Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CHAIRMAN

In the absence of the Chairman the meeting was chaired by Vice Chairman Councillor

Scott Hamilton.

MEMBERS

Councillors Fullarton and Mountford had not been present at the initial consideration in respect of the undernoted application and were therefore unable to participate in the further consideration.  These Members withdrew from the Chamber for this part of the meeting.

1.1      With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 21 August 2017, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request to review the refusal of planning permission in respect of erection of replacement windows and installation of chimney flue at 5 High Street, Innerleithen.  Members had noted that planning consent had been given for the replacement windows in an earlier application.  The appeal therefore related just to the installation of the chimney flue.  The Chairman referred to the decision made by Members when the application was first considered that the application could not be determined without further procedure in the form of a hearing to receive information on the technical elements regarding the use of a chimney flue, specifically in relation to the proposed use of an ABCAT flue gas filter; nuisance issues associated with the proposed chimney flue; and the implications of the increase in length of the flue. Following the hearing session Members of the Local Review Body would consider all aspects of the review with no further input from the hearing attendees.

HEARING SESSION

1.2          In attendance for the Hearing were the appointed Planning Officer, Mr Craig Miller, and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer Mr David Brown.  Hearing statements by both officers had been circulated.  The appellant was not present nor represented at the Hearing session.  Members noted the content of his email which had been circulated and submitted as a Hearing statement. The appellant explained that the manufacturer of the ABCAT filter, who was based in The Netherlands, was unable to attend the Hearing and that he believed that without having any specialist knowledge of the ABCAT filter it would be of no advantage for him, the applicant, to attend.    He referred Members to the product information that had already been submitted. He believed that the decision of Environmental Health to object to the proposed flue was based purely on opinion and without definitive facts and re-iterated that the design and purpose of the ABCAT filter was to exactly address the concerns raised by Environmental Health. The appellant concluded his written submission by stating that he would be happy to accept a condition to an approval of the application which provided for the removal of the ABCAT filter if it was subsequently shown to be not performing as designed.

1.3          Mr Miller, appointed Planning Officer, gave a summary of the points made in his statement which focused on the implications of increasing the length of the flue.  He advised that the flue, as proposed, caused no significant aesthetic issues as it was grey coloured and of modest height emerging from the hipped roof of the office and terminating just above the office ridge. The taller the flue in this location, the greater the impact from Leithen Crescent, the High Street junction and on the visual amenity of the Conservation Area and nearby properties. Mr Miller felt that even raising the flue a further metre in height would increase the impacts to the extent that any subsequent application may be unlikely to be supported, even if Environmental Health had accepted an additional metre. His understanding, however, was that they were objecting unless the flue terminated above the height of the nearest affected residential windows at second floor level on the rear of the High Street. This would mean the flue would need to be raised at least another 3.5 metres which would appear isolated, intrusive and ill-related to the modest building and roof to which it would be attached. Unlike another extended flue case in Innerleithen to the rear of the St Ronan's Hotel, a significant increase in the flue height in this location would be far more prominent in the Conservation Area and impact on the public realm in a more obvious, significant and adverse way. Such a solution to meet air quality issues would be likely to create insurmountable aesthetic and visual amenity impacts in this location.  The historical photograph provided by the applicant indicated a traditional gable chimney structure which did not appear to exceed the top of the first floor windows on the High Street. Whilst this historical evidence did not alter Mr Miller’s opinion about the aesthetic and intrusive impact of any proposed flue to reach top of second floor window height, he advised that it would be re-considered as a factor should any planning application be resubmitted with a lower flue height, assuming the air quality issues were resolved to permit this.

1.4          Environmental Health Officer, David Brown, referred to his written statement and advised that his submission was divided into two parts: the potential impacts on the local amenity; and an examination of the requirements of the flue gas treatment proposals.  Mr Brown explained that the application was recommended for refusal on the grounds that the discharge height of the proposed flue was insufficient to guarantee adequate dispersal of flue gases arising from the use of a wood burning stove.  The combustion of wood generated pungent odour components, the presence of which could be experienced some time after that appliance had been extinguished. Experience gained on similar sites elsewhere in the Borders had shown that complaints were likely when stove gases were allowed to discharge below the heights at which openable windows were situated. As a minimum, it was recommended that flues terminated at least one metre above eaves height unless there were skylights/roof windows above. Discharge of gases above ridge height was the preferred option. The Applicants had sought to justify their flue height by producing a photograph showing the historical presence on site of a chimney stack. This had no relevance to the modern situation. The British Flue and Chimney Manufacturers Association Guidance “Chimney Heights & Termination” gave a minimum chimney height of 4.5m from the top of the appliance stating –“The reason for this is to clear pressure zones created by wind hitting the roof and nearby structures, like trees, which may interfere with the up draught required by the appliance or fire.”

1.5          Mr Brown went on to refer to the technical documentation submitted by the appellant in the form of the ABCAT Product Information; ABCAT background and application; and ABCAT SP test results summary.  He explained that when assessing the impact of all wood burning appliances, the Scottish Air Quality Regulations laid a duty on the Council to assess particulate matter below 10 micron particle size (PM10).  The Council was also required to assess Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx).  The documentation stated that “Various tests have shown that the ABCAT mainly cracks the smallest particulate fraction, namely PM2.5.” The unit therefore failed to address 75% of the range of fine particles which had been shown to impact on human health and which the Council had a duty to assess. No information was provided in respect of any reduction in emissions of NOx.  Furthermore, within the ABCAT SP test results summary it was acknowledged that the unit may have difficulty in processing hydrocarbon emissions and methane gas and indicated that further research was required on the matter which would -“hopefully provide answers.” Mr Brown argued that this statement offered no assurance that the unit would prevent odour or other impacts on the amenity of other occupiers. In conclusion, Mr Brown stated that when considering an application to install a stove, the Council must be satisfied that the discharge point for the flue would allow adequate dispersal and dilution of the emissions. He submitted that in this case the applicants had failed to do so and that the technical information provided did not demonstrate that the proposed abatement technology would properly address all the pollutants of concern. 

1.6          Mr Brown provided clarification to Members on certain technical points in response to their questions.  A comment was made about the context of the application in relation to the surrounding traditionally built houses and probability of existing fireplaces in use which had not been the subject of a planning application and which were emitting gases which affected the air quality in the area.  Mr Brown clarified that all chimneys in the area were at the minimum height acceptable and that any specific nuisance brought to the attention of the Council would be investigated.  This was a conservation area and therefore the Council did have control of such matters.

1.7          After the Chairman had closed the Hearing session the Local Review Body reconvened to continue consideration of the review.  Members agreed that the Hearing had been useful in providing clarity on the technical aspects of the case but expressed regret that the applicant had not taken the opportunity to be represented.  After further discussion of the evidence that had been presented Members concluded that the flue would adversely affect the air quality and residential amenity in the surrounding area.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)       that the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted and the Hearing session;

(b)       the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

(c)       the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.