Appeal 3369324

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbour occupiers of Number [address], with regards to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a two-storey terraced dwelling located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings.

Like other dwellings in the terraced row, the appeal dwelling is set back from [address] behind a tall brick wall and timber gate and a front courtyard/garden area.

Traffic along [address] in this location is limited to speeds of 20 miles per hour. During my site visit, I observed that whilst [address] was relatively busy, slow traffic speeds and the presence of cyclists and pedestrians combine with the presence of street trees and the setting back of dwellings to provide for a pleasant residential environment with a sense of greenery and spaciousness.

The proposed heat pump would be located within the front courtyard/garden area close to a low shared boundary wall with Number [address]. It would thus be situated between the dwelling’s front elevation and the tall boundary wall to the front of the property.

The appellant confirms that the heat pump would result in noise levels that would fail to comply with the standards set out in the [name] (planning standards) MC20. In this regard, whilst I note that the appellant states that the proposed development would only exceed noise limits by a small amount, the evidence is such that it would result in unacceptable noise levels, having regard to required standards.

In this respect, I am mindful that the proposed development would be located within extremely close proximity to No 54. Indeed, the proposed heat pump would be situated almost adjacent to this neighbouring dwelling’s front garden area and only be separated from it by a low brick wall. The Council notes that no form of mitigation, such as noise screening, was included as part of the application.

Given all of the above, I find that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance, to the harm of the occupiers of No 54, especially when utilising their front garden area.

[name] observed there to be general background noise in the area during my site visit, there is no substantive information before me to clearly demonstrate that this would mitigate the harm arising from the proposal, such that exceeding the standards referred to above would result in an acceptable form of development.

Taking all of this into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the neighbour occupiers of Number [address], with regards to noise and disturbance. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); to Policies D1, D3 and D14 of the London Plan (2021); to Policies SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan (2018); and to the Council’s Altering and Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (2018), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

In support of the proposal, the appellant refers to the Council’s climate policies and to the NPPF’s focus on climate change mitigation. Heat pumps can contribute towards the aim of decarbonising the heating sector and achieving net zero.

However, in this case, the proposal would result in significant harm and this is not something that would be outweighed by the benefits arising from the development.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.