Village heat pump deemed too noisy

A homeowner’s second attempt to win permission for an eco-friendly heating system has again been rejected by council planners.

Planners at Telford & Wrekin Council said they did not have enough information to decide if the air source heat pump at Kynnersley would cause noise pollution to a neighbour.

The first attempt to win retrospective permission for the heat pump had been rejected by a planning inspector when he appealed against the council’s original rejection.

The planning inspector had ruled in November last year that the “undoubted environmental and energy efficiency benefits do not outweigh the
noise objection”.

The inspector said that a professional assessment would be needed after a neighbour provided information that contradicted the applicant’s information.

Applicant David Bromley made a second attempt in May this year, including an assessment that it would produce 41 decibels of sound, within the allowed limit of 42 decibels.

But the neighbours again disagreed, with Alan Paulley saying it was a ‘misrepresentation of the reality’, and claimed that the system generated more noise.

He added: “We do not believe that the data supplied as part of this application demonstrates that there would be no significant adverse impact on local amenity, health and quality of life. Fundamentally nothing has changed.”

But Mrs Sue Bromley told planners that they have “fully complied with and completed all professional noise assessments in accordance with the standards outlined by Telford & Wrekin Council”.

She added that the “costs associated with these ongoing efforts are progressively mounting”.

“Should anyone wish to discuss this matter in more detail, we would be pleased to engage in further conversation.”

The local parish council got involved too, and added its objections.

The parish told planners that “Kynnersley Parish Council continues to object to this application as the location within the site has not been changed since the Inspectorate agreed that permission should not be granted”.

Planners in their decision note issued on Monday (July 14) again said that they consider that “insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties by way of noise pollution”.

The planners added that they had raised matters of concern with the applicant but “in this case it has not been possible to arrive at a satisfactory resolution”.