Appeal 3339430

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 137416/FH/2023 for installation of a heat pump at [site address] granted on 13 December 2023 by Manchester City Council, is varied by deleting condition 3.

In the formal decision above I have used the description of development from the decision notice as it is more succinct and describes the proposal.

Planning permission has been granted for a heat pump at [site address] subject to various conditions1. The appeal seeks permission to carry out the development without complying with condition 3 relating to noise levels which was imposed to safeguard the amenities of existing and future occupiers of nearby residential accommodation.

The main issue is whether disputed condition 3 is reasonable and necessary with regard to the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the nearby dwellings.

[site address] is an end terraced property in a predominantly residential area. No 17 is a semi-detached dwelling on the corner of [address] and [address] with the rear of the property set back from the rest of the terrace. The dwellings are separated by high fences and to the rear there is access to a residents’ car park. At the time of my site visit, the area was relatively quiet although there was background road noise from the nearby main roads and closer slower traffic on the residential streets.

The proposed Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) would be located to the rear of the dwelling close to the rear elevation. It would be separated from the boundary with the adjoining terraced property. The rear of No 17 is some distance away from the proposed position of the ASHP due to the layout of the dwellings in the street.

The appellant has submitted a noise report that follows the [name] (MGS) and found that the noise from the ASHP would be 1dB above that permitted by condition 3. They also state that the model of ASHP would only be working at maximum capacity, and therefore maximum noise levels, in extreme cold weather limited to a few occasions per year. In addition, the ASHP would have low power and night modes and would be installed on anti-vibrational rubber feet.

Due to the proposed location of the ASHP when compared to the proximity of the neighbouring properties and the level of background noise in the area I do not consider that, when operating at full capacity, an increase of 1dB above the maximum level required by the condition would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

Condition 2 on the decision notice specifies that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] sheet for the [name] EDLA4/06/08 submitted as part of the planning application. I do not therefore need to impose a further condition specifying the make and model of the proposed ASHP.

I conclude that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary with regard to the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the nearby 1 137416/FH/2023 dwellings. As the living conditions of existing and future occupiers would not be materially harmed by the proposal without the condition, it would comply with Policy DC26 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester and Policies SP1 and DM1 of the [name] (2012) (CS) which together amongst other matters seek to ensure that development should have regard to amenity including noise and provide an assessment of the likely impact.

Policy H1 of the CS relates to overall housing provision and requirements for new dwellings. It is not therefore relevant to this appeal and I have not had regard to it in my decision.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.