Issue - meetings

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer provided the following update:

The report contains two typos; the first one being at 3.2 of the report, where it states that there are two first floor flank windows in situ. That should say that there are two first floor flank windows in situ, within each flank, making a total of four. The second typo relates to Condition 1 (C1), where the officer referred to 100 meters, it should refer to 100 millimetres. The last update is, following the publication of the report, on the basis of the amended plans that were received, Batchworth Community Council have withdrawn their objection.

Members raised concerns regarding the window over the staircase, and the fact that it has a handle and can be opened fully, and questioned whether a restrictor could be installed on it.

The officer explained that the recommendation is that the window can stay as it is, and although it is directly over the drop of the stairs, unless there was some form of platform placed over the drop, a person could not open the window, and there is potentially not another location for the stairs to be transferred to in the future. Therefore, officers don’t think that it would be reasonable for them to require that the applicant replace the window, so as to put a restrictor on, but if Members think it would be necessary, then it could be explored.

In response to questions raised by Members regarding the window height and protecting neighbouring amenity, the officer confirmed that the stairwell window is definitely 1.7 meters above the floor, as it is over the ground floor turn of the stairs. The windows, as they are in situ, have openable parts less than 1.7 meters. Hence, the amended plan to seek they be changed such that their openable parts are bottom tilt and then together with the catch would mean views could not be afforded up and over the window. The officer further explained that they believe that there is no feasible alternative for the staircase’s location, implying that the room in question is unlikely to become habitable. The officer also mentioned the possibility of installing a restrictor on the window but consider it unreasonable to replace the window, given the circumstances of the planning application and the need to address other windows as well.

Councillor Chris Lloyd moved, seconded by Councillor Harry Davies that subject to conditions RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 6 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to conditions, RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED.