Posted by: @persephone

↑

@editor @jamespa My main issue, however, is the 'condition'. Apparently, the 'predicted sound pressure levels' is 42dBA. But what is the 42dBA? Is it a criterion specific to MCS, a PDR criterion, or just a general noise/nuisance criterion? If 42dBA is an MCS criterion or a PDR one, can it be used as a condition for an ASHP that needed a planning permission because it is non-compliant with MCS and is not a permitted development?

In the condition the 'predicted sound level' will refer to the level predicted in the planning application itself.  To find out what that was you would need to refer to the planning application.  It sounds like the level in question (as stated in the planning application) may be 42dB(A), but you need to check the actual text.

Basically what the condition is saying is that the installation is OK provided it meets the predicted sound level, which must be proven by doing an on-site assessment.

42dBA is, as it happens, also the maximum sound level at the assessment position to qualify as permitted development, calculated according to the MCS methodology set out in MCS020.  Because that methodology assumes a background noise level of 42dBA, this actually implies a maximum permitted noise level from the heat pump alone of 37dBA at the assessment position.  This is however not relevant to your case because the installation is under express consent, what matters (given the condition you have quoted) is whatever was stated in the planning application.  

Posted by: @persephone

↑

@jamespa I can prove that, based on the assessment, the predicted sound pressure levels 1m from my house is wrongly calculated by the assessor. I have asked a very reputable acoustic company to review the assessment, but so far they have refused to do it.  

If the assessment in on your local council's portal, perhaps you could provide the link.

I would be very interested to see this too Persephone if at all possible please? I have DM'd you. I also thought that if an actual on-site sound assessment is done they (amongst other things) take into account tonality which attracts anything up to a (I think) 6dB(A) increase under BS4142. I thought once it goes to a BS4142 on-the-ground sound assessment the background level supersedes the arbitrary 42dB(A) and annoyance factor is rated on how much it is above the background levels (LAq90 etc), with the adjustment for tonality.

Tonality is a VERY interesting one and means that a heat pump at 42dB(A) can cause distress whereas a boiler at 50dB(A) causes no real issue. DESNZ covered this a bit in their report and the institute of acoustics are clear on this too. So with an on-the-ground assessment from a private consultant it could mean you end up with an adjustment up for tonality and a lower limit because your background is lower. Net result could be positive for you.

The link would be great if possible please?

@editor The loud clicking and humming/whooshing noise are both annoying. Moreover, for a robust noise assessment this particular noise should not be ignored.

Posted by: @elton

↑

Tonality is a VERY interesting one and means that a heat pump at 42dB(A) can cause distress whereas a boiler at 50dB(A) causes no real issue. DESNZ covered this a bit in their report and the institute of acoustics are clear on this too. So with an on-the-ground assessment from a private consultant it could mean you end up with an adjustment up for tonality and a lower limit because your background is lower. Net result could be positive for you

True but...

If the LPA has in fact concluded that the installation meets the planning requirement then it won't (can't) enforce under planning law.

So that leaves enforcement under Environmental health law/common law - in either case a claim of nuisance.   The standard for a nuisance claim, whether brought privately or by the local authority, is:  

"causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land or injurious to health"

'Substantial' is a much stricter test than simply annoying.  Furthermore it must also be unreasonable.  A judge might well be persuaded that its 'reasonable' to heat ones home in a way that doesn't clobber the climate and that, unless other locations options had been unreasonably dismissed, a level of annoyance was nevertheless 'reasonable'.

You would be well advised, before you spend money, to test your case against the actual requirements that you would need to prove to win!

How does the level of noise internal to your house compare to the levels set out in BS 8233 (basically 30dBA inside in bedrooms at night, 40dB(A) in any other habitable area (which is likely to exclude rooms that you simply pass thorough).  If the heat pump causes noise which exceeds this you may have a case. 

Posted by: @persephone

↑

The loud clicking and humming/whooshing noise are both annoying. Moreover, for a robust noise assessment this particular noise should not be ignored.

see above, for a nuisance claim 'annoying' is not sufficient.

https://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RW938FHF0O100

@jamespa Yes, I know. I say it should not be totally disregarded.

