Installation of external air-conditioning unit

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2026 by John Pearce MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005762 22 Salsify Avenue, Henley Gate, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 6FD • 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 Mr Carl Webb-Snowling against the decision of Ipswich Borough Council. • The application Ref is IP/25/00662/FUL. • The development proposed is the installation of external air-conditioning unit. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Installation of external air-conditioning unit at 22 Salsify Avenue, Henley Gate, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 6FD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref IP/25/00662/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The level of noise emitted from the approved unit shall not exceed 37 dB LAeq, T free field equivalent, as measured 1 metre in front of the nearest window of any neighbouring property. 2) In the event that the air conditioning unit and associated infrastructure hereby approved becomes redundant or is no longer required for its intended purposes, the air conditioning unit and all associated infrastructure shall be removed from the site and the wall restored to its former condition within 3 months of the apparatus becoming redundant. Preliminary Matter 2. The application form states that the development has already taken place. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought retrospectively for the development. I have amended the description of development in the banner heading and my formal decision to remove reference to being retrospective as this is not an act of development under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring dwellings, with regard to noise and disturbance. Appeal Decision 6005762 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling fronting Salsify Avenue. The dwelling is within a large residential estate, known as Henley Gate, which is part of the Ipswich Garden Suburb (IGS). The area primarily consists of two-storey dwellings fronting the estate roads. To the side of the site is a cycle and pedestrian path linking Salsify Avenue to Thistledown Crescent and Henley Road. Given the relatively young age of the estate, other than windows the side elevations are largely blank façades. 5. The development is for an air conditioning unit attached to the side elevation of the dwelling. The unit sits on brackets protruding from the wall and is set back from the front elevation. The unit is visible from the path to the side of the site and from viewpoints in Salsify Avenue. However, visibility is not analogous to harm. Whilst the unit introduces a feature on an otherwise black façade, the presence of domestic paraphernalia on the side of a dwelling is not out of context with the prevailing residential character of the area. Moreover, given the limited additions to the side elevations, the provision of an air conditioning unit does not harmfully clutter the façade. 6. The Council produced the IGS Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (SPD), which provides comprehensive supplementary planning and design guidance for the masterplanning of the urban extension. The SPD notes that it is to be considered as a material consideration for use in the determination of planning applications for land at the IGS. Nevertheless, the SPD provides limited guidance in respect of development such as the air conditioning unit. In any event, given the limited size of the unit, and the retention of the otherwise blank side façade, the development does not harm the overall character and appearance of the wider estate. 7. I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore accords with Policies DM12 and CS10 of the Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review 2022 (LP), which collectively require all new development to be well-designed and sustainable and to demonstrate how they have had regard to the principles, objectives and vision of the adopted SPD. Living conditions 8. The air conditioning unit is sited on the side elevation facing towards the side of the neighbouring dwelling at No 24 Salsify Avenue (No 24). The site is separated from No 24 by the pedestrian and cycle path with soft landscaping on either side. The side elevation of No 24 has a first floor window and the parties agree that this serves an en-suite bathroom. 9. The appellant provided an Environmental Noise Assessment1, which concluded that the rating level at the first floor window is 7.1 dB above typical background level, and acknowledges that this indicates an impact. Nonetheless, there is no dispute that the noise generated by the unit currently poses no adverse impact on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties. 1 Dated 10 October 2025, prepared by Sound Acoustics Limited. Appeal Decision 6005762 3 10. The potential lack of maintenance of the unit, or its deterioration over, may lead to an increase in noise levels over time. Whilst this could happen, it is likely that for the unit to operate effectively, it would be necessary for it to be well-maintained in the future. Accordingly, the potential for future lack of maintenance or deterioration would be limited. The Council has suggested a condition in the event that the appeal is allowed, to limit the sound levels when measured from the nearest window. This would provide an ongoing safeguard of the living conditions for both existing and future occupants of neighbouring dwellings. 11. I conclude that the development does not harm the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring dwellings, with regard to noise and disturbance. The development therefore accords with Policies DM16 and DM18 of the LP, which collectively seek to not adversely affect residential amenity in terms of noise and disturbance and protect the quality of life of occupiers and neighbours. Other Matter 12. Schedule 7A of the Act introduced a statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April 2024. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the Biodiversity Gain Condition (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. However, the Planning Practice Guidance states that the BGC does not apply to householder development, such as this development. Conditions 13. As the development has already taken place, it is not necessary to impose a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 14. A condition requiring the sound level to be limited at the neighbouring property is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of existing and future occupants of the property. A condition requiring the removal of the unit if it becomes redundant is also necessary. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. John Pearce INSPECTOR