Appeal 6000297

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development above from the Council's Decision Notice, which is more concise than that used in the application form. However, although described as retrospective, I saw that the installed position of the pump is alongside a rear window, whereas the submitted elevations show it being below the window’s cil level. I shall therefore base my decision on the plan before me, as a proposal, rather than for the pump as installed on site. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, and • the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in respect of noise.

The site consists of a two-storey dwelling in a row of similar terraced properties, with relatively short rear gardens. The pump would be located on the rear elevation of the dwelling. As such, there would be few if any publicly obtainable views of it, and only limited views from the windows of the adjoining dwellings.

Nevertheless, the pump would be a structure of functional design and would sit proud of the rear elevation of the house, in a raised position, albeit behind the projection of one of the adjoining dwellings. Accordingly, it cannot be said to respect the form of the property or the row, and instead the pump would appear utilitarian and industrial in appearance. Consequently, it would appear out of place.

I understand that the appellant intends to relocate the pump to a lower level, when construction of a rear extension has been completed. I saw that the unit installed on site has the cabling to enable this. That said, the proposal as shown on the plans is for a pump at first floor level. I must therefore determine the appeal on this basis.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018. This requires that development must respect and contribute towards local environment and character, including its form. For the same reasons, it would conflict with the similar requirements of policy 28 of the publication draft of the emerging Local Plan.

The appellant has provided a desktop noise assessment using the criteria set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)1. This desktop assessment identifies the distance between the as-installed pump and the closest neighbouring windows, and states that use of the pump would be infrequent and at daytime. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible to prevent a more frequent or nighttime use of the pump.

The desktop assessment provides the noise specifications of the pump, the manufacturer’s maximum noise levels, and predicted noise levels based on site circumstances. These include that the adjacent neighbouring windows are on walls set behind or forward of the wall hosting the pump. The resultant noise levels are said to be below the minimum amount indicated in the SPD.

However, the manufacturer’s noise measurements are taken from within an anechoic chamber and so may be higher in actual installation conditions. As such, the Council’s unchallenged technical evidence is that the sound power level needs to be calculated and then converted to the sound pressure level. On this basis, and taking into account the distance involved, the pump would exceed the nighttime limit required by the SPD, by an appreciable amount.

The short length of the gardens of the dwellings nearby means that they may well be intensively used relatively close to the proposed pump, adding to its potential adverse effects. The appeal site is subject to background noise from road use, frequent trains close by, and aviation flight paths overhead. However, the detailed evidence of the Council, albeit using aggregated values, shows that the appeal site is not particularly affected by transport-related noise. It follows that this does not provide a reason to justify a deviation from the SPD standard.

Positioning the pump at a lower level would provide noise barriers in the form of boundary fencing, as might an acoustic enclosure, but these do not form part of the proposal being considered. The absence of objections from the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings does not necessarily indicate that the pump would have an acceptable effect on their living conditions. The appellant says that the Council’s officer was unable to detect sound emissions from the installed pump, but I have no substantive evidence of actual recorded noise levels from it. 1 Development Control for [name] and Noise Sensitive Development adopted September 2018.

For these reasons, a more detailed, bespoke acoustic assessment is required, for example over a whole nighttime period, and over several days to identify any diurnal patterns. In its absence, I cannot conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings in respect of noise. Accordingly, it would conflict with Local Plan policies LP8 and LP10, which seek to protect living conditions and avoid detrimental effects to health, including from noise. It would also conflict with similar policies LP46 and LP53 of the publication draft of the emerging Local Plan.

The pump would allow for environmentally friendly heating, but this relatively small benefit to a single dwelling does not overcome my concerns. On my visit, I saw other units installed in more prominent locations on nearby dwellings and commercial properties. Nevertheless, I do not have full details of these installations, their planning or enforcement background, or the level of noise that they generate. As such, I can make little useful comparison between these examples and the proposal before me.

The pump is said to be permitted development, in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 14, Class G of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (GPDO) in relation to air source heat pumps. However, the legislation makes requirements beyond those referred to by the appellant. On the information before me, I cannot be certain that the GPDO criteria would all be met, and therefore that it would be lawful. The application is for planning permission, rather than a Certificate of Lawful Development, and so I have determined the appeal solely on its planning merits.

The appellant has expressed concerns about the handling of the planning application by the Council, inconsistent advice given, and the length of time that the Council has taken to make its decision. Whilst this must have caused distress, it does not materially change my consideration of the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.