Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer, Claire Donnelly, presented the application, which related to the addition of an air source heat pump to an existing wall. The application had been referred to committee by Cllr. Wilkinson, and the recommendation was to refuse due to the detrimental impact on the conservation area and neighbour amenity.

The applicant, Colin Smith, spoke in support of the application. He emphasised that he sought to replace an inefficient 20 year old gas combi boiler with an environmentally friendly air source heat pump. He acknowledged that it was a town centre location but stressed that it was positioned as far away from neighbours as possible. He had two priorities: the environment and the neighbours. On the issue of conservation, he noted that most of the city centre was in a conservation area, so some leeway was needed. He also took issue with the environmental health requirement for a noise pollution survey, as it was a unique location, and he had been told that an acoustic survey was not necessary. If it was built anywhere else on their land it would not require planning permission or an acoustic survey, but this was a sensibly chosen position.

Cllr. Wilkinson spoke in support of the application, noting that no members of the public had objected to it. Cheltenham was committed to becoming carbon neutral as soon as possible, with a target of 2030, and refusing the application would send a negative message to households that were going above and beyond and making a significant investment to help the climate. He understood the policy position of officers, but the need to act on the climate emergency was essential. The suggested refusal for noise reasons was put forward without an actual noise assessment, and it was hard to make precise predictions about new technology. The suggested refusal based on harming a conservation area was also questionable, since the installation would overlook a car park with around 12 spaces and be screened by trees. This was not an area of natural beauty that needed to be protected. He asked that if members were to reject it, that they work with planning officers to change future policies so that climate and environmental goals were taken into account. The council should support residents who want to aid it in its fight against climate change.

Members asked the following questions, with the following replies from the Officer:

• Which conservation area was it in? Sydenham.

The Chair moved to the debate and members made the following comments:

• The applicant was a retired engineer who had researched this meticulously and procured a particularly effective and expensive pump, believed to be about as loud as a library.
• The elevated position was a benefit and the trees covering were are evergreen, so the installation would be no more visible in the winter than in the summer.
• This was new technology so planning policies had not yet caught up to it, they needed changing or else the council would be left behind.
• Although the recommendation to refuse was in keeping with the relevant policies, committee members were able to take a more pragmatic approach.
• England currently has the fewest heat pumps in the UK, primarily due to planning policies which make it far too hard to install one. The council ought to make it easier for people to switch to carbon neutral technologies.
• Behind the tree there is a large TV mast, which is far uglier and more obtrusive than this application. It would not make sense to allow that but not a heat pump.
• The proposal was detailed and well-researched, and the applicant had clearly done their due diligence in selecting the pump and location.
• The equipment could be installed elsewhere on the property without the need for planning permission or a noise survey. Rejecting the application was not a rejection of eco-friendly technology, just this one as it was in the wrong place.
• If Cheltenham wishes to become a green town, it must apply green principles everywhere and air pollution is an essential part of that.

One Member asked the Senior Environmental Health Officer, Gareth Jones, about his views on air source heat pumps. He responded that he was generally supportive of the pumps and had recommended them for various council buildings, although it was important to be consistent about requiring an acoustic report on the effect on those in the immediate vicinity. The pump could be situated elsewhere on the property and it would not be an issue. The information that officers had had been presented with so far was not sufficient to make a recommendation to permit the application.

One Member asked how Environmental Health would respond to any possible noise complaints if it were approved. Gareth Jones responded that this would be investigated like any other noise nuisance, with full use of statutory powers.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to refuse.

FOR 2

AGAINST 7

ABSTAIN 1

RECOMMENDATION REJECTED

One Member proposed a motion to permit the application. The Planning Officer suggested three potential reasons to permit the application, from Part 14, Class G of the Permitted Development Rights (G.1, G.3 (a), G.3 (d)).

One Member asked whether it would be worth adding a further condition to make sure it complied with the sound check after six months. The Legal Officer clarified that the MCS Planning Standards mentioned in the first condition already included noise level.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on the Member’s proposed motion to permit the application.

FOR 7

AGAINST 2

ABSTAIN 1

PERMITTED