number ?) or the much weaker ‘listing’ (terms ?) by the local authority (Locally Listed) ?
Curious Cat
Next we’ll be hearing the council will hold a ‘consultation’. And we all know what that means…
Well that’s one thing I was wondering about; if this is a planning application then surely there will be opportunities to respond to it. How and when would one object if one felt this mosque-by-some-other-name was a bad idea?
Tim.
As a member of the public you can object but you have no legal status in the matter. Consequently when planning approval is granted, you can’t appeal to anyone, unless you start a High Court application on the bases of corruption, illegality or failure by the council to following the law in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
Basically, despite being a resident, the law and the law makers simply don’t care about you or your concerns even though the land is owned by YOUR council funded with YOUR money.
Curious Cat.
It will be a totally independent, neutral and honest consultation with only a few people knowing about it, not lasting long enough for most people to discover its existence and all the posed questions being worded in such a way you have to agree with the council. Its the Labour way of doing public consultations and wonderful LBTH is riddled with Labour, even the Mayer and his mates are Labour prodigies.
Curious Cat.
There does seem to be something of a shortage of mosque space in TH, and if you go really often, you’d want one close by. This isn’t the first instance of a tension between people wanting to set up a mosque and people feeling its site/building should be for the whole community.
I’m not sure how compatible mosque spaces and general community centre activities would be, if they were to be in the same space. The prayers are really often and at really specific times, so it would be hard to timetable other events around that.
If, particularly in areas like the Island which are undergoing a lot of development, there was a bit more positive planning for the kinds of facilities the community will want, there would be less of these kinds of issues. Similarly with the issue with schools there, the council needs to provide for the people moving in.
Architecton can you please be more specific ?
What are you basing your under-supply of mosques upon ?
The great thing about Public Open Space is that it is not religious. It is agnostic and unlike religion, it benefits the entire community including those not yet born.
Curious Cat.
Genuine question: Does anyone know the difference between a Mosque and a prayer room?
There are loads of prayer rooms in TH.
I think you are being rather disingenuous to put it mildly. Non-Muslims are not that welcome in mosques (whatever the say) and really this is just a land-grab. Once the mosque is there it will become a so-called “Muslim area”, it will be “their” park ….
21st Century Britain needs FEWER faith buildings.
Whilst your looking into plans for Mosques have a look at the construction going on and around Galleon House IOD E14 and check out if any planning permission has been refused and then if it has been re-granted. Then look at the plans ..
I don’t agree with all male committee members, it happens too often and needs to be addressed. Bangladeshi men do not have the right to represent Bangladeshi women. I do feel such obvious patriarchy needs to be challenged by all particularly when it comes to public concerns. Bit of a tangential point but I don’t have a strong opinion in this matter TBH, people have a right to ask planning permission and people have a right to object and may the best party win. IMO the question should be will this community centre take away from the enjoyment of the park? and what can be done to open the community centre to all communities?
Shumi said “IMO the question should be will this community centre take away from the enjoyment of the park? and what can be done to open the community centre to all communities?”
I think these are precisely the questions that need to be addressed, well done Shumi for putting them down in writing. However the question “Is this centre necessary?” needs to be addressed first of all.
A large part of the opposition on this thread stems from the fact that the Muslim community is so poorly integrated into other communities and is hostile to outsiders. History shows that heavily Islamicised areas rapidly become unappealing to people who are of other communities, and mosques (which this clearly is) are not welcoming to non-muslims.
The fact that the application seems to have been put together deceitfully does not put the applicants in a good light and deepens the suspicion that already seems to abound.
well if there is an empty space that can be utilised for the benefit of the community what’s the prob? But I realised there is one woman on the committee list but from my experience she will be nothing more than a name never to be invited to any meetings or be involved in decision making. Seen it happen before.
Having a mosque within Island Gardens Park would indeed be an impediment to other users of the park. The park being for all users of whatever faith. Further such an area of particular beauty, situated in a conservation zone, the harmony with the peace it exudes would be iretrievalbly damaged.
Geoff Juden of The East London garden Society
Guys – aren’t you forgetting something here?
Mortuza’s working for John Biggs.
And the mayor doesn’t control the planning ctte – the opposition do.
Dear Ted,
Just wanted to highlight that you have been mis-informed regarding the Abdul Hannan who has made this application. Both Abdul Hannan of Tower Hamlets Parents Centre and Ghulam Mortuza know nothing of this application and have no part in it. I’m sure they can be contacted at the Parents Centre if you wish to confirm. Hope this clarifies the discussion.
Thanks.
I’ve updated the post as a result. I apologise.
Its gets curiouser every day.
Any news on the leaseholder’s / freeholder’s “ownership” of the land ?
Does anyone know anything about the applicant KAMRUL ARIF ?
To whom and when did LBTH flog-off the land in apparent secrecy and for how much ?
Curious Cat
Island Gardens is on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. It was first registered in 1987. The List entry has the historical details and also describes the park and its structures:
http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000815
Is this the area in question: “A stable and outbuildings which were adjacent to the entrance in the north-east corner were demolished as part of the 1998 renewal works; these have been replaced by a walled parks yard.” ? If so, the Council owns the land or “walled parks yard”. If they have not taken this parcel of land from the title (that presumably can be checked with Land Registry, Ted?) and sold it, then they own it – and surely cannot be the ones who will decide on whether to grant permission to build on it. It would have to go elsewhere – Government Office for London? (But that may have been abolished. GLA planners?) Also, as it is on the English Heritage Register, surely it requires a separate ‘listed park’ application (akin to listed building) and again, TH council should not be determining that either.
This is Tower Hamlets’ heritage asset, listed park, public asset etc – how can someone have purchased part of what is our park? This has to be sorted out. Meanwhile all we can do is sign yet another petition.
How dare they. If what is going to b built there has no relation to the parks history then it should b scraped with immediate effect!!!!!
Ted, why do you want a One O’clock Club on Island Gardens or any structure of that sort? There’s a community centre just at the other end of the park (outside it I hasten to add), Calders Wharf. Obviously a de fact mosque is worse than a One O’clock Club but there’s no need even for that.
The Applicant:
A company called Island Garden Community Association was incorporated on the 30th April 2013. (Note that ‘Garden’ is singular.) Its registered address is xxx Manchester Road E14 3DR. Abdul Hannan (born 1937) is one of two directors.
The Agent:
Keystone Property Consultants Limited is registered to a flat in Merchant Street E3. The company was incorporated in October 2012 and has one director/company secretary; Kamrul (Hasan) Arif aged 25 who describes himself as a Quantity Surveyor. His facebook page is at https://www.facebook.com/kamrul.arif.12#!/friendlyarif?fref=ts
Good work.
You’ll also see from his Facebook page that he’s a member of the “Basher Kella” London group. Basher Kella is known, I’m told, as the blog for Jamaat-e-Islami supporters.
And this particular image he recommends his friends reads translates as:
If homosexuality is the spirit of 1971 & 1972 [referring to Bengali nationalist ideals] then I condemn it as I am a Muslim.
Wonder whether those views will be welcomed at Stonewall-rated Tower Hamlets Council…
You see. I’m not mad. There is a plot :-p
Calders Wharf is owned and managed by EastEndHomes, its for their residents.
This is Peter Golds’ letter of objection.
And this is the letter from the council confirming that it and not the applicant owns the land:
here and here
You’ll see that the plot of land is part of the park, but not in the listed section. It is therefore not protected. However, the council as landlord does state the rather important point that it has to give permission for any building to take place (regardless of planning permission).
As I said in the post, it seems very strange that an applicant would randomly part with a planning application fee of £1,500 if he had not discussed this little problem with someone beforehand. So, who?
And finally, given that the applicant has made a false declaration in his planning application, ie that he owns the land, then surely the current application is invalid? The council has also knowingly allowed this misinformation to form part of what is now surely a wasted consultation exercise.
Shambles.
Re: LBTH letter to Mr/Mrs Thienel dated 5 June 2013.
How can the site be part of THE PARK yet remain excluded from the Listed Status of the same park ????
Curious Cat.
I was a bit “sus” as soon as I saw a request for a faith centre on Facebook.Ialways loved this view and “temporary”,I agree a Trojan Horse.Whatever the faith where will they all park.Fight all the way.It’s plain wrong and deceitful.
Having read the applicant how did a 25 year old, recently incorporated co get the land.
Anything is possible with local councils and LBTH is more impressive than most in concluding strange deals..
YES it seems weird yet upon whom can we rely for a detailed honest and comprehensive answer ?
Because the English Parliament continually ignore the dire state of English local government, there is no strong and robust Defender of the public interest such as a statutory regulator of Local Government. Forget and ignore the pathetic spectacle called the LGO, the Local Government’s Ombudsman.
Seems Communications (Telecoms and Broadcasting), Energy, Water, Aviation, Maritime, Data Protection etc. are a lot more important that local government because they have statutory regulation.
No wonder it seems crooks, cheats and charlatans abound in local government. No genuine accountability to the public and no regulator to Defend the public’s interest means its a free-for-all.
Curious Cat.
Don’t you mean the Parliament of the UK of GB&NI? Sadly, England is the last part of the British Empire yet to see any meaningful self-government.
Certainly NOT younger man 🙂
The parliament in England has always been the de facto English parliament despite having strange and misleading names as UK Parliament and British Parliament.
In the 1960’s the Scots were angry that Scottish affairs were mentioned in the Commons for 15 minutes every 2 weeks. Scotland has its own governor general just like England’s overseas territories (also known as Colonies). He was officially called The Secretary of State for Scotland and based in the Scottish Office in London. Ditto Wales and later Northern Ireland.
England has never had a Secretary of State for England and there has never been an English Office in London.
History is about everything that happened not the crap doshed-out in unimpressive schools and isolated from a balanced perspective. For example the Boer Wars become more understandable when one understands boer is Dutch for farmer. It was the British (lead by the English) who wagged war on the farmers in South Africa, just like the British did in India, Africa and all around the world.
Honesty is overdue. England rules the waves until Cameron scrapped most of the navy and decimated the army and air force – obviously following-on from Labour’s cuts. We can not play a proper role in international affairs without real military forces – computer screens controlling drones is a children’s game devoted to indiscriminate killings. Innocent civilians always get in the way, no wonder they keep getting killed.
I’m English, not British. My country is not the UK but England – for better or worse I’m an European Englishman. I’m not anti-Scottish or anti-Welsh.
I do agree with you that we in England are well overdue for devolved self-government. However ‘cos England is large in size there could be several large self-governing regions:-
South-West, London, South-East, Midlands, North-West and North-East.
A clean-up of arrogant out-of-control local government is overdue too. LBTH needs drastic reform.
🙂
Curious Cat.
Further complication is surely the Heritage Lottery money spent in 1998 on creating this walled park yard. As the LBTH Management plan says: “..a major programme of refurbishment was carried out to the Gardens. The refurbishment works contract started in March 1998 and completed in November 1998 with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the London Docklands Development Corporation. These works involved alteration and improvement to the Gardens whilst retaining their character and enhancing their facilities.” As it is HLF (public) money that has been used here, and even specifically on this site, how can it have been up for sale for the benefit of others – even if it is some company that is a “local community organization” or whatever?
With the HLF involved, do LBTH want to end up with a fiasco as occurred recently in Hackney with the HLF withdrawing from further funding, with public money, the Geffrye Museum’s extension plan, which the public did not support and upon which they had not been consulted:
http://savethemarquis.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/punch-drunk-how-a-museum-took-on-an-old-pub-and-ended-up-on-the-ropes/
We should be complaining to the HLF about this – if the Island Gardens parks yard has been sold. The parks yard was part of the original historical footprint of the park which they spent public money on improving. There were stables and outbuildings there, possibly Victorian. But the applicant doesn’t mention any of this in his Design and Access Statement under ‘History’. Wonder why..
I`m sure someone has already pointed this out , but formal objections from local residents are the only way to defeat this. Start lobbying all the TH councillors , and make sure somebody speaks at the hearing. It will of course primarily be used as a Place of Worship , the community centre stuff is just a smokescreen. It would certainly spoil the amenity of the park for users , and would parking a and noise become and issue ?. The Mayors best mate Ghulam is behind other “community centre” applications in other boroughs….mosques are fairly lucrative cash cows !
The ONLY thing your elected ‘representatives’ will fear is loosing their office at the next local election.
The ONLY method to make that happen is to start election campaigning now
– This has certainly been consulted between certain councillors and the applicant
– This is certainly been advised by the officers to the applicant how to set the application
There are 40 Mosques listed under the “Council of Mosque” of Tower Hamlets based at the ELM and there are at least another 9/10 not listed. Totaling about 50 Mosques of which nearly all of them are known as “Cultural Centre”!!
Not only that there is another Mosque being proposed on this green space; another proposedon Melish Street Portacabin Site. The formar “Temporary Barkentine Surgery” The current lease with the council and NHS will end in July 2013. As this is up for grabs Groups have been created by the advice of a certain councillor on the Island and a petition has been submitted to lease this land to a certain Group Chaired by someone named “Farruk Miah” who is a tenant of One Housing in the new Byng Street development; who also is the chair of WCO Mosque (AKA a cultural centre), the chair of the Byng street residents group and an active member of the IFE. This group have had meetings with the Mayor and top officials at the Mayors Office few months ago and were promised the land to be leased to them for 5 to 10 years initially. So the Named person Kamrul Arif would have had similar meetings and promises from where this all has evolved!
However, question arise how many Mosques do we need in Tower Hamlets? Why are they popping up now, during the local council election year? Is there a calculative political agenda, that might deliver a certain number of votes to a certain group of councillors?
Is the Tower Hamlets politicians using religion (especially Islam) to benefit themselves?
Is other groups such as housing associations are using these groups to gain by throwing in a Mosque or “Prayer Facility” (There is at least one Housing Association that has benefited this way on Bow road area!)
Maybe the council should do a full survey of all the religious facility in the borough and include this in their Master Plan; as it seems that there is a huge interest/ need of religious facilities within the borough
As the Mayor has created the Religious facility grant of £3M and another £3M for a Muslim graveyard (as that what he has announced all the Mosques that he has visited so far) maybe there is a need of such facilities/ grave yards; surely he has done a consultation at least with the cabinet and the officers for creating such funds
Agree with Curious Cat about this letter to Cllr Thienel – how can part of a listed park not be listed any more? Also when it is an area specifically described by English Heritage in their listing: “A stable and outbuildings which were adjacent to the entrance in the north-east corner were demolished as part of the 1998 renewal works; these have been replaced by a walled parks yard.” These renewal works were funded by HERITAGE Lottery money – so they seemed to think this area was part of the listed park/heritage asset.
Mr Jerry Bell (or what about the Head of Borough Conservation, Mr Andrew Hargreaves) has to tell us when the parks yard was removed from the listing. LBTH must have applied to English Heritage to de-list this part of Island Gardens – some time after 1998? If it has been de-listed though, why is it in the English Heritage Register listing details?
The area of the park in question, with the original structures: the stables and outbuildings, can be seen on this map of the park as it was laid out in 1895:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image.aspx?compid=46528&filename=fig201.gif&pubid=369
With further details on British History online:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46528
Also, how can this parks yard – even if it has been de-listed – which was created by public money and to improve and service this park, now be developed, and for the benefit of a group of private individuals?
A revised application form has been listed on the LBTH Planning Application site now with a full address stated.
It seems that two words are missing from the application form, if you look at no. 25 on the following link – you will see what I mean! Is that allowed?
Click to access MD_11-12.pdf
I was particularly alarmed by “we will be moving to a new place soon”. Friday prayers currently take place at Christ Church, which is a nice gesture and a good indication that integration is possible.
This site actually falls into the World Heritage Site buffer zone and The Mayor of London has issued policies for the protection of such areas, Island Gardens is listed in the document:
Click to access World%20Heritage%20Sites%20SPG%20March%202012%20hires.pdf
The Masjid Directory was created as a PDF file on Monday 3 December 2012 at 15:33:27.
Page 31 of 54 shows the entry for Island Garden Bangladeshi Cultural
Association and, as Mania indicated, this entry states “Will be moving into new place soon.”
The planning application was registered with LBTH on 9 May 2013.
It seems that 6 months BEFORE the planning application was filed with the council, the applicants already knew the planning decision result. Is this an excellent example of telepathy ?
Incidentally 45 mosques offer Tower Hamlets 20,725 male praying spaces and 1,320 female praying spaces.
Does the borough of Tower Hamlets really require a dramatic increase in new praying spaces?
Of course they don’t need an increase. I think they have to live within walking distance to a Mosque, surely it can’t be that much of a stroll to the next one along, with 45 (i.e. listed ones!) scattered around LBTH? Plus, if that rule exists, it is probably ancient and was imposed in the days of pre-public transport.
Revised plans have now also been filed on the LBTH website. They are trying to highlight the plot as neighbouring Luralda Wharf and chosen to completely acknowledge the fact that it is indeed a part of the park – IN our listed park for the WHOLE community, IN the Conservation Area and IN the WHS buffer zone. Argh!
Island Gardens is listed here by The London Mayors office – there are protection policies in Chapter 7:
Click to access chapter7.pdf
This must be fought tooth and nail. It is the thin end of the wedge.The Muslims won’t be satisfied with just a portacabin. They’ll have the whole bloody park if they can.
Anyway, it would destroy the whole character of the site.
[…] How Q7 from Tim Archer is answered will be interesting given the current chaos and controversy in Island Gardens. […]
PA/13/00916: LBTH Planning Department have now filed revised plans and support statements for their applicant (AGAIN!):
http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=PA%2F13%2F00916+LPRN&action=Search
The case file page clearly states Consultation End Date: 6 June 2013…
THEN HOW CAN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACCEPT AND FILE REVISED SUBMISSIONS FROM THE APPLICANT ON 19TH JUNE?
It doesn’t make sense.
Why is the applicant constantly being allowed change their site plans and Design & Access statements? When will it end? This has to be a form of breach and should not be allowed. This also adopts a risk that initial objections could become irrelevant.
Mania,
I do not believe that backhanders (bribes) or special favours have been promised. That disgraceful type of thing does NOT happen in England especially not in Labour (which the mayor was and which the majority of councillors still are) controlled local authorities.
The problem of continually changing application details and increased support documents is simply a minor inadvertent clerical matter rather than a panic reaction to increased public criticism.
Surely you know that members of the public are not supposed to continue check planning details on the council’s web site? You are supposed to look once and not look again days later. Your compulsive ‘look again’ behaviour could make people think you don’t trust your own council.
Curious Cat
I get what you are saying. It will be interesting to see the Members Enquiry response.
It seems that everyone wants a piece of Island Gardens for nothing. And it is very unfortunate that we cannot trust our own council to adhere to their own published Management Plans to ensure that it isn’t given away for the benefit of private groups and developers.
I used to be pretty naive, until I experienced the greed, underhand tactics, contradictions & misrepresentations (Including a letter I received from the developer saying something along the lines of the right to a view is not a legal right. Hmmm, would that statement also apply to their lack of consideration for the World Heritage Site opposite?) re: Calders Wharf PA/13/002784 (still ongoing). “Construction of a Five Storey Building to provide a new Community Centre”? YEH RIGHT!
Maybe after the 60 month temporary period is up for the portakabin they can house part of the community on top of that when they apply for a more permanent structure too.
Round the clock usage as indicated in the revised Design & Access Statement now filed:
8 ‐ The temporary use will only be in operation between 8am and 8pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 9pm Saturdays, Sunday and bank holidays.
9 ‐ Notwithstanding condition 8, the premises will be used for prayers between dawn and dusk, but not earlier than 4.30am nor later than 11.30pm on any day. Any activity outside the core hours set out in condition 8 shall be limited to a maximum of 10 people.
15 ‐ Prior to the commencement of the use if approved, a Management Plan will be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.
The Management Plan will include the following:
1. Means by which the applicants will avoid congregation of users outside the site;
2. Means by which the applicants will limit the number of users between 4.30am and 8.00am and between 9.00pm and 11.30pm to a maximum of 10 people;
3. Methods used to encourage users to enter and leave the site quietly and efficiently.
Hi Mania,
> It seems that everyone wants a piece of Island Gardens for nothing.
Not me 🙂 I’m stupid enough to love the UNRESTRICTED view. I’m also a grass and tree fan who thinks the public deserves green open air recreational places.
> And it is very unfortunate that we cannot trust our own council to adhere to their own published Management Plans to ensure that it isn’t given away for the benefit of private groups and developers.
Delicately expressed. Its a similar position with other English local authorities
.> I used to be pretty naive, until I experienced the greed, underhand tactics, contradictions & misrepresentations ………….
I was more naive that you. I actually trusted a council. I mistakenly believed councils were outstanding examples of exceptionally good and honest conduct. After the first knives hit me in my back, I began to mature. Eventually I realised the current structure and pseudo democratic nature of local authorities is unfit for purpose, dishonest, corrupt, sleazy and not in the best interests of the public councils allegedly exist to serve.
Planning issues usually attract the attention of friendly people, operating in the gloom or dark, keen to demonstrate their generosity to council staff and councillors. Its a national phenomenon. I’m sure nothing like that has ever happened at LBTH.
If it wasn’t for people like you, the public would have nothing.
Good Luck,
Curious Cat.
Mania,
Who will be funding the 4:30 am checks to ensure 10 or less people are present ?
If no one will be checking, how will the council satisfy itself the planning conditions are properly being observed ?
Curious Cat.
Hmmm Curious Cat
I fell off my chair by your question about funding and the 4.30am checks. Are you questioning the applicants honesty!??
They will draw straws or play rock, paper, scissors to choose the 10.
I am more interested to know how the party of 10 will get there at 4.30am.
The DLR station will be closed, so either this means that there will be 10 men (very much doubt that the ladies or kids will be part of the group) having a stroll to Island Gardens Park in the middle of the night, riding their bicycles (doubt it), rollerblading (nah, can’t see it somehow), catching the night bus (could be unreliable) or driving their cars (most probable)!
I don’t want to hear traffic on Saunders Ness Road and car doors slamming in the middle of the night. It is bad enough when the young boys occasionally decide to get together to see whose car sound system is the best, playing the most rubbish music ever and partying on the street until the small hours with no respect for the surrounding area.
About the number of attendees to the “Community Centre”, we all know no matter which religion each of us follows nobody is ever turned away from a religious ceremony or from our places of worship. There will be a whole load of worshippers who turn up despite not drawing the right straw or winning rock, paper, scissors.
The centre will be extremely busy at Ramadan / Eid time.
I am more concerned about policing the capacity of 50 including the staff. Will the service spill out into the park:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332998/One-country-religions-telling-pictures-The-pews-churches-just-yards-overcrowded-mosque.html
The park is for everyone to enjoy, but it is natural that the segregated crowd from the Mosque will spill out into Island Gardens Park to congregate for a catch up and gossip as again is common with all different religious practices.
The original agent, Kamrul Asif of Keystone Property Consultants was replaced by Imran Rahman of A786 Studio. Their facebook page is at:
https://www.facebook.com/A786Studio?fref=ts
The new agent recently submitted some documents that have been uploaded onto the LBTH planning register. One document named ‘Design & Access Statement Part 2’ includes a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association for a company called Island Gardens Community Association which does not exist. There is an Island Garden Community Association, registered on 30/04/2013 to Abdul Hanan at Manchester Road E14 with number 08511329. The company is not registered with the charity commission and has no track record in any similar venture. The document names 11 ‘members’ of the company and is accompanied by a 6 page petition supporting the application.
Could the last name on the list, Mohammed A Ahad, be the same person who works at LBTH, currently as Temporary Resourcing Manager and previously as Strategy & Policy Officer and Scrutiny Policy Officer?
Jay Kay,
Thank you for the link to the Facebook page of the new agent, ‘A786 STUDIO’ for this Island Gardens parks yard development. Why “Architectural Design & Planning Consultants” with “Building Control & Project Management (CDM)” have a Facebook ‘Community’ page is odd – are they not a business? (The website they link to there seems to be a wedding photography business – still a business, though.)
Also, looking at the timeline of A786 STUDIO Facebook page (which was started in June 2012) there are links to LBTH planning consultations and photos of completed projects. For instance “Whitechapel College” and “New Build” both of which have been approved and completed, it looks like. “New Build” is actually the demolished old Mile End pub Crystal Tavern, a tragedy, and the new build permitted by LBTH is awful. “Whitechapel College” is no better but at least did not demolish a local heritage asset. A786 STUDIO are obviously popular with TH planning. The first TH planning application they link to on their Facebook page, which was permitted in July 2012, was for: “Full Planning Permission. Development: Rear extension over an existing courtyard to the existing building together with a change of use from vacant B1 offices (former Local Housing Office) to Cultural Education Centre (Use Class D1) to facilitate Wapping Bangladesh Association. Location: Former Local Housing Office, 19 Prusom Street, London, E1W 3RR”
It appears that this development, for “Wapping Bangladesh Association (WBA) Wapping Youth Club 1st Floor Tench Street London E1W 2QD” is also one where the council own the original asset, just like Island Gardens parks yard, as this permitted development application states it was a former Local Housing Office. It’s also another broadly-titled cultural education centre, on a council-owned site (unless it has been sold..perhaps Island Garden parks yard, too?): http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/findCaseFile.do;jsessionid=199516763EF42BE655982AF9334F41D0?appNumber=pa%2F12%2F00930&action=Search
The Wapping Association appears on the Mosque directory. The centre features ‘250’ male prayer capacity and ‘0’ women’s prayer facility. I am guessing the intention will be the same for the land in their sight in Island Gardens Park albeit ’50’ and ‘0’ respectively.
Click to access MD_11-12.pdf
[…] of the story to Sunday Express and former Advertiser journalist Ted Jeory, who ran it on his Trial By Jeory blog on 3rd June. His post featured pictures of Island Gardens in all its leafy splendour, and of […]