Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Please rest assured that even if a complaint is received by Environmental Health and an investigation is initiated, the first port of call is to approach the subject of the complaint and advise them on how they can improve their specific situation.

Don't you just love official Local Council English! Reagan's nine most terrifying words in the English language also spring to mind...

With all this talk about noise, I thought I would drop in a reference to a case where neighbours have (perhaps justifiably) complained about two ASHP installed at Reepham High School in Autumn 2021 without planning permission.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/11/17/residents-disturbed-by-noisy-school-heat-pumps/ (note the stock photo; the actual heat pumps are 140kW and one I guess is < 50kW).

and retrospective planning permission

https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZMGXOQMS658

“2022_10_10 additional technical report :1378088” makes for interesting reading. They state the operating hours will be from 0700 to 1700 Monday to Friday in the “winter”. Also the validation of their models (sans acoustic shielding) looks a bit off as they took measurements on an afternoon when it was 8 degrees outside running at “normal duty” (section 5.3.3); measurement P1 at 54.7 dB is remarkably close to the manufacturer spec of 54dB however the former has two reflecting surfaces within 1m and the latter is in “open field”.

My feeling is that the installer was trying their luck by installing without permission, using the higher noise (non-XL version) 140kW heat pump, declaring the place they are located to be the only possible location. Furthermore there is to-ing and fro-ing over the nature of the acoustic shielding (supply problems), and the heat pump consultant has decided that they need to operate the heat pump outside of 0700-1700 window (26 April 2023 “Agent correspondence”). I can not find any attempt to validate the acoustic barrier performance.

Thanks for this, very interesting.

The thing about retrospective planning consent is that the decision criteria are exactly the same as they would have been had the planning application preceeded the development.  So anyone can do any development 'at risk', the risk being that someone complains, they don't get consent and have to undo it.  On the flip side if nobody complains then the LPA is most unlikely to take action.  In the case of the installation of a heating system it's very tempting to take the risk if you think it's unlikely to generate complaints, given the awkwardness of some LPAs when you do request consent.  Who asks for planning consent to install a oil or gas boiler?

I read the officers report and to me it seems balanced and well informed.

Like it or not ashps (or gshps) are the only known way we can heat (the vast majority of) buildings efficiently whilst combatting climate change, and that more or less certain to remain the case for the relevant future.  So we all have to accept a level of inconvenience to reduce the much greater inconvenience that global warming is going to cause. 

Having regard to this, it's entirely unreasonable to expect that noise will be restricted to the background level of 20dBA, given that the WHO states that 30dbA is a 'desirable' level for sleeping and windows left ajar attenuate by 15dBA according to the relevant British standard.  Thus, logically, a facade level of 45dBA or below should be acceptable, perhaps a smidgen less to give a bit of a margin for error.  (This is not so far from the PD value of 42dBA albeit that this includes a (somewhat meaningless) 'assumed' 40 dBA background, so the ashp itself cannot exceed 37dBA.  But at least it's in roughly the same ballpark.)

The report recognises all of this and recommends limited mitigation measures accordingly.

If only my local planning authority were half as enlightened!

@jamespa

I am surprised that the school did not opt for GSHP's, since they are much quieter, can be installed inside,and probably would be more efficient.

@derek-m I did wonder that.  However the capital costs are much higher and they may not have a suitable place to dig.  I briefly looked at gshp in my former work scenario but it was a non starter.

I am an ASHP noise sufferer and I believe the current policies totally disregard the amenity of neighbours. Here is what I have found out about the absolutely discriminatory policies so far:

1- The Grants/funding schemes do not check the accuracy of MCS certificates.

2- MCS certified installers can easily provide fabricated certificates for grants/funding schemes, and they just approve them.  

3- MCS Certification Bodies have no obligation to report non-compliance installations or the installers who breach MCS. 

4- Neighbours cannot make complaints to MCS, Certification Bodies, or grant/funding schemes. This is because grant/funding schemes has no responsibility for installation of ASHPS. MCS and Certification Bodies only investigate complaints made by 'owners' of ASHPs. For them, neighbours have no 'right' of making complaints. Even if neighbours 'report' non-compliance with MCS, they do nothing because neighbours are considered 3rd parties.  

5- Developers can pay acoustic companies and they provide them with fabricated MCS assessments or 'compliance with 42dBA'. If a neighbour tries to prove that an assessment is fabricated, they totally whitewash it. 

6- Local councils accept such fabricated assessments and give planning permission for any odd installation because they do not want to take enforcement action against the developers/installers. 

7- There are not any polices for ASHPs that do not fall under PDR or MCS.

8- There are not any policies for assessing the noise impact of ASHPs on neighbouring properties except the NR value. However, NR value does not measure LFN, vibration, etc. 

9- There are not any policies for the noise impact of ASHPs in the neighbours' garden. 

Overall, I have had a terrible experience with my neighbour's ASHP. Not only because its horrible noise has ruined my life for the past two years, but because I have found out how discriminatory the whole system is. The system is only in favour of people with links and means because the policy makers provide them with loopholes to do whatever they want to with total impunity.     

Finally, I don't even think that ASHPs are green! They generate high and low frequency noise, they have fluorinated gases, and they consume a great amount of electricity most of which is still from fossil flues! (LFN is dangerous, but it is a hush-hush subject for ASHPs).   

While I sympathise if you are having issues with noise from an air source heat pump, I would suggest there are tried and tested paths to deal with a noise nuisance via the council. 

I could try and convince you why heat pumps are green but I fear my time would be wasted. 

@bontwoody I really appreciate it if you could help understand how ASHPs are green. I am not one of those anti-vaccine, anti-technology people. I believe that global warming is a serious issue and that we must do something about it, however, I don't think that ASHPs are the real deal. 

Regarding the noise and councils, my experience with my local council has only proved to me that councils have the power to give permission to any odd installation because they state that they are not responsible to 'enforce' MCS Planning Standards or the 'requirements of the grants' schemes'. Noise is a 'subjective' matter for Environmental Health, so they can easily decide that the noise of an ASHP is not nuisance, and they do not need to prove their decision! The criteria that Environmental Health use has nothing to do with the 'real' noise impact of ASHPs. If NR can be used to assess the noise impact of ASHPs, then why the Government spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on MCS? Why don't they just let people to install ASHPs wherever they want to? Why they spend this much money on a scheme that is not enforceable? 

@persephone ASHPs are considered green because they use electricity to move heat from the outside air to inside your home, rather than generating heat directly. This process is more energy-efficient than traditional heating methods. Since electricity can be generated from renewable sources like solar or wind, the overall carbon footprint of heating via ASHPs is much lower compared to fossil fuel-based systems.

Regarding your concerns about noise and council regulations, it's true that noise perception can be subjective and regulatory enforcement varies. The MCS and other standards are in place to ensure that installations meet certain efficiency and environmental benchmarks. The fact that these standards might not be strictly enforced by every council does not diminish the environmental benefits of ASHPs.

It's important to note that no solution is perfect, and ASHPs are part of a broader strategy to reduce carbon emissions. They are one of the most viable options currently available for many households, especially in regions where alternatives like district heating or deep geothermal are not feasible. 

While ASHPs may not be a perfect solution, they represent a significant step forward in reducing the carbon emissions associated with heating. They are a part of a range of solutions being considered and implemented globally to address climate change, and there can be no disputing that they are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel based heating. As with any technology, there are challenges to overcome, such as improving noise standards (heat pumps are getting quieter all the time), but these do not negate the overall environmental benefits of ASHPs.

@editor Thank you so much for the explanation. Do we have any information about the fluorinated gases in ASHPs and their environmental impact? We know that used solar panels are going straight into landfill. I am really worried that the same thing would happen to ASHPs.   

I also think that the issue of noise and neighbour's amenity should be taken more seriously. Quieter ASHPs still generate LFN which - according to published researches - is directly related to health issues such as insomnia, brain fog, coronary disease, anxiety, etc. What I am trying to say is that the government should make sure that "all" installations comply with some "minimum" regulations (for instance MCS). The problem is that, at the moment, there is not a minimum policy for ASHPs, and the developers can install them wherever they want to without thinking about the noise impact of ASHPs on people's mental and physical health. 

@persephone If installers without ethics, skills or knowledge are employed, your comment about them installing them without consideration for neighbours may be the case but… Though the MCS may have room for improvement, I still feel if properly trained installers are employed and they abide by existing guidelines so that units are installed with at least minimum distances from neighbouring properties, then noise nuisance should be minimised. In an ideal world, birds clearing their throats would be audible from 50 metres, however with modern-day living in areas of occupation, there is a large amount of sound pollution from everyday living. I am not saying that ASHP should be allowed to be sited willy-nilly regardless of possible nuisance to neighbours; more that existing guidelines might be used as a minimum standard with a view to improvements being made both in siting of apparatus and the permitted noise level that they may emit.

As to the nature of the sound or noise generated by the apparatus that is allowed to ‘escape’ from said device - this is a real hornet’s nest. One man’s meat and all that. The whole audio spectrum may need to be considered; I suggest that this might only be practical under laboratory controlled conditions. Once a unit is operating in a domestic environment, such assessment would be fraught with difficulties!

I’m all in favour of reducing noise pollution in the environment, I’m visually handicapped and use my hearing as much as anyone might; I worked for most of my working life with sound as an audio technician and sound engineer and I think I appreciate a quiet, peaceful environment as much as the next man. My physical health and wellbeing matter to me too, so the quieter any machinery can run, the more I would like it. Regards, Toodles.

Posted by: @persephone

↑

@editor Thank you so much for the explanation. Do we have any information about the fluorinated gases in ASHPs and their environmental impact? We know that used solar panels are going straight into landfill. I am really worried that the same thing would happen to ASHPs. 

It is of course a risk that ASHPs end up in landfill, just like refrigerators and cars which also have fluorinated gases in them.  But the amount of gas in an ashp is tiny and its effect on the environment, even if were all released, is totally negligible by comparison with the savings over the units lifetime.  The most modern ones contain 2-3kg of R290 (propane), which has the same global warming effect as 6-9kg of carbon dioxide.  This is the same as is generated by burning about 15kWh of gas, about what an average house uses in one single day.  Even the older R410 models have a global warming effect which is the equivalent of much less than one years typical consumption of gas.  So whilst the older ones really shouldn't go to landfill, if they do they will still be much better than burning gas over their lifetime.