2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2022 by A Edgington BSc (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 December 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/W/22/3297698 2 Stratheden Parade, Blackheath, SE3 7SX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission • The appeal is made by Mr D Waheed against Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref 21/4242/F, is dated 26 November 2021. • The development proposed is external extraction ducting. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for costs 2. The evidence submitted suggests that an application for costs would follow the application. To date nothing has been received. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council notes that it considers that the appellant intends to open a hot food takeaway. This is disputed by the appellant. However, the cover of the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) names Dallas Chicken, a hot food takeaway chain, as one of its commissioning agents.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Future use as a takeaway is also noted within the text of the NIA and the Council’s statement notes that the signage text on the premises is Dallas, famous for chicken and pizza. Nonetheless, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the description on the application form, as set out in the banner. 4. The Council failed to determine this application within the statutory period but has submitted a statement of case at appeal which suggests that the main issues are concerned with the effects of noise and outlook from the extraction equipment on residents of neighbouring flats, and the character and appearance of the conservation area. I see no reason to reach a different conclusion in respect of the main issues. 5. Since the appeal was lodged it has been noted that the appellant no longer has an interest in the premises. However, he has indicated that he wishes the appeal to proceed and as the appeal has not been formally withdrawn, I am obliged to continue with determination. Main Issues 6. The main issues are: https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/22/3297698 ● The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to noise and outlook; and, ● Whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blackheath Conservation Area (BCA). Reasons Living conditions 7. The NIA has carried out a background noise survey taken over a 27 hour period on consecutive midweek days, using one microphone on a flat roof 3.5 metres from the nearest façade. 8. The NIA demonstrates that during the survey period, ambient sound levels in the day are fairly constant at around a level of just above 50 dB(A) with intermittent peaks reaching 60 – 65 dB(A). The ambient noise begins to drop off from around 2100 hours and picks up again at around 0700 hours. 9. I acknowledge that the Council specified that the survey be carried out over a minimum 24 hour period. However, BS4142:20141 states that the objective of carrying out a background survey is to quantify what is typical during particular time periods and that it may be necessary to separately assess weekends and weekday periods. 10.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision This survey was carried out to support an application for extraction ducting for a restaurant. In my experience restaurants in residential areas generally have greater footfall at weekends and the characteristics of the background noise might also be different at weekends. As such, the survey is not necessarily representative of what is typical during the hours of the equipment’s operation. 11. Consequently, and although the NIA states that the plant noise emissions will be limited to 48 dB(A) which is broadly consistent with or lower than the ambient noise levels, I am unable to reach any conclusion with regard to background noise levels over the periods the ducting would be operational outside the survey period. 12. Moreover, no penalty has been applied to the plant noise assessment to account for distinctive sound against the residual acoustic background. The NIA justifies this on the grounds that the plant units are considered to be generally broadband and continuous in nature. However, it is recognised that people vary in their sensitivity to noise and a continuous mechanical noise might be intrusive even if it is not perceived to be louder than background noise. 13.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Moreover, whilst the equipment cannot be measured in situ, there is nothing before me to indicate that the objective methods of assessing audibility as set out in BS 4142: 2014 have been undertaken to substantiate those conclusions. Furthermore, the noise emissions data was provided by the appellant, rather than the manufacturer. It is unclear how much weight can be given to this data as it does not come from an independent source. The manufacturers data submitted for the specific plant proposed for this appeal does not include any mention of noise output, only that the equipment is ‘low noise’. 1 BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Moreover, whilst the equipment cannot be measured in situ, there is nothing before me to indicate that the objective methods of assessing audibility as set out in BS 4142: 2014 have been undertaken to substantiate those conclusions. Furthermore, the noise emissions data was provided by the appellant, rather than the manufacturer. It is unclear how much weight can be given to this data as it does not come from an independent source. The manufacturers data submitted for the specific plant proposed for this appeal does not include any mention of noise output, only that the equipment is ‘low noise’. 1 BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/22/3297698 14. Nonetheless, the NIA concludes that the likely noise output from the extract and intake fans will be higher than background levels and recommends attenuators on both the extract and intake fans, as well as acoustic cladding. This will ensure, according to the NIA, that emissions will not exceed 48 dB(A). 15. However, given the lack of information regarding primary data for noise emissions, I am unable to give full weight to the NIA and its conclusions. Furthermore, as set out above there is nothing before me to suggest that the results of the background noise survey are consistent throughout all periods when the extraction ducting would be operational. 16. The Council has noted that its criteria requires plant to be designed to meet a level of 10 dB less than background noise. However, although the Council referred during the appeal to Section 9 of BS 4142: 1997 in this regard, this BS predates the current BS 4142. This states at Section 11 that a difference of around +10dB between the specific sound and the background sound level is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The text goes on to state that where the rating level of the specific sound source does not exceed the background sound level, this is an indication of the specific sound source having a low impact. As such, if the NIA contained compelling evidence suggesting that the likely emissions were not greater than the background levels, as is the appellant’s argument, the BS suggests that there would not be any adverse impact. However, this does not alter my reasoning with regard to the selectivity of the background survey and the accuracy of the emissions data. 17. I conclude that it is likely that there would be some harm to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with regard to noise. 18. There are windows overlooking the rear of No 2. Although the rear of the terrace has a utilitarian appearance with pipework and service cabinets, the ducting, particularly with associated lagging, would introduce a distinctly industrial appearance. Moreover, the plans suggest that the equipment could not be fixed flush with the wall as a consequence of the pipes and service cabinets. This would exacerbate the unsightliness of the proposals and would therefore be detrimental to the outlook of adjoining occupiers. 19.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision As such, the development would be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to noise and outlook. This would be contrary to Policy DH(b) of the Local Plan (LP) with regard to outlook, as well as Policy E(a) of the Core Strategy (CS) and Policy D14 of the London Plan. These, taken together, seek to prevent harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers with regard to unacceptable emissions of noise amongst other pollutants. The development would also conflict with Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires development to have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conservation Area 20. Neither party has provided particular evidence in relation to the BCA. However, I conclude that the significance of the BCA is derived from its quality period dwellings and commercial premises which contribute to a highly distinctive and attractive street scene. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/22/3297698 21. Number 2 is located towards the end of a purpose-built parade of shops, built in the first half of the 20th century in a Queen Anne revival style with brick, broken pediment window heads and English bond brickwork with herringbone infill panels. Stratheden Parade’s principal elevation, being prominently positioned at a major road junction, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the BCA. 22. The ducting would be mounted on the flank wall of a rear outrigger. It would be visible mainly to the occupiers of flatted accommodation above the ground floor shops. However, lack of visibility from the public realm does not necessarily weigh in favour of harmful development, as no distinction is made in the relevant legislation. 23. The plans suggest that the ducting could not be mounted flush to the wall as there are downpipes and service cabinets in the way. This will add to the ducting‘s perceived overall bulk, which will be increased by the recommended lagging. 24.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Although the rear of the terrace is already utilitarian and two premises in the terrace also have external ducting, the development will neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the BCA. As such, there would be conflict with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which would amount to less than substantial harm. I acknowledge that the harm would be very much at the lower end of a notional scale of such harm, but Paragraph 199 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation, irrespective of the degree of harm. 25. There would also be conflict with the design aims of LP Policies DH1 and 3, and Policy HC1.C of the London Plan, which is concerned with the safeguarding of heritage assets. 26. Paragraph 202 of the Framework states that where there is less than substantial harm the development this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant argues that use of the premises as a restaurant would contribute to the area’s viability and vitality but there is no substantiated evidence in this regard.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Moreover, interested parties have highlighted that there are three fast food shops in the near vicinity. I acknowledge that there has been some support for the proposals although this seems to be based on the presumption that the premises is to be used as a hot foot takeaway rather than particular support for the ducting, which is the appeal before me. I conclude that the public benefits arising from the development do not outweigh the harm to the BCA. Conclusion 27. As I have found harm in relation to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring residences, as well as to the BCA, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

2 Stratheden Parade, LONDON, SE3 7SX — Royal Borough of Greenwich — A Edgington INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4