A centre in Belgrave that applied for planning permission for a Muslim prayer room and education are set to be rejected.
Fusion Consulting Ltd wanted to convert a disused warehouse in Belper Street.
The proposal has sparked huge number of objections from people living nearby as well as from others around the country.
The following concerns were raised by residents:
- Worries about noise pollution and traffic congestion
- A lack of parking spaces in the small terraced street
- Fear it could create tension in predominantly Hindu area
Leicester City Council has received nearly 1,500 letters of objection as well as a petition signed by 3,569 people refusing the scheme.
A number of those letters expressed concerns about having a Muslim facility in the street but Hindu community leaders locally have insisted the religion is not at the centre of the objections.
Leicester East MP Keith Vaz is opposed to the plan on the grounds of parking, noise and traffic problems it could create.
After concerns were raised, Fusion has revised its plans ahead of a planning meeting last month where council officers had advised councillors to refuse it permission.
Fusion said it would reduce its planned opening hours from 6am to 11pm, Monday to Friday, to 8.30am to 7.30pm.
The centre, which would have a nursery, would be open from 10.30am to 1.30pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays.
The applicant has said there is ample parking in Belper Street and nearby Surrey Street and has said it would provide a traffic marshal to prevent problems.
Fusion also said there would no noisy activity such as fireworks and the call to prayer and stressed there were no long-term plans to open a mosque in the street.
Around 350 representations have backed the idea saying the centre would provide an educational and care facility for local Muslims and that objections were based on fears it will be a mosque
The planning officers have still recommended the plan be turned down.
A council planning spokesman said: “As a result of the proposed uses, the combination of those uses, the nature of the property and its location, the proposal would result in unreasonably increased on-street activity and noise from people and vehicles.
“This would result in significant harm to the residential amenity conditions of nearby residents and other users of the street.”
