Appeal 6002739

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a kitchen extraction/ventilation system at [site address] , Camden, London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. 2025/1695/P and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal is made against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. However, the Council have provided an officer report and decision notice that confirms that they would have approved the planning application subject to conditions, had the appeal against the non-determination of the planning application not been made.

From the evidence before me, there are no substantive grounds of dispute between the appellant and the Council. However, there are concerns from interested parties and I have assessed the appeal on the basis of the apparent issue at hand beyond the mutual position of the main parties. This forms the main issue to be considered in this appeal.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and odour.

The appeal site forms part of a mid‐terrace property on [address], within a mixed‐use area characterised by commercial premises at ground floor level and residential accommodation above. Appeal Ref: 6002739

The proposed extraction duct would be positioned close to neighbouring residential windows, where the nearest residential receptor is approximately 2 metres from the proposed outlet.

The submitted Noise Impact Assessment (Issue 01, 25 March 2025) has been undertaken in accordance with BS4142:2014+A1:2019 (BS4142), which is the relevant standard for assessing industrial and commercial sound. Background sound levels at the site are identified as 44 dB LA90 during daytime hours, measured at a position representative of the receptor location on the building façade where the assessment predicts the rating level of the proposed plant.

I note that the assessment has been undertaken for daytime operating hours only. However, the submitted evidence confirms that the proposed extraction system would operate between 07:00 and 23:00 hours, with no operation during the night-time period. As such, I am satisfied that the development would not give rise to noise impacts during the more sensitive night-time period, subject to a condition restricting the hours of operation of the extraction system to between 07:00 and 23:00 only.

The assessment predicts a rating level of 34dB at a position 1 metre from the nearest residential window. This equates to a level 10dB below the representative background sound level. Given the very close proximity of the receptor, I attach significant weight to the fact that the assessment is undertaken at the façade of the affected property, representing a robust and realistic assessment of likely effects.

In BS4142 terms, where the rating level is below the background sound level, this is an indication of a low impact. In this case, the predicted level is substantially below background levels, suggesting that the specific sound from the plant would not be perceptible above existing environmental noise.

I recognise that mitigation measures, including the incorporation of an attenuator and anti‐vibration mounts, are required to achieve these levels. These measures form an integral part of the proposal and can be secured by condition.

Taking these matters together, and having particular regard to the very close proximity of neighbouring windows, I am satisfied that, subject to the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the noise from the proposed plant would not give rise to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Odour Risk Assessment identifies that, due to the proximity of receptors (within 20 metres) and the characteristics of the proposed system, the development falls within a “high odour control requirement” category.

This indicates that there is a potential for adverse odour effects if appropriate mitigation is not in place, particularly given the close relationship between the extraction point and neighbouring residential windows.

The assessment also explains that odour impacts depend on factors such as frequency, intensity, duration and receptor sensitivity, and recognises that even intermittent emissions may affect amenity if particularly strong or persistent

However, the proposed system incorporates a comprehensive package of mitigation measures, including baffle filters, an electrostatic precipitator for grease and smoke removal, and an ozone injection system to neutralise odours. The Appeal Ref: 6002739 system is also designed to discharge at high level above the roof, which would assist in dispersing emissions.

I recognise that the effectiveness of these measures is dependent on proper installation and ongoing maintenance. The submitted evidence confirms that regular cleaning and maintenance are required in order to ensure continued performance of the system.

In this case, I am satisfied that the combination of the proposed abatement technology and high-level discharge, together with appropriate conditions securing installation and maintenance, would be sufficient to control odour emissions to an acceptable level.

For the reasons set out above, I find that, whilst the proposal has the potential to give rise to noise and odour effects due to the proximity of neighbouring residential properties, the submitted technical evidence sufficiently demonstrates that these impacts can be suitably mitigated through the proposed design and the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. The development would therefore not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and odour. Accordingly, it would accord with Policies A1 and A4 of the Camden Local Plan (2017), which seek to protect the amenity of residents.

In imposing the attached conditions, I have had regard to the tests for planning conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance. A standard time‐limit condition is imposed in the interests of certainty. Conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and securing external materials to match the existing building are necessary to ensure that the development is implemented as assessed and that its appearance is satisfactory.

Conditions relating to noise and odour are necessary to ensure that the mitigation relied upon in the submitted technical assessments is secured prior to first use and thereafter maintained, so as to prevent unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity. In this respect, I have had regard to the Council’s suggested conditions and have incorporated them, with amendments, to ensure that the required mitigation is explicitly tied to the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and Odour Risk Assessment. This includes a requirement to secure appropriate maintenance and cleaning arrangements for the extract and odour control system.

I note the concerns raised by the interested party, including the request for a more extensive maintenance and monitoring regime and post‐installation noise and odour audits by independent professionals. I have carefully considered whether such additional controls are necessary. However, the submitted assessments indicate that, with the mitigation and maintenance arrangements secured through the above conditions, the development would operate within acceptable limits. In the absence of clear evidence that further measures are required to make the development acceptable, I do not consider that additional ongoing monitoring or independent audit requirements would meet the tests of necessity and reasonableness, and they are therefore not imposed. Appeal Ref: 6002739

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan and to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: FR-1303-0SM Rev V1 [name], FR-1303-[name] V1 Block Plan, FR-1303-[name] V1 Site Photographs, [name], Design and [name] 2025 by Se&Se Consultancy Ltd, [name], Noise Impact Assessment March 2025 Issue 01 by DAAGROUP, Odour Risk Assessment March 2025 by Se&Se Consultancy Ltd, FR-0603-[name] V1 Proposed Basement Plan, FR-0603-[name] V1 Proposed Ground Floor Plan, FR-0603-[name] V1 Proposed Roof Plan, FR- 0603-[name] V1 [name], FR-0603-[name] V1 [name], FR-0603-[name] V1 [name], FR- 0603-[name] V1 [name].

All new external work shall be carried out in materials that resemble, as closely as possible, in colour and texture those of the existing building, unless otherwise specified in the approved application.

Prior to first use of the plant hereby permitted, details of the noise mitigation measures in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment (Issue 01, March

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be fully installed prior to the plant being first brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained and operated in strict accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first use of the plant hereby permitted, details of the odour control measures in accordance with the Odour Risk Assessment (March 2025), including maintenance and cleaning arrangements, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be fully installed prior to the plant being first brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained and operated in strict accordance with the approved details.