MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

dozydave2

Hi All,
Have a large south facing roof on our house in cornwall ideal for solar.
We have Approx £12k put aside for this.
We were just going to post a message on what panels ,any recommendations for fitting and any advise,etc.now just read we have missed out on feed in tariff.
Any thoughts please.(not political please).
Thanks

zeupater

dozydave2 wrote: »

Hi All,
Have a large south facing roof on our house in cornwall ideal for solar.
We have Approx £12k put aside for this.
We were just going to post a message on what panels ,any recommendations for fitting and any advise,etc.now just read we have missed out on feed in tariff.
Any thoughts please.(not political please).
Thanks

Hi

If you haven't really started researching yet just sit back and watch the market for a couple of months whilst prices stabalize .... where your £12k budget will buy a 4kWp system now, it'll likely buy you the same system and a small conservatory in a few months time ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

digitaltoast wrote: »

It's the subsidy of PV. To expand.... what Graham says just above this post, basically!

So following the logic that the subsidies are being rapidly reduced as the market develops, is it possible that the initial high level of subsidy has provided a very quick kick-start to the sector which a lower level of subsidy may not have done ? .... can it also be that the overall cost of the higher subsidy could therefore be lower than one which was smaller, not as effective and therefore more prolonged ? ... and if there were no subsidy within the forseeable future you would consider buying ?

HTH
Z

planning_officer

LV_Sue wrote: »

No, the houses are not in conservation area/national park, listed buildings or have very old roofs. It's just our Council deciding they can make some extra money out of their poor Council Tax payers. There are at least 2 householders that I know of in the area that are taking the Council to court over their demand that the home owners remove their solar panels because they didn't have permission to install them! Neither of them in a Conservation area either!
I will ring my local council in the morning though and try to speak to the planning director as you suggest . Thanks.

The £75 is the national fee for a Lawful Development Certificate - this is the ONLY way of obtaining a formal decision from the Council as to whether the solar panels need planning permission from them, or whether they are permitted development (PD). An informal letter from a planning officer means diddly squat and has no legal standing. However, a Certificate is not compulsory - if you think they are PD then don't bother with the Certificate. However, if you do want one, then you have to pay £75 - it's the same at every Council. No point in complaining to the Planning Director! Providing an opinion whether something requires planning permission is not a service that Councils have to provide, it's discretionary - but if they do provide the service then it falls as a general cost to the taxpayer, when it only benefits a minority - now that is unfair! Hence why most Councils now insist on someone submitting an application for a Lawful Development Certificate.

Also, homeowners wouldn't take a Council to court over not removing panels. It only becomes an offence if the Council was to serve an Enforcement Notice - and the terms of the Notice aren't complied with. You don't go to court to appeal this - an appeal is heard via an independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.

digitaltoast

zeupater wrote: »

So following the logic that the subsidies are being rapidly reduced as the market develops, is it possible that the initial high level of subsidy has provided a very quick kick-start to the sector which a lower level of subsidy may not have done ? .... can it also be that the overall cost of the higher subsidy could therefore be lower than one which was smaller, not as effective and therefore more prolonged ? ... and if there were no subsidy within the forseeable future you would consider buying ?

Not sure I follow. The FiT was a bribe. I wouldn't consider buying either way. The whole pack of cards is too wobbly.

You know, I saw a very old episode of the Simpsons recently. Ah, thanks interweb, for this synopsis:

Mr. Burns creates a formula for bankruptcy to save his money. He
asks Smithers to sink fifty percent of his money into obviously bad
stocks and asks the rest to be invested in the Baltimore Opera Hat
company. "That should set things right again, eh, boys?" Mr. Burns
asks. The yes-men do what yes-men do, say "Yes." As soon as Mr.
Burns is gone, everyone assumes worried expressions.

Sound familiar? To flog another analogy that's been done here before, perhaps we could invest in Cribbins Hole Diggers Ltd.
The government will invest £8.2bn of taxpayers money into Cribbins Hole Diggers Ltd who will dig potholes, and then subcontract out to Amalgamated Potholes, Inc., to fill them back in. Look at all that employment! What a great start to the industry!

Let the great man himself explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGk4AKOwJbc

tiz

We signed a contract and paid a £1800 deposit on 9th October, and have an estimated install date of 27-29th Nov, subject to the panel delivery. It's already been pushed back because of availability issues.

As I understand it at the moment if our install is pushed back or the certificate not filed in time (The Energy Saving Trust suggest allowing 10 working days) we're stuck with the new tariff even though we calculated our figures and signed the contract under the old terms. Other than crossing our fingers, the only option is to back out and lose the deposit.

John_Pierpoint

planning_officer wrote: »

The £75 is the national fee for a Lawful Development Certificate - this is the ONLY way of obtaining a formal decision from the Council as to whether the solar panels need planning permission from them, or whether they are permitted development (PD). An informal letter from a planning officer means diddly squat and has no legal standing. However, a Certificate is not compulsory - if you think they are PD then don't bother with the Certificate. However, if you do want one, then you have to pay £75 - it's the same at every Council. No point in complaining to the Planning Director! Providing an opinion whether something requires planning permission is not a service that Councils have to provide, it's discretionary - but if they do provide the service then it falls as a general cost to the taxpayer, when it only benefits a minority - now that is unfair! Hence why most Councils now insist on someone submitting an application for a Lawful Development Certificate.

Also, homeowners wouldn't take a Council to court over not removing panels. It only becomes an offence if the Council was to serve an Enforcement Notice - and the terms of the Notice aren't complied with. You don't go to court to appeal this - an appeal is heard via an independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Presumably if the local authority was to fail to take action against what might NOT be a breech of planning regulations for 4 years, then the action would be statute barred.
[Having witnessed my local authority ineffectively ignoring neighbouring serious planning breaches, and then belatedly throwing money at the "problem", and failing; I would be very upset if they now tried to take action against taxpayers solar panels.]

However, beware of arguments about building regulations and roofs without an expensive engineer's report to say they can carry the extra 20 KG per sq mt ?!? (Concrete tile roofs can typically be supporting 50 KG per sq mt) plus wind plus snow.

John_Pierpoint

digitaltoast wrote: »

Why would you be thinking of plutonium?
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

What a powerful polemic in favour of Thorium.

If it is that simple, why are we still waiting for a concept recognised decades ago?

As a baby boomer I have spent my entire life being promised power supplies "too cheap to meter", as the research community produces one economic failure after another, using my taxes as their seed corn.

I pays my money they take their choices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me"

zeupater

digitaltoast wrote: »

Not sure I follow. The FiT was a bribe. I wouldn't consider buying either way. The whole pack of cards is too wobbly.

You know, I saw a very old episode of the Simpsons recently. Ah, thanks interweb, for this synopsis:



Sound familiar? To flog another analogy that's been done here before, perhaps we could invest in Cribbins Hole Diggers Ltd.
The government will invest £8.2bn of taxpayers money into Cribbins Hole Diggers Ltd who will dig potholes, and then subcontract out to Amalgamated Potholes, Inc., to fill them back in. Look at all that employment! What a great start to the industry!

Let the great man himself explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGk4AKOwJbc

Hi

Most call it subsidy, some may cause it a bribe, however, as the FiT tariff doesn't constitute the usual differences between the incentive of subsidy and the additional linked traits associated with the incentive of bribe, these including underhanded, dishonest, illegal, hidden etc, then it surely is a true subsidy ....

Regarding the pack of cards ..... without a FiT system what makes the cards wobbly ? .... surely, in it's very basic form, pv without FiT is just a plug in consumer item which generates instead of consumes and can therefore be no more 'wobbly' than the screen you are viewing this on ....

Looking at the analogy to potholes .... could it possibly be that as a result of a correctly targetted time limited subsidy to establish and train an efficient and technically competent hole digging and hole filling industry the ongoing annual cost to HM Treasury, the economy, utility companies, builders, motorists and insurance companies could possibly reduce due to the improvements which would result ? .... perhaps there would be a payback time on that subsidy too .... just think, as a result of fast and efficient repairs, no more cones on the motorways ... bliss ..... :cool:

HTH
Z

jamesd

tiz wrote: »

Other than crossing our fingers, the only option is to back out and lose the deposit.

Check for a force majeure clause in the contract.

dozydave2 wrote: »

Have a large south facing roof on our house in cornwall ideal for solar. We have Approx £12k put aside for this. We were just going to post a message on what panels ,any recommendations for fitting and any advise,etc.now just read we have missed out on feed in tariff.

Wait a few years. Panel technology and pricing is developing rapidly and it's a waste of money and roof space to buy technology that will soon be old fashioned and which is more costly than it needs to be. There's no need to be an early bird for something like this.

If you're impatient, at a minimum wait say six months for the shakeout among installers that may result in a serious price war.