@jamespa This brings me to my main concern: All the tax-payers money spent on MCS is of no use! The developers can install ASHPs wherever they want to because they are sure that local councils eventually side with them than the neighbouring properties/complainants.

Posted by: @persephone

↑

@jamespa Yes, I know. I say it should not be totally disregarded.

Maybe, but Im sure many would argue that defrosts occur when its cold outside and thus the neighbours can reasonably be expected to have their windows closed.  Is it more annoying indoors (with your windows closed) than say your fridge, vacuum cleaner or other sundry and intermittent noise sources that we have to put up with, or for that matter the noise of the neighbours mowing their lawn in summer.

Posted by: @persephone

↑

@jamespa This brings me to my main concern: All the tax-payers money spent on MCS is of no use! The developers can install ASHPs wherever they want to because they are sure that local councils eventually side with them than the neighbouring properties/complainants.

I understand but I think you are conflating several things. 

I believe MCS is now funded by levies on installers not tax payers (it became independent of Government is about 2018).  Like you I don't like what the organisation does, but that's a different issue.  Where the government is at fault is permitting them to write themselves into planning standards (the 'MCS planning standards' require that the installation is done by an MCS installer and to MCS standards, which relates to matters that do not affect others and therefore have absolutely nothing to do with planning!').  MCS role is to create standards and accredit installers, not to enforce the law.  The latter function has to lie with publically funded bodies, ie judges or local authorities, not bodies funded by installers.

Local authorities don't generally 'take sides', they apply rules based on law.  So in this case

• either a planning condition has been violated or it hasn't.  So far you have not told us why it has been violated, so we cant know whether or not it has.
• either there is a case that nuisance exists or it doesn't.  As I point out above this is a stricter text.  

Sadly you aren't the only one who suffers from noise:

• My neighbours gas boiler from time to time makes a noise I can hear in the bedroom at night. 
• My neighbours regularly mow their lawns with noisy lawnmowers, at times when I can reasonably be expected to have my windows open.  This is unlike defrosting of ashps, which occur when neighbours can reasonably be expected to have their windows closed). 
• One of my neighbours obsessively uses a very noisy pressure washer in the summer. 

These are all annoying to me, but I don't think I can honestly say to a judge that they are 'causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with my land or my use or enjoyment of that land or injurious to health'. 

None of us have a right (in law) to live totally undisturbed lives.   If your neighbours have in fact violated the planning condition you should be able to prove it and your LPA may (but are in law not obliged) to enforce it.  If they are causing ' a substantial and unreasonable interference with your land or your use or enjoyment of that land or injurious to health' then you should be able to show that this is the case.  If either is true you have a chance of pursuing the matter.  But if they are not, you would be best advised not to spend money on consultants, lawyers etc.

PS

I have just has a skip read of the documents on the planning portal.  Below is what WSP, in the report which was submitted to discharge the condition, say in conclusion.  Basically they took measurements in your neighbours house, and extrapolated to your house, which is further (they say) from the ASHP and equally screened.  They found the sound levels in your neighbours house met the planning condition, and thus the sound levels in your house would be better still.    They claim to have done the test by artificially turning up the target temperature to make the ashp work harder than it otherwise would in the prevailing conditions.

Have you got evidence to dispute their conclusion?

"Conclusions
Sound level measurements of the ASHP installed at the rear of 41 Learmonth Place have been carried out in proximity to it, to verify sound level predictions reported in previous correspondence and demonstrate compliance with FC criteria. It was also possible to obtain a sound level measurement inside the master bedroom of the applicant’s house, which is screened from the ASHP by a similar amount as the nearest
noise sensitive receptor. The sound levels measured in proximity to the source are similar to those predicted using the methods previously reported.

The sound level measured inside the bedroom with the windows open was NR 23, which is compliant with the planning condition requirement of NR 25. Subjectively, the ASHP was just audible in the bedroom when listening attentively. The assessor would not have found the ASHP sound to be objectionable. Extraneous noise sources included birdsong and distant vehicles. It was not possible to reduce the influence of these 
sources on the internal measurement, so the cited level really comprises an overly precautious estimate of sound from the ASHP.

