Council orders removal of permitted development array

Kernel_Sanders

Don't think this has been raised here before. I find this quite alarming; I thought the LA had no say in permitted development that conforms to the guidelines. What are your thoughts? I think that tree is more of an eyesore!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2115850/Council-orders-pensioners-remove-solar-panels-worth-13-000-theyre-reflective-obtrusive.html

jamesingram

goes against planning guidance to not allow it as PD.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/solarpanels/

rogerblack

jamesingram wrote: »

goes against planning guidance to not allow it as PD.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/solarpanels/

Doesn't look quite clear-cut to me, at least according to the letter of the law.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/675/article/2/made - the actual regulations in force.

'solar PV or solar thermal equipment installed on a building shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building'

I presume that the council is arguing that it's quite possible to locate the panels on the north side of the roof.

The legislation clearly does not add 'where this does not compromise the generation', which would have removed doubt.

A freedom of information request to the council in question, asking about how many people they are taking enforcement action against in respect of breaches of the permitted development rules for microgeneration would be interesting.

Cardew

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Don't think this has been raised here before.

Was discussed here - post #1293 onwards

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3325628

EricMears

We have seen it here before (in a couple of threads I think) but it didn't really fit well in topic(s).

Even with 'permitted development', it's always best to contact local council and ask for confirmation that they do indeed regard it as PD. Once you have that letter they can't suddenly turn round and insist it's not.

Have to say that a large tree immediately South of panels does rather compromise the installation. From Google Earth, he would seem to have a largish area at the North side of his house where he could build a garden shed and re-install panels on roof of that. Garden shed occupying less than half area of garden is a PD as would be installation of solar panels on an outbuilding not visible from road but still best to ask council for confirmation of that.

thenudeone

EricMears wrote: »

Once you have that letter they can't suddenly turn round and insist it's not.

A letter from the council is no good because it will clearly state that it's just an opinion (of what the planners might say).

What is required is a "certificate of permitted development", which they will charge for, but once you have that, they cannot change their minds:)

You can apply for one online through the government's planning portal. http://www.planningportal.gov.uk

Unless this house is in a conservation area (which the article doesn't mention) I would have thought the council's case is pretty poor.

jamesingram

Nicked from a post here http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=8867&page=1#Comment_140820

"Applicable national planning guidance:

"...PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development

Supplement to PPS1: Planning and climate change

Renewable and low-carbon energy generation:

20. In particular, planning authorities should:
– not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location
– ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances..."

Get that Mr planning officer...? "...other than in the most exceptional circumstances..."

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppsclimatechange

Hope that helps"

whasup

PD rules are quite clear. Panels are permitted development depending on a number of conditions. Two of those conditions are that they must be sited so as to minimise effect on the external appearance of the property and also on the amenity of the area. I don't think anybody could really say (without crossed fingers behind back) that either of those has been satisfied in this case. My advice would be to appeal the enforcement. If the appeal fails the couple might get a bit back off the contractor - who should have known better. But ultimately planning matters are the responsibility of the householder.

jamesingram

Whasup ,
"so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building'"
Wouldn't be practicable to place them on a N facing pitch.

then why elsewhere they have no problem ?
"Guildford Council interprets the rules in your favour. In this document they give examples..
http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6396&p=0
Bottom of page 5 shows panels on front roof elevation and says..

"As far as practicable the installation has been sited to minimise its effect on the external