Planning Committee Review Notes
PA 03,392.
(Aneword's official legal) The Planning C. noted the residential character of the area but the committee judged it. However that the premises would be available to use as a residential unit. P.L. judged that the legal would be not achieved with a post as much to occupants. The P.L. also took into account of the fire safety treatments' views. The evidence suggests that "the latter does not recommend that the applicants be refused." Para 3.7 but Senior Fire Safety Officer added express concern regarding the original approval, stated that if there was fire in large or kitchen, persons would be forced into the next section once from which fisher escape would be at best difficult in a word case scenario, impossible. Whilst recognising that a number of properties, historically, had no real access - P.L. judged imappropriate to create new dwelling with a similar disadvantage. On reviewing this evidence, it is examining the plan drawings, P.L. concluded that the proposal should be refused. Assessment No. 8 Central Road, bordered by residential positioned between residential properties + rural residential area above. Whilst, octagonal side, not compatible - with side side, not compatible - with side Dining its assessment application of Review P.C. foods into account, residential - Website of the area & - Averidians + use of garbage + whether area + position revealed list of res. acc. & No. 10, - Applicability - Altitude available sets proposed occupants & unit - Means of escape in event of hire. The P.C. noted that he also was established in all areas by res. property but P.C. at Review not concessed + exclusion of No. 5 to any residential would be inappropriate. Assembled whilst design had made to utilize available space efficiently, realtact during calls he remainly narrows from front to rest - i.e. page from 1.0.5 m to 2.5 m only - and only ground food available - location area possessed red of unit - + whilst overcode other garden Recommendation area. Views only be to rest & properties along Customs street. When - rectifiable only. Only 19. The Planning Committee recommends that the application be refused for the reasons stated on the notice dated 5th September 2003. Whistle brest with the small dog + window to brest. P.C. Reviewed good standard of residential creency to future accepted of dwelling. P.C. ~~sons~~ ~~at~~ ~~Rever~~ took account of fire. which not formally submitted comments on mutual stage. P.C. took into fine affairs comments. Having considered all of evidence submitted at Rever, P.C. consens. only means of escape red would be intended by the proaches of the sumaking & control of applicant. In the event of fire. options the escape ~~red~~ limited & uncollaborative & must be d.c. concealed. development ~~and~~ ~~mappable.~~ P.C. acknowledged - currently being used instead, associated storage of ~~return~~ shall results & puts prop set & that use of the would be comparable with dure. However, not to ~~provide~~ to P.C. consens. about proposal. APPAR NDES Michel Kelly - a - overcome fire attack Mr. Barker - Fire Prec (Mds) Reqs 1996 - alarm system - overcome concerns. No. 1 - said Christian Sheet - Lionel Lot of Magistment into Egypt: Lounge has pleasant attack Dear beds - look out onto garden area 10m deep - bed beds - windows adequate ventilation - sound proofing. New fire alarm system - ceiling upgraded 1 hour safety also walls next to No. 10. Bed garden - 'Place of safety' Section B 1 diagram 1 means of escape - owns 1 - Christian sheet Improvement on current solution i.e. nose, appearance sheretocope - - Happy with conclusions - Normal lounge & kitchen but long 7210911- Mr. Barker - fire hazard - neighbours never experienced but as commercial unit. - dwelling - not that - new regulators - sprinklers will consult with fire office. Insp. Garden - No. 8 Crater Rd. There were once buildings in red garden area.