Based on the precautionary internal estimate of NR 23 inside the applicants home, NR 19 would be expected in the bedroom of 39 Learmonth Place (under comparable open-window conditions), due to the differences in distance attenuation between the façades of the two properties.  

The information presented in this memo verifies the sound level predictions previously undertaken, and also demonstrates that sound from the ASHP will meet the planning condition’s NR 25 criterion when measured in the nearest noise sensitive dwelling. It is therefore concluded that the requirements of the planning condition have been fulfilled."

@jamespa Thank you so much for your comments.

Table 2 of the WSP assessment clearly shows NR 35+ at position 5 (outside the applicant’s bedroom window). So, one wonders if NR 23 inside the bedroom with the windows open can be correct at all. Even if NR23 is correct for the applicant, what does it have to do with my house and my bedroom? There are other things such as the material of the walls, the windows, etc that would change the result of such assessments. 

The WSP report states "indoor sound levels at 39 Learmonth Place would be around 4 dB lower than those measured inside 41 Learmonth Place due to the extra distance". The assessor then states that the 4 decibel of difference "would result in a predicted sound level of NR 19 inside the bedroom of 39 Learmonth Place". This is wrong because a 4-decibel decrease would only result in a 4 NR decrease in the 1000 band not other bands. 

Posted by: @persephone

↑

Table 2 of the WSP assessment clearly shows NR 35+ at position 5 (outside the applicant’s bedroom window). So, one wonders if NR 23 inside the bedroom with the windows open can be correct at all. Even if NR23 is correct for the applicant, what does it have to do with my house and my bedroom? There are other things such as the material of the walls, the windows, etc that would change the result of such assessments. 

Immediately after table 2 it states that 

A sound level of NR 23 Leq,5 min was measured in the main bedroom of 41 Learmonth Place while the ASHP was operational. This measurement included sound contributions from residual sound sources, so the
sound level from the ASHP only would be lower.

So they did (or at least say they did) measure it inside.  Have you reason to doubt them?

For what it is worth BS8233 says that 15dB can be assumed for the attenuation due to wall with window (closed or ajar) in it.  

Posted by: @persephone

↑

The WSP report states "indoor sound levels at 39 Learmonth Place would be around 4 dB lower than those measured inside 41 Learmonth Place due to the extra distance". The assessor then states that the 4 decibel of difference "would result in a predicted sound level of NR 19 inside the bedroom of 39 Learmonth Place". This is wrong because a 4-decibel decrease would only result in a 4 NR decrease in the 1000 band not other bands. 

Can you explain why that would be.  Im not an acoustics expert but so far as I understand the physics the distance attenuation is, to first order, the same for all frequencies because it goes as the square of distance.

Do you actually have evidence that the sound level at your property exceeds the values specified in the planning condition and did you invite your neighbour to take measurements inside your house (if not they have no right to do, thus an extrapolation from measurements next door may well be reasonable)

From the photo they seem to have placed it about as far from the neighbours as it can reasonably go and screened it well.  So, aside from trying to argue that they should have chosen a quieter model (the one chosen isn't the quietest on the market) the argument that they are being unreasonable (required for a nuisance claim) might be challenging.  Clearly they are reasonable to heat their house, so the 'reasonableness' argument for any claim of nuisance becomes 'did they unreasonable choose not to do it better' not 'should they have done it at all'

@jamespa I don't have evidence of measurements in my house. What I am trying to say is that NR23 in my neighbour's house which is a new building with good insulation, has nothing to do with the NR in my house. NR in one property can not be used to 'predict' the NR in another property. 

NR has a curve system. So, a 4 decibel decrease does not mean a 4NR decrease.   

Another issue is the positioning of the ASHP which is on the boundary of their house with a public path. I have not seen any legislation that approves of installation of noise/smoke generating devices on the boundary of houses in residential areas.