Front air source heat pump at 22 Bourton Road, Gloucester

What was proposed

The application proposed installing a Daikin air source heat pump at the front of the property.

“Proposal: Installation of Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) at front of property.”

“This application proposes to install an air source heat pump at the front elevation of the property. The proposed unit would be a Daikin Altherma 3 High Capacity Monobloc and as per the specifications provided, would be 1380mm wide, 460mm deep and 870mm tall. The sound power level for heating would be 62 dBA.”

Officer report

The site

The site was an end-of-terrace, two-storey property with a side extension, a front tree and neighbouring properties to the north and south-east.

“The application site is 22 Bourton Road, within the Tuffley ward of Gloucester. Bourton Road is an end of terrace, two storey property with an existing side extension to the north western boundary. The adjoining neighbour to the south east is 24 Bourton Road and the detached neighbour to the north is 20 Bourton Road.”

“There is a tree within the applicant’s plot to the front of the property. Due to a triangular area of grass in front of these properties, the plot of 22 Bourton Road is sited approximately 30m from Bourton Road. A pedestrian path leads to the front gates of each property.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier entries included historic housing layouts and a single-storey side extension approved in 2019.

“Application Number Proposal Decision Decision Date 44/05130/HIST 14781:- Z45 44/05165/HIST P/58/52:- LAYOUT OF PRIVATE PLOTS AND CORPORATION HOUSES. Z45APP 19.02.1952 44/05166/HIST P/152/54:- LAYOUT OF 346 HOUSES Z45APP 22.06.1954 19/00511/LAW Single storey extension to side of property LAW 16.08.2019”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal supported sustainability and was acceptable in appearance, residential amenity, tree impact and policy terms.

“Residential amenity Paragraph 135 (f) of the NPPF sets out that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. This is reflected in Policy SD14 of the JCS which requires that new development must cause no unacceptable harm to local amenity including the amenity of neighbouring occupants.”

“Conclusion This application has been considered in the context of the policies and guidance referred to above. The proposal is consistent with those policies and guidance in terms of principle, appearance of the area, impact upon the amenity of any neighbours and the local area and trees; the proposal is acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The tree officer and environmental health consultants raised no objection, including on tree effects and noise affecting neighbouring properties.

“Tree Officer The tree officer advised it was unlikely that the installation of the ASHP would have any conflict with trees in the vicinity and therefore provided a response of no objection.”

“Noise/Nuisance (WRS – Environmental Health Consultants) WRS advised that as there would be no line of sight from any habitable room windows at No.24 to the proposed ASHP, the noise impact at No.24 should be acceptable. With regards to No.20, given the separating distance and only a partial line of sight, due to the difference in ground levels, WRS did not consider that noise from the proposed ASHP would be an issue.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Neighbouring properties were notified; no objections were received and one letter supported the application for environmental and sustainability reasons.

“No letters of objection were received. One letter was received in support of the application as it would contribute positively to environmental goals/sustainability.”

Officer report

Members’ questions and debate

Members questioned noise, measurements, operation, wildlife, vibration and neighbouring windows before concluding that the application raised no apparent issues.

“Whether the operation of the fan would be constant • Whether there would be an impact on wildlife. • Whether any of the suggested noise mitigations had been adhered to. • The location of the nearest neighbouring window • In regards to residential amenity and noise nuisance, whether the porch would be classed as a window in the context of this planning application. • Whether the distance between the ASHP and the neighbour’s window mitigated the noise impact.”

“The choice of unit was a matter for the applicant. The Planning Committee needed to focus on the application before them rather than merits of alternatives. • The 80cm measurement would be off the main wall, and the unit would be set forward just ahead of the porch. The 1380mm measurement related to the width of the unit and the depth of the unit would be 460mm.”

Minutes

Who spoke

Councillor Jones spoke in support, thanking officers and highlighting the potential for heat pumps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer report.”

Minutes