Planning Permission for Air Conditioning Units

[Equus]

Someone has sent me a PM:

which said:

I'm planning to fit aircon to my house. I hear that if you want more than one outside box you need PP. Is that true? Are there any other pertinent regs?

I'm not terribly happy answering this sort of specific question off-forum because:

a) On-forum, I can choose whether to participate in a discussion or not; others can challenge my advice, and I get as much from the participation of others as (hopefully) some people get from me. It's a bit infra dig to expect a professional to give free, personal advice by private request.

b) The only way I have of responding to PM's is via my work email account, which introduces all sorts of issues of professional liability for any advice I might give. Our PI insurance doesn't cover me unless we have a contract in place (ie. we're getting paid for it). Read the disclaimer on my profile!



However; to answer the question in public, where others can debate or challenge if they wish:


Contrary to what most suppliers/installers would have you believe, IMO you should assume that you will require full Planning Permission for any air conditioning installation.

This is because the only provision in the GPDO which might otherwise apply is Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, (“The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse”), but this stipulates that “the materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”. So unless your house happens to look like a very large refrigerator, generally speaking, you’re stuffed.

There is an exception where the unit is so small or so well concealed that its impact on the appearance of the dwelling can be considered ‘de minimis’ (below the notice of the law) as allowed by Article 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act (“improvement or other alteration of any building of works which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building”), but this is a matter for individual judgement, so I wouldn’t make assumptions about it without seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness from the LPA for the specific installation you have in mind.



Air Source Heat Pumps (which are visually very similar and have similar noise impacts, of course) have a section of the GPDO all of their own (Schedule 2, Part 14, Class G), but this specifically prohibits (among many other criteria):

• The presence of more than one ASHP on the same building or within the curtilage of the same building (which is probably where you ‘heard’ that more than one air conditioning unit requires PP... it's a misinterpretation of the rules on Air Source Heat Pumps);

But most importantly in terms of your question:

• the air source heat pump must be used solely for heating purposes.

...Which obviously automatically and instantly rules out any unit used for air conditioning/cooling purposes.

The full list of rules and exceptions for Air Source Heat Pumps is HERE

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 24th August 23:04

[Equus]

Simpo Two said:

If the council should subsequently discover one's illegal a/c installation, who is liable - the owner or the installer who told them PP wasn't needed?

If the council chooses to enforce or insist upon a retrospective planning application, then that sits against the owner of the property. I suppose that theoretically the property owner could try to sue the installer for their bad advice, to recover their costs, but unless you've got that advice in writing, without caveat, I wouldn't count on it being successful and the cost and trouble of doing so would probably exceed the benefit.

Simpo Two said:

That leads us to:

1) Retrospective PP - how much and what probability of success?
2) PP denied - owner forced to rip out a/c?

How much would proactive ie normal PP be?

Both normal and retrospective PP would cost the same (£238.20 if you submit via the Planning Portal).

Chance of success? Gimme a bit of string, and I'll tell you how long it is.

If I were a Planner, I'd be measuring the impact against the PD allowances for ASHP's in terms of visual impact and impact on amenity, but then weighting my decision somewhat against the air conditioning installation on the grounds that it is environmentally harmful rather than environmentally beneficial.

In other words: logically, the chance of success should be lower than it would be for an equivalent ASHP installation, whatever that is. But there would have to be some demostrable harm - either visual impact or noise impact on neighbouring amenity - for them to refuse.

I know some LPA's who are taking quite a tough stance even on ASHP's, because the Government's big push to get people to install them is causing a surge in complaints to their EHO's about noise nuisance.

And yes, retrospective PP denied = Enforcement Notice requiring removal of the equipment.

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 24th August 23:16

[Equus]

bogie said:

We have recently had air conditioning installed in a few rooms, with 2 external units, both hidden from view. We were led to believe that its "permitted development" as we are not in a conservation area or listed. All the FAQs I can find online state something similar:

https://www.d-air-conditioning.co.uk/air-condition...

I'm betting (having just run a similar search myself) that the hits you are getting on page 1 of Google are all from companies selling AC equipment.

Try scrolling down a page or two and you'll get hits from Planning-related sources, which you'll find will conform to what I have said.

Try scrolling a page or two further and you'll start getting hits from LPA websites for retrospective Planning applications from people who have learned that to their cost...

In fairness, you do need to bear in mind that traditionally most of the market for air con on UK buildings is for non-domestic situations, and the Permitted Development rules on (for example) offices, shops or industrial buildings do not (unless they are on Article 2(3) land) include the 'similar materials' requirement that trips everyone up on residential installations... so for non-domestic premises, the companies are actually correct in saying that the work is generally covered by Permitted Development.

[Equus]

RammyMP said:

We’ve fitted a load to rural properties lately, I checked with the local planners and they all said it’s permitted development as long as you install only one external fan unit and it’s over a metre from the property boundary.

You need to ask them where they source that information.

It isn't up to Local Planning Authorities themselves: the rules are set out in the GPDO.

I stand to be corrected, but the only reference I can find in the GPDO to the metre-from-boundary measurement or the single external fan unit is under Schedule 2, Part 14, Class G, which as set out above makes it clear that the unit must be used for heating only.

Schedule 2 is available for all to read HERE.

If you can find anything in there that says single fan units over a metre from the property boundary are acceptable for air conditioning (not heating) on domestic dwellings, let me know.

[Equus]

Starfighter said:

This could get more interesting when everyone is needing to get air-source heat pumps in a few years. Especially as you can run some “backwards” to cool rooms as well as heat them.

As I mentioned above, that's already starting to happen: even the PD rules on ASHP's are not straightforward, and I'm aware of certain LPA's (mainly in London; bearing in mind that enforcement is largely reactive, and London is by far the best place for finding a neighbour who wants to stab you in the back) who are starting to take a keen interest in enforcing breaches of those rules.

Could well be the next 'problem child' to follow on from leylandii hedges and raised decking.

[Equus]

RammyMP said:

Yes, sorry, the units we are installing are primarily for heating

If you're involved with installing, you should presumably be familiar with THIS document?

[Equus]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

However … if an ashp is allowed for heating then given the external units are basically the same then on what grounds could a unit be challenged ?

As covered in my second post.

All development has some adverse impact. The job of the Planning system is to weigh the positives against the negatives. Planners even talk about the 'Planning balance'.

The whole of Part 14 of the GPDO (which covers renewable energy - not just heat pumps but solar, wind turbines and biomass) is predicated on striking the right balance between the adverse impacts of the development (visual, noise) versus the environmental benefits of exploiting renewable energy.

In short, with air conditioning there is no 'versus'... air conditioning increases rather than decreases overall energy consumption and carbon footprint.

In Planning terms, there's no upside to balance against the downside.

[Equus]

andy_ran said:

I see so many houses with AC in now, I cant for the life of me think they have all applied for PP to have them installed...

Clearly, they haven't. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have.

As above: Planning enforcement is almost entirely reactive - LPA's are in meltdown just trying to cope with the stuff they've got to do, without going out looking for extra work - but they do have a legal obligation to investigate breaches of Planning where they are reported to them. With air-con/ASHP's, this will usually be due to noise nuisance (and of course air con is worse in this respect, too, because it's likely to be working at its hardest when temperatures are high and neighbours have their doors and windows open for cooling).

Also as above, though: LPA's are getting more complaints (therefore taking a keener interest in enforcement) due to the Government's push for ASHP's.

[Equus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

"Requires Planning Permission" does not equal "cannot be installed", by any stretch of the imagination.

[Equus]

Bluemondy said:

Any ideas or thoughts on the type of people whom might take this type of query on?

Any (Chartered) Planning Consultant will be able to submit a retrospective application on your behalf, though they'll need drawings which not all are able to produce.

Beware that the title of 'Planning Consultant', unlike that of Architect, is not protected by law, so anyone can operate a business as such, with no qualifications or experience whatsoever. Look for the RTPI logo on their website, or MRTPI as a qualification.

[Equus]

Simpo Two said:

Unless you're Tesco and promise to pay for a school, or a new bridge.

I don't think they do that to mitigate the impact of air conditioning units.

[Equus]

Simpo Two said:

if the a/c is powered by electricity - which it is - and that electricity comes from renewables - then the 'carbon footprint' must be zero...

Are you willing to enter into a Unilateral Undertaking that the property can only ever be run on 100% renewable electricity, with a covenant to that effect that will be passed to future owners?

If so, then by alll means use that justification on the Planning Statement that you submit with your Planning Application.