Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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.

NR has a curve system, and a 4dB decrease does not mean a 4NR decrease. For instance, the NR value of a 40dB noise in 250Hz is 30, but the NR value of the same 40dB in 1000Hz band is 40.  

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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)

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. That is why I say the Condition that my local council has used is biased and in support of my neighbour. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

From the photo they seem to have placed it about as far from the neighbours as it can reasonably go and screened it well

The installation is against Design and Visual impact policies and set-back zone policies, specifically because the ASHP faces a public Parkland. No legislation approves of installing such devices in place of 'means of enclosure', ie. brick/cement walls, fences, plants/trees in residential areas. My local council, however, states that the ASHP complies with Design policies and that the installation is 'safe' although the ASHP is is accessible to all passers-by. Overall, I believe my local council has been absolutely because they do not want to take enforcement action. This, again, brings me back to my main argument: developers can do whatever they want to do in terms of installation of ASHPs because they know that they will win any case eventually. 

I don't wish to be the bringer of bad news and, as I have said, I understand and sympathise with your concerns but...

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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.

 

 

NR has a curve system, and a 4dB decrease does not mean a 4NR decrease. For instance, the NR value of a 40dB noise in 250Hz is 30, but the NR value of the same 40dB in 1000Hz band is 40.

The NR curves are very close to parallel when plotted on a dB scale (its a very smaller gap at lower frequencies, but only by about 0.1dB).  This can be verified from the numbers here https://clementacoustics.co.uk/noise-rating-nr-curves/.  

So, to a very good approximation, a 4dB attenuation across all frequencies (which is what the additional distance causes) does correspond to a shift from one NR curve to another NR curve 4NR less, which is what the report asserts.

You are trying to challenge the report submitted, which was compiled by noise experts.  Now experts _can_ be wrong, but you do need to be certain of your ground if you are going to take that route.  

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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)

 

 

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. That is why I say the Condition that my local council has used is biased and in support of my neighbour. 

'Insulation' is principally heat insulation, not noise insulation and the two are by no means the same.  Noise insulation, particularly at low frequencies, generally requires mass, whereas heat insulation is generally accomplished by the absence of mass.  

BS8233, the prevailing standard for noise design of buildings, gives an attenuation of 15dB for a wall with normal windows, essentially irrespective of construction. 

This being the case there is no reason to suspect that the construction is going to make that much difference.

In any event

a) the report was based on the best information available, which is all that can reasonably be expected.  The consultants do not have right of access to your house and you haven't told us that you invited them in

b) the conclusion they reached was that the planning condition was met by a fair margin.  Thus, even allowing for extrapolation errors, its fair to conclude on balance of probabilities that it is in fact met.

Taking all this together I feel that a judge would conclude that the LPA acted reasonably in both selecting the condition in the first instance, and accepting the report from experts in the field at face value, and that if you wish to challenge either you would need to provide concrete evidence that the conclusions were materially incorrect.  

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

From the photo they seem to have placed it about as far from the neighbours as it can reasonably go and screened it well

 

 

The installation is against Design and Visual impact policies and set-back zone policies, specifically because the ASHP faces a public Parkland. No legislation approves of installing such devices in place of 'means of enclosure', ie. brick/cement walls, fences, plants/trees in residential areas. My local council, however, states that the ASHP complies with Design policies and that the installation is 'safe' although the ASHP is is accessible to all passers-by. Overall, I believe my local council has been absolutely because they do not want to take enforcement action. This, again, brings me back to my main argument: developers can do whatever they want to do in terms of installation of ASHPs because they know that they will win any case eventually. 

From a legal perspective you have this the wrong way round.  We live in a 'free' country and one of the facets of such a legal system is that, the starting point (as an individual) is that you don't need permission to do things, you are instead free to do anything unless prohibited by law.  

There is a prohibition which applies in this case, namely the prohibition against development without consent (Town and Country Planning Act 1990).  However your neighbour has consent from relevant authority, so this is dealt with.

If you consider that your local council has acted unreasonably in giving consent, then there was a route open to you namely Judicial Review (JR).  However that has to be initiated within a very short period after consent is given (6 weeks I believe) and that period has possibly passed.  There is good reason for the short period to initiate a JR, developers must have legal certainty before they invest time in money in undertaking a development so the law seeks a balance between the rights of others to challenge a decision made by a local authority and the right of the developer to have legal certainty.

As to your final sentence it is true that the NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  However LPAs frequently refuse applications including applications for heat pumps, or insist of modifications during the course of the decision making process, so it is not true to say that developers 'can do whatever they want'.  

If, as seems likely based on what you have told us, the planning angle is now closed off that, still leaves nuisance.  As I mention upthread the test for nuisance is that the (noise) in question 'causes a substantial and unreasonable effect on (your) land or (your) enjoyment of that land, or is injurious to health'.  Is this the case and could you convince a judge (or your local authority) that this is the case?  

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

We live in a 'free' country and one of the facets of such a legal system is that, the starting point (as an individual) is that you don't need permission to do things, you are instead free to do anything unless prohibited by law.  

Does this mean that an MCS certified installer is also 'free' to provide fabricated documents? (just for clarification, I am not talking about WSP assessment) 

Again, this brings me back to my initial argument: the whole MCS system is useless because eventually the developers and Local councils will find a way (conditions, power of discretion, etc) to approve any odd installation. Eco Coil Heating Ltd which is an MCS certified installers provided a fabricated document for my local council. I contacted NAPIT (certification body), but they turned a blind eye on it. 

Posted by: @persephone

↑

Does this mean that an MCS certified installer is also 'free' to provide fabricated documents?

Of course not.

Posted by: @persephone

↑

Again, this brings me back to my initial argument: the whole MCS system is useless because eventually the developers and Local councils will find a way (conditions, power of discretion, etc) to approve any odd installation. Eco Coil Heating Ltd which is an MCS certified installers provided a fabricated document for my local council. I contacted NAPIT (certification body), but they turned a blind eye on it. 

I agree 100% that neither NAPIT nor MCS are the enforcement mechanism.  They cannot be, because they are working for installers (and possibly the purchaser of the heat pump), not for neighbours, and IMHO any suggestion that they are is misrepresentation.   

He who pays the piper calls the tune!  That's why enforcement rests with local authorities.

Frankly I also doubt personally the claims made by MCS that they provide consumer protection.  When installers pay them its obvious who they will default to agreeing with.  However they appear, for now, to have convinced Government that they should occupy the privileged position that they do occupy by virtue of the fact that installation under PD requires MCS.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

So, to a very good approximation, a 4dB attenuation across all frequencies (which is what the additional distance causes) does correspond to a shift from one NR curve to another NR curve 4NR less, which is what the report asserts.

I am not talking about the 4NR difference, I am talking about the level of NR difference. For instance the 4dB difference of 40dB and 44dB in the 63Hz band would result to the difference between NR6 and NR11. However the same 4dB difference (40dB and 44dB) in the 500Hz band would result to the difference between NR37 and NR41. 

Posted by: @persephone

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

So, to a very good approximation, a 4dB attenuation across all frequencies (which is what the additional distance causes) does correspond to a shift from one NR curve to another NR curve 4NR less, which is what the report asserts.

I am not talking about the 4NR difference, I am talking about the level of NR difference. For instance the 4dB difference of 40dB and 44dB in the 63Hz band would result to the difference between NR6 and NR11. However the same 4dB difference (40dB and 44dB) in the 500Hz band would result to the difference between NR37 and NR41. 

Quite possibly true, but that's not the extrapolation the report seeks to make (as I understand it).  It seeks to extrapolate from an NR achieved at one location, the the NR which would be achieved at another, adjusting for attenuation due to distance.  That works as long as the NR curves are parallel, which they very nearly are.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

It seeks to extrapolate from an NR achieved at one location, the the NR which would be achieved at another,

This is why I mentioned NR35 just outside the window of my neighbour's bedroom. The assessor might have measured 'an' NR 23 inside their bedroom, but does this mean he has not measured higher NRs in their bedroom? The assessment clearly shows NR35 just outside the window. Does an open window reduces NR35 to NR23?   

Posted by: @persephone

↑

The assessment clearly shows NR35 just outside the window. Does an open window reduces NR35 to NR23?   

According to BS 8233 an attenuation of 15dB can be assumed for a wall with a window closed or ajar.  So I would say very likely (according to BS 8233) yes.  My own crude tests suggest that BS8233 isn't far of the mark, and its a well established standard so you'd be facing an uphill struggle to contest it unless you have actual specific evidence to the contrary 

Posted by: @persephone

↑

This is why I mentioned NR35 just outside the window of my neighbour's bedroom. The assessor might have measured 'an' NR 23 inside their bedroom, but does this mean he has not measured higher NRs in their bedroom?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. 

Are you saying that he might also have measured a higher NR.  Of course that is true, but equally he might not.  On balance he probably didn't, as he would have been professionally obliged to report it if he had. 

You cant prove something, even on balance of probabilities, by saying that someone measured one value but they might also have measured another, you need evidence to establish this.

@jamespa I really appreciate your responses. They are all very helpful. Could you please help me understand the 'condition' that my local council has imposed, as I do not understand what the assessor has achieved. 

.. an 'at-source' noise survey at the Air Source Heat Pump shall be undertaken and submitted to Fife Council for approval to demonstrate compliance with the predicted sound pressure levels at this source and the predicted sound pressure levels 1m from the first-floor facade of the adjacent residential property to the west. 

What is 'sound pressure' at source? Isn't it called 'sound power' when it is measured at source?

Thanks again for your time. 

@persephone Sound pressure at source (I think) is the same thing as measuring the SPL (Sound Pressure Level). At source will mean measuring the  level on a ‘A weighted Scale’ just at the source, i.e. at the external structure of the device. Now, how this is measured with air flow throwing the microphone’s capabilities to provide that actual sound level I do not know! Even using wind shields on microphones will normally only reduce the interfering turbulence; I am no expert in sound level measurement but no doubt exploring B&K’s website might elucidate. Regards, Toodles.