A proposed Newcastle flat beside a takeaway extraction flue has been refused on appeal because the promised noise and odour measures had not been shown to work.
The appellant’s own assessment detected odour at one proposed bedroom for 90% of the assessment period. Sealed windows, secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation did not satisfy the Inspector that future residents would be adequately protected.
Inspector Paul Martinson dismissed Lewis Davison’s appeal 6005950 at Grainger Street on 24th September 2026. An uncertain future alteration to the neighbouring flue could not rescue the scheme through a planning condition.
A Newcastle flat with bedrooms beside the flue
The proposal would convert a former Skipton Building Society staff room and office, in Class E use, into one Class C3 flat on the first floor. Other flats already occupied parts of the building.
At the rear, the property adjoins Grainger Market. A takeaway flue rises through a lean-to roof and curves towards the two windows which would serve the new bedrooms.
Its position in a confined dip would hinder the dispersal of odours. The existing obscure glazing and security bars would be replaced by clear glazing without the bars.
The odour assessment recorded substantial effects at proposed Bedroom 1, where odour was present 90% of the time assessed. That is the assessment finding, not a claim about exposure throughout the year.
The noise assessment also found exceedances of daytime and night-time World Health Organization guideline limits. The Inspector noted that the business’s current hours could change: its licence allowed operation until 11pm.
Sealing the windows did not answer every concern
The proposed measures included refurbished sealed windows, secondary glazing with a 200mm gap and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, using an air intake at roof level.
The windows could still open for purge ventilation. Martinson was concerned that residents might want them open for longer, including in warm weather, and be forced to shut them because of noise and smells.
Given the age of the building and the flue’s proximity, odour was also considered likely to enter despite the proposed sealing and ventilation works.
A condition could secure details, not an unproven solution
The appellant proposed remedial work to the flue, to be secured through a Grampian-style condition. No proposed wording for that condition was supplied.
The noise report suggested an in-duct attenuator, but did not demonstrate its precise effect. Possible odour measures included a taller flue, directional cowls, filtration and neutralisation. It remained unclear whether these would work, or simply transfer problems to flats above.
Martinson found there is a lack of detail or clarity over which mitigation methods would be employed
. Before relying on a condition, he needed evidence of the form of the solution, its effectiveness and whether it could actually operate with this flue in this location.
The takeaway operator had given permission in principle for remedial work, subject to reviewing drawings and specifications. This was therefore not simply a refusal caused by a neighbour withholding consent. The technical solution itself remained unproven.
Applying the 2026 NPPF’s agent-of-change policy, the Inspector could not be satisfied either that the flat would provide acceptable living conditions or that it would avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on the existing business. Our noise in planning guide explains the wider assessment requirements.
The building’s Grade I listing and conservation-area setting were not the reason for dismissal. The limited alterations were acceptable in heritage terms, subject to suitable conditions. It was the unresolved relationship between the new bedrooms and the existing extraction flue that defeated the proposal.
0 Comments