Re: The Planners BBC2

ajsmith Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:09 pm

I'd be interested to see what comes out of the "probe" and what other people on the committee recall of the timimg of events, particularly Billy and Wera. Is Cllr Begum's defense of it all being in the edit justified?? Was there really over 35 minutes debate before the decision or was much of that wrapped up in the necassary process? Regardless of any of this, her attitude and behaviour are still unacceptable in public office in my humble opinion.

cyfrifia Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:27 am

The 'railroading' and circumvention of process we saw should, in itself, invalidate the planning decision.

Calling for a resignation is an over-reaction. Can't Rochdale, it's councillors and council control a rude and stroppy councillor, obviously unqualified to chair a meeting?

If the incident and attitude is allowed to go uncorrected, and the decision allowed to stand, the Mosque extension will then become a permanent example of, and memorial to, this method of "How to get things done in Rochdale".

Chill37 Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:36 am

Well just look around Rochdale for examples of 'How Its Done'. We have 50 Smith Street with its 16k light fitting.

A sloping Bus Station. The White Elephant Shopping Centre steaming into view. Oh and the multi million new front door to the Wheatsheaf Centre.

Guest Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:00 pm

Mojo Hill wrote:serves to remind that “Mockery is a rust that corrodes all it touches.”

Never did much care for novelists moralising ;-)

cyfrifia Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:15 pm

Will you please stick to the subject. It's getting late now, do we sack Councilor Begum or not? We don't have time to listen to a report, it's already been seconded. We go straight to the vote.

ajsmith Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:29 pm

Yes from me as my tea is in the oven Smile

Guest Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:31 pm

cyfrifia wrote:Will you please stick to the subject. It's getting late now, do we sack Councilor Begum or not? We don't have time to listen to a report, it's already been seconded. We go straight to the vote.

No, we need a proper informed debate before taking a vote, Cyfrifia.

cyfrifia Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:49 pm

Of course, that's exactly what I meant, it's just that my post was badly edited. Smile

Spartacus Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:59 pm

cyfrifia wrote:Of course, that's exactly what I meant, it's just that my post was badly edited.

Atlas Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:33 am

cyfrifia wrote:Of course, that's exactly what I meant, it's just that my post was badly edited.

You tell me who is editing your posts cyfrifia - and I'll get them for you. Twisted Evil

cyfrifia Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:32 pm

Very good of you Atlas. We are assured that there is no evil fairy floating over the Borough casting spells on our residents and cursing them with less natural aptitude or skills than the rest of the country.

However, there might be a mischievous media-pixie floating in the airwaves, carefully editing video recordings to make perfectly behaved chair-people appear to be behaving badly. Cool

ajsmith Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:21 pm

I don't see how the behaviour exhibited can be explained away by editing. It was just downright rude, wrong and unjustifiable, whatever had gone before and was left on the cutting-room floor.

cyfrifia Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:37 pm

As the evil fairy/malicious pixie theory is not convincing, how will the good people of Rochdale cope with the actual reality? The planning decision may or may not be the right one, we don't know as it was never properly discussed. It might serve the circumstances if the decision is declared void due to lack of proper process and has to be re-submitted.

johnb Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:39 pm

I must admit, nothing controversial was reported at the time on Rochdale Online as far as I can recall, and they have, historically been scrupulous in reporting controversy.

keithatrochdale Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:04 pm

johnb wrote:I must admit, nothing controversial was reported at the time on Rochdale Online as far as I can recall, and they have, historically been scrupulous in reporting controversy.

That is a sit may be, but 3 parking spaces when the planning regulations call for 150 is not even close!

This decision must be re-visited, or does it mean that all planning applications do not need sufficed parking spaces?

johnb Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:30 pm

How much on-site parking does Champness Hall have?

How much on site parking does Jarvis St Methodist Church have?

How much on-site parking does Syke Chapel have?

I know these are not subject to current planning judgements, but it would be very easy to argue discrimination on the basis of precedent.

Guest Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:30 pm

johnb wrote:How much on-site parking does Champness Hall have?

How much on site parking does Jarvis St Methodist Church have?

How much on-site parking does Syke Chapel have?

I know these are not subject to current planning judgements, but it would be very easy to argue discrimination on the basis of precedent.

Balderdash and Tripe.

It’s necessary, in this so-called ‘enlightened’ day, to look at car parking for any new build or faith venues’ extensions. The ‘old’ Golden mosque site will become a supplementary car park for the new one, and Bilal mosque demonstrates planning considerations for the environment, parking, access ... to mention only two of the Sunni Muslim centres in Rochdale.

Taking just 3 of our bordering Authorities, have you any idea how many Methodist Churches there are available in and between Bury Borough, Rochdale Borough and the North part of Manchester City? Do you know about their general pattern of congregational attendance?

Taking only these same 3, have you any idea how many Shia mosques there are, and why, between Bury, here and the North part of Manchester City? 1: - the Mustafa in Rochdale. Perhaps it’s too much to ask if it is understood why? Shiism is very much a minority branch of Islam, its followers here are quite dispersed and tend not to live in polarised Shia clusters. They are therefore predisposed to travel more by car to attend a mosque of their alternative persuasion. Do you understand their general and diverse patterns of congregational attendances, management and practices? It’s quite possible that Shia worshipers from our bordering boroughs may choose to attend an ‘extended’ Rochdale Centre, in lieu of worshiping at one in their own residential borough, in the future.

If you want to compare chalk and cheeses, look for a Quaker Meeting House in the midst of Christian churches.

The discrimination I saw at that planning committee was the verbal “slap across the face with a wet fish” delivered at Wera Hobhouse by the committee Chair

johnb Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:48 am

I think you misunderstand me. All these extant places of worship have inadequate parking if current guidelines are applied.

I have to say that if your analysis of Shia worship patterns is correct, it means the need for parking is more, not less important, but I will let that pass.

What the public at large appeared to see was an Asian alliance pushing through 'something' against the 'English' planning authority. This is why we are ired. I suspect the alliances played out during this farce were much more complex, but no less questionable.

cyfrifia Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:58 am

Different people were appalled by what we saw in the 'Planners', for different reasons, it was a display of things gone wrong on quite a few levels.

The impression is that the civic and political life of Rochdale normally operates in this comedy/ horror way, and somehow people involved have got used to it.

keithatrochdale Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:11 am

johnb wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. All these extant places of worship have inadequate parking if current guidelines are applied.

But we are talking about today's regulations and this one, clearly, does not comply.

Do they have a 'special' exemption which allows fragrant disregard for planing permission?

If so, it should be available to all.

cyfrifia Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:17 am

keithatrochdale wrote:
Do they have a 'special' exemption which allows fragrant disregard for planing permission?

The overuse of perfumes is not an issue for the committee at this stage.

Hinch Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:38 am

As far as we know, the mosque has done nothing wrong. They have applied for planning permission and have been granted it.

Maybe they have sought advice as to how best to proceed but there is no evidence-based suggestion that they have acted incorrectly.

The bizarre outcome seems to me to be down to the Planning Committee for reasons that defy logical explanation. The decision has been the subject of much speculation but this is not evidence.

Poppyanna555 Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:55 am

In the days that Champness Hall and the like were built, cars were a luxury that few could afford therefore most people would walk to these churches to worship, you can't compare 19th or early 20th century planning needs with today's.

teamplayer2 Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:56 am

Spot on Hinch, could not agree more.

johnb Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:10 pm

I am reasonably sure that changes of use and re-modelling over the last twenty years would have required planning permission - especially for Champness Hall.

Sponsored content

Councillor Shefali Begum