Air conditioning units

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 February 2026 by L Fern BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002396 34A Sixth Avenue, Manor Park, Newham, London E12 5PP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by William Knox-Walker against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham. • The application Ref is 25/01546/HH. • The development is described as “air conditioning units”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Both air conditioning units were present at the time of my site visit and had been installed broadly in-line with the submitted plans. Notwithstanding, I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ from the description of development in the banner heading above given that it is not an act of development. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • the effect of the air conditioning units on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the air conditioning units on the living conditions of the occupants of 36 Sixth Avenue (No 36) regarding noise and disturbance. Reasons 4. No 34A Sixth Avenue (No 34A) is a mid-terraced residential property that is the last in a line of more modern dwellings, beyond which are Edwardian. The line of contemporary properties is particularly regimented and distinctive in front elevational design compared to the wider surrounds. Very few changes have been made to the original scheme, which creates a sense of organisation within this part of Sixth Avenue. 5. Two air conditioning units have been installed at first floor level: one on the front elevation; and another on a side elevation of the projection to the rear of the property. Both units are close to the residential first floor windows of No 36. Appeal Decision 6002396 2 Character and appearance 6. Despite similar units becoming more regularly occurring features on properties, they remain functional and industrial in appearance and are generally box-like, projecting outwards from their mountings. Due to the front unit being at an elevated position, it is prominent within the street scene and appears as an alien feature on a property that is otherwise consistent in appearance with its contemporary neighbours. It is therefore at odds with the prevailing appearance and character of this part of Sixth Avenue. 7. Painting the unit to match the existing brickwork would help the unit blend into its background. However, I am not convinced that this would provide sufficient mitigation given that elements of the unit, such as the fan and its protruding box- shape, would likely remain particularly noticeable given its elevated position and location on a part of the front wall that is otherwise set back and consistent with the other similar properties on this part of the terrace. 8. The unit to the rear of the property is more discrete being located on a side elevation and is largely obscured from the street scene by built development. I am therefore content that this unit does not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 9. For the above reasons, the front air conditioning unit is harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (the London Plan) and Policies SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan (2018) (the LP). These policies, amongst other things, provide support for development that is of a high quality of design, which respects, takes advantages of, and enhances the positive elements and distinctive features of the borough, and that integrates with the street scene. Living conditions 10. The appellant has submitted a Noise Impact Assessment1 (NIA). Given the proximity of the units to the windows of No 36, and therefore sensitive receivers in the form of the property’s occupants, it is imperative that the noise assessment is based on an accurate account of the prevailing environment as though the air conditioning units were not present. However, it is unclear whether the air conditioning units were operating during the background noise survey, which forms the basis of the assessment. Without such reassurance, I am not content that the NIA is based on accurate data and I cannot therefore be convinced that the development adequately addresses the issue of noise and disturbance. 11. A condition could be included to exclude the use of the air conditioning units during nighttime hours (in this case between 23:00 and 07:00). However, there remains the potential for unacceptable noise disturbance to occur outside of those hours, and such a restriction would therefore not be sufficient to alleviate my concerns regarding the potential inaccuracy of the NIA. Similarly, the implementation of mitigation in the form of acoustic enclosures and/or the use of silent modes could be conditioned, but without reassurance that the NIA in accurate, I am unable to determine whether such measures would be effective. 1 Ref 20561-NIA-01-AA-R0, prepared by Clement Acoustics. Appeal Decision 6002396 3 12. For the above reasons, I am not convinced that the development protects the living conditions of the occupants of No 36 from the effects of noise and disturbance. Consequently, the development is contrary to London Plan Policy D14 and LP Policy SP8, which, amongst other things, expect development to promote neighbourliness by avoiding unacceptable exposure to noise and disturbance. Other Matters 13. It is acknowledged that the appellants experience overheating of their property, particularly during warmer weather, due to its terraced nature and its relatively modern build. The air conditioning units provide an energy efficient and effective way to alleviate the issue. However, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that other less harmful locations for the units have been considered. 14. Similar air conditioning units are present in the wider area. Nevertheless, they are in different contexts to the appeal site. Some relate to commercial properties, whilst others are in more discrete locations at ground floor level or are partially obscured from view by plot boundary treatments. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that they are lawful. I have therefore determined this appeal on its own merits and specific site context. 15. Furthermore, it is noted that the units have been installed for several months without complaint. However, a lack of documented concern does not equate to a lack of harm, and I have determined this appeal on its own planning merits. Conclusion 16. The development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Thus, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. L Fern INSPECTOR