Agenda item - BH2021/00998 - 16 Lloyd Road, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

1.    The Planning manager introduced the application.

Speakers

2.    John Rowcroft submitted a speech to read out in objection to the application: We welcome no.16s response that the wood burner on this garden room may be replaced with an oil heater radiator. However their wording ‘we are happy to consider an alternative heating solution’ is ambiguous, and this is such an important issue to us and others, that we would seek it becoming a condition of the planning approval that no wood burner is installed in it.

Of the utmost relevance to this, is the way the existing wood burner affects us at no.14. As others have commented, it fills out neighbourhood with pollution, but its impact on us at no.14 is greatest. We believe it is installed too low and close to our half of the semi-detached house to comply with building regulations document J, as it sits beneath (and above) several windows but moreover it simply does not clear the smoke away affectively. On installation we were not consulted. It was left virtually dormant for two years before use, meaning we had no say with the building control once it had become a problem as the 2 year inspection window had expired.

The foul smelling smoke engulfs out house. Brighton typically has a PM2.5 pollution level of around 10ug/m3 but with the wood burner on, our sustained readings are typically 3-4 times that inside our garage, or on the front doorstep or patio – even into the thousands. We don’t feel we can open out two skylights or the 3 windows nearest the flue at all now, as we have no control over when the burner is used, and we risk filling our house with smoke. The flue also drops soot on our skylights.

When our boys have accidently left their bedroom windows open, their rooms have filled with disgusting toxic smoke, with inside readings of 300. These blue readings are higher even than red levels and highly toxic and dangerous to our boy’s health. We have extensive evidence of this. Bedding and clothes have to be washed when this happens. We find it very upsetting and stressful that this has been inflicted on us. Even going for an evening walk, we have to step through a cloud of smoke on our front doorstep. I regularly have to abandon the patio, with worsened asthma, watering eyes, sore throat and cough. During the pandemic we struggled to ventilate out house and our outside space was severely compromised. Our difficulty in broaching this matter is that the only real solution is removal or relocation to the rooftop. We feel we have a right to unpolluted air all the time, not just a times of our neighbours choosing.

So, the suggestion of another wood burner in the garden is a frightening prospect for us. The existing one is used most days for 10 months of the year (contrary to claims of use only in the colder winter months). We had no opportunity to object to the first wood burner due to the effective circumventing of building control scrutiny and environmental health has been no help to us, unable to visit during the pandemic and now only offering a 2 week diary option with full prior warning given to no.16.

Apart from asthma, another of the touching property owners has a serious lung condition, and another a serious heart condition. All are greatly concerned regarding he health impact should a condition not be imposed, and another burner installed, even it at a later date.

3.    Councillor Bagaeen was unable to attend the meeting and submitted comments stating that they were disappointed at the recommendation to grant planning permission for this application and they supported the objector.

4.    Paul McKay addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they were confused by the comments by the objecting neighbour since the comments did not seem relevant to the application being considered by the committee. The wood burner referred to by the objector was not in use all the time and the proposed structure would be used by the owners and their children only.

Questions

5.    Councillor Childs was informed that the smoke flume referred to by the objector was not part of the planning application.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the swimming pool pump did not require planning permission.

Debate

7.    Councillor Shanks noted that the wood burner can be looked at by the environmental health team under policy.

8.    Councillor Moonan noted that the chimney was not before the committee and the environmental health team will be able to help with this matter.

9.    Councillor Theobald considered the proposed structure to be large on a long and narrow plot. The councillor considered the wood burner to be an issue.

10.Councillor Childs considered the smoke flume to an issue but was not relevant here. The councillor supported the application.

11.Councillor Janio suggested that the wood burner should be conditioned as the applicant had said they would be amenable. The councillor proposed a motion to a condition preventing any further wood burners. The motion was seconded by Councillor Shanks.

12.A vote was taken, and the motion was agreed by a vote of 5 to 3 with one abstention.

Vote

13.A vote was taken, and by a vote of 8 with 1 abstention Planning permission was granted. (Councillor Yates did not take part in the discussions or decision making process).

14.RESOVLED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in the report and an additional condition: Add new condition: Notwithstanding the approved plans, the scheme shall not include a wood burner. Reason: In order to protect neighbouring amenity in accordance with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.