Metal Stair Replacement - Planning Required?

[dishman]

Hello,

I would like to assistance to ascertain whether planning is/should be required in this instance.

Put simply:

Does the replacement of an existing stair access to a flat/s (which was technically non-complient) with a modern (complient) equivalent require planning permission? The flats have been in existance for decades (maybe 30 + years).

I can give many more details, but thought I would keep in simple at first.

It is a typical terraced row, businesses below and access the to flats via the rear. Some of which are accessed via metal, steep, fire escape type staircases. The stair cases are not visible except from the private access to the rear of the row.

General thoughts?

Many thanks in advance of any comments.

 

[^woody^]

Planning no. Building regs yes if its a different type or style.

And you will need compliance with a risk assessment under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for the stairs, route and adjacent parts of the structure.

 

[dishman]

OK. Thanks woody

(Just for clarification, this is not my situation, I am just helping to get further information/clarification)

In this instance, the two flat entrances were next to each other. Each had their own metal platform at the top and then a steep set of steps. One set had a 90 degree turn near the bottom the other set was a stright run.

This has been replaced with a larger single platform and a wider, less steep and complient set of steps. So, I suppose this would/could be classed as a different type of style. Although most of the changes were to make it complient.

The plans were done via a fabricator, and it was thought, as you said, that planning was not required. However, building control was not sought ( it was deemed it was a like for like compliant replacement). Work was done, new staircase completed.

It seems that for whatever reason a neigbour took umbridge, for what reason I know not.

The reason being is that planning turned up. He seemed to have some misinformation as he thought the flats were a new conversion. This is probably due to the neighbour not realising that the flats were already in existance (i.e thinking it was a new conversion). This was maybe the cause for the initial complaint (they thought two new flats were created without permission).

His initial concern was regarding that flat, but attention turned to the stairs once it was explained what had changed.

The outcome is that planning have decided it needed permission.Building Control has not been mentioned.

Passing planning is not too much of a concern. It is just the cost and the potential for someone to protest what is a minor change.

They are more curious as to why planning is suddenly deemed to apply. What specifically about it requires planning permission.

There was reference to the style changing (i.e single platform), the colour change (it is a dark gray rather then rusty black). I will clarify the specifics mentioned when I get the information. Maybe the height?

So that is the main question; why would planning be deemed to apply?

 

[^woody^]

If the stairs have been significantly altered then planning would apply. A platform or steps at a different location (ie a potential observation point) would be significant.

In a planning context, when something is replaced in whole, and would then be different to what is there currently, then permission is needed. If its just repaired or slightly altered, then no permission is needed.

Painting would not be a planning concern for existing stairs, and colour could be changed at will. But once permision is required, then planners can impose conditions regarding the colour.

 

[dishman]

Hmm, so this may come into the scope of planning.

At the top, each stair case had it's own landing platform before entering the door. One was a bit larger then the other as wheelie bins were sometimes positioned up there. These have been combined into a single span and slightly larger platform overall. Which, from what you say could be interpreted as enough of a change to require planning.

The fact that two stairs have been combined into one would also may be a red flag for them too.

So it all depends on what they deem has been too much of a change from the original specification, even if the original stairs did not comply and the majority of the changes for for compliance.

Interesting.....

I might post a pic or two to compare before and after.

 

[^woody^]

If the planners have no evidence that the stairs have been altered, then can't they just be told that they are direct replacements?

If the concern for the visit was that there were two new unauthorised flats, but that is clearly not the case, then there should be no issue with replacement stairs as they would be obviously needed in the first place.

 

[dishman]

Nice idea, but as the original complaint seemed to centre around the flat, it has already been comunicated (when explaining the flats were already in existance) that the stairs are the only new addition. Attention then turned to the stairs it seemed.

I would also assume that if a neighbour did complain, then the stairs were mentioned. The new set, due to the less steep rise, stick out more. I can only assume the now more visible stairs made the neighbour think that this was new access to flats above.

So I think in both case, it has been made clear the stairs are of a new design.

Looking at the letter, these are the two sentances that stipulate the reasons why planning must be applied for.

"As discussed the new staircase as I understand is not a direct replacement and is a new staircase would require planning permission, although I appreciate that you have been guided by the installers and have to meet various building standards and health and safety requirements."

"Your site is positioned in a Conservation Area and as such stricter planning controls exists"

If it is already clear to planning that the stairs have to meet building standards and H+S requirements, planning should hopefully be a formality.

Especially if the un-avoidable changes to the staircase are specificaly to meet required building standards and H+S requirements.

It is a catch 22 kind of. They can't be a direct replacement as a direct replacement would be unsafe...

 

[dishman]

These are the only images I have. The angles are slightly different but you can see the step in the bottom left in both images as a reference. The board on the floor in the "before" image is where the span goes out to (more or less). You can see the two previous steps in the image. As this is the end of the terrace before a boundary wall it does not block any access nor is visible from any main road.

If anything the top platform sticks out less, as it is flush with the building, whereas the old one did not. Only the stairs stick out more owing to the less steep rise.

View media item 99872View media item 99871

 

[^woody^]

Oh, that is a bit of a difference.

Planning permission would be needed but I it may be just be a formality, and planners may well want to impose some conditions to prevent development creep around the stairs.

Especially if the un-avoidable changes to the staircase are specificaly to meet required building standards and H+S requirements.

It is a catch 22 kind of. They can't be a direct replacement as a direct replacement would be unsafe..

That argument can't be used. The old stairs did not have to conform to current standards, and there may be other options.

BTW, that massive pothole at the bottom of a flight is claim waiting to happen.

 

[dishman]

Indeed, it is different. Maybe as you say...a bit too different.

Well, that clarifies the planning angle. Again, I hope it will just be a formality. Your point about development creep is a good one, a thought (or concern) I had not considered.

Point taken about the old stairs not conforming....it was more of "if only" thought.

Hopefully it will be a simple process....hopefully....

Many thanks Woody

p.s The pothole will be filled forthwith!

 

[^woody^]

Good luck with it.

Obviously the flats need stairs, otherwise that's two homes less for the council - when there is a shortage.

But the stairs need to be safe and compliant with other regulations. Play on that, hinting perhaps that there are no other options for the resident's safety - I'm sure the planners would not like reduced safety or reduced homes.

Conservation area or not, if that's the back of somewhere with no or little public view then there is no reason to waste money on fancy conservation friendly stairs.