Hmmm.

Consider why such a change is being contemplated now.

How does this square with the Report submitted to DEFRA a couple of weeks ago by three professional acoustics research bodies:

This extract is taken from a longer article published by Renovation and Heating, which provides a good overview.
I can't (yet) find a copy of the actual report online.

@transparent 

I have no idea.  I'm just the messenger lol.

@transparent MCS-020 is somewhat site-specific (the distance to assessment position, the Q value, whether the boundary wall is solid and obscures the heat pump). Having a go for a heat pump right on a brick wall boundary I think FINAL RESULT = 41.8 dB implies step 8 can be +3dB, implies step 6 is 43dB. Assuming a solid wall between, and a Q of 4 we can get a correction of -10 dB for the barrier and -8dB for distance implying a heat pump sound power level of 61dB (or else 58dB if Q=6). This is comfortably in the range of many heat pumps.

Having said that of course 3 acoustic experts would assert that you need to hire experts to make it work! Perhaps they assumed the wall between properties is insubstantial from the step 5 barrier perspective (howerver would Q be 2 or 4 at that point?) ...

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Hmmm.

Consider why such a change is being contemplated now.

How does this square with the Report submitted to DEFRA a couple of weeks ago by three professional acoustics research bodies:

-- Attachment is not available --

 

Very easily. 1m from the boundary is not the same as 1m from an assessment point.  The heat pump could be 20m down the garden and right  on the boundary,  but it will still be at least 20m from an assessment point which is defined as 1m in front of the centre of window or door to a habitable room.

The change proposed is a sensible one and in some situations will relax placement constraints without changing the max allowable noise at the neighbouring building.

The authors of the acoustic report are suggesting that the ASHP units they tested are too loud for an installer to meet statutory requirements,

Until I can actually see the report I can't tell what parameters they're using.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

The authors of the acoustic report are suggesting that the ASHP units they tested are too loud for an installer to meet statutory requirements,

Until I can actually see the report I can't tell what parameters they're using.

Sorry but that's a bit meaningless as a statement.  Too loud in what circumstances?  Clearly there are circumstances where they are not too loud eg my example (dreamed up to illustrate that abolishing the 1m rulle and meeting noise constraints are not inconsistent) of 20m down a garden next to the boundary.  Perhaps they were saying (as they seem to be in the extract you reproduce) that they are too loud to meet pd requirements in many / some densely built up areas (which may be true in many cases).  Either way it's got almost nothing to do with the 1m rule. 

There is a bit more of a quote from the report and its author here

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/noise-experts-tell-government-to-cool-it-on-heat-pumps-after-new-study-suggests-they-could-be-too-loud-for-millions-of-homes-throwing-net-zero-target-plans-into-disarray/ar-AA1jQgsK

The Daily Mail and the Telegraph seem to be responsible for some of the reported interpretation so what it (the reported interpretation) says is not in the least surprising.

If ever there was a precipitous cliff over which to fall, noise nuisance and subjective levels must be near the top of the list. Imposed sound or noise is likely to seem more objectionable to the ‘victim’ than other sound sources at higher levels or of different characteristics - what annoys one may be quite acceptable to another person.

I find that the ‘imposed’ level of sound or noise from aircraft and road traffic far more annoying and objectionable to other sounds such as children playing nearby, sounds emanating from a nearby sports centre, perhaps emergency vehicle’s sirens and railway train horns. In terms of levels when measured by wideband measuring equipment, it is possible that the less annoying sources might be higher in dB(A) than others! The whole matter is so subjective and it is very likely that any two listeners will hear things ‘differently’. I have found some annoying sounds to be lower in level than others I have tolerated. In such circumstances, metering and ‘metre-ing’ are the most independent means of assessment we are aware of; with all the variables involved in possible interpretation of the rules, I’m not sure we will ever settle for a ‘satisfactory’ solution to all parties. Regrets, Toodles

@toodles - I think I should've clarified the reason for my intervention here.

MCS has been permitted to encroach into the field of Planning regulation in that HPs installed by their members are regarded as being permitted within Permitted Development Rights. Therefore no application gets made to the Local Authority, and hence there can be no 'public consultation' which the Committee takes into account.

The premise on which such authority was granted to MCS was that of noise levels.

Topics elsewhere on this forum have already discussed other issues whereby MCS-accredited companies are installing ASHPs such that do not comply with matters which fall under the remit of a Local Planning Authority. Failure to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations is the most obvious one.

So if a group of qualified experts in the field of acoustics are now demonstrating that some HPs themselves cannot meet the noise requirements either, then that undermines the very reason that MCS were permitted to stray into planning matters in the first place. (I haven't put that very well, but I hope it makes sense.)

In the next couple of months the UK will have a new body, the Independent Systems Operator and Planner, ISOP.
The proposal is they have responsibility not only for energy fuels (electricity and gas), but also for heat.

I'm trying to find out whether this means that they are to have oversight of MCS.
If there is evidence that the approach being taken by MCS isn't delivering what's required, it would then be possible for ISOP to change the strategy.

As I currently understand it, the public will have the ability to communicate with ISOP.
Compare that with Ofgem, the Energy Regulator, who reports to the Government (DESNZ) and isn't required to accept submissions from the public (unless they choose to do so as part of a 'Call for Evidence'). The official route for me to approach Ofgem is therefore via my MP, who writes to the Secretary of State for DESNZ, whose staff then put the points to Ofgem.

Sorry if the above is too complex.
I'm looking for ways in which the HP installers can be more effectively regulated, and required to meet the efficiency requirements stipulated within the Building Regs.

OK... I have an update for everyone in this Topic.

I've just had a direct response from one of the authors of the report on noise emissions from HPs.
The Telegraph article which started off this topic hasn't presented the content accurately/fairly.

There's a series of observations & corrections from the authors at Apex Acoustics which we need to read.

Secondly, although findings from the investigation have been shared at the Institute of Acoustics Conference, the Report itself has not (yet) been published.
It has been presented by the authors to DEFRA and the Welsh Government.
It's up to them how/when the contents are released.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

There's a series of observations & corrections from the authors at Apex Acoustics which we need to read.

Secondly, although findings from the investigation have been shared at the Institute of Acoustics Conference, the Report itself has not (yet) been published.

Isn't the report in question linked by the corrections article?

has figure 8 which shows for Q=4 and direct line of sight to the heat pump from the assessment point we require a minimum 4m separation.

Posted by: @chickenbig

↑

Isn't the report in question linked by the corrections article?

No. That's a copy of the paper which the authors delivered at the meeting of Institute of Acoustics.

I'm trying to cautious and not make assumptions about the report itself.
That's where the Telegraph made a mistake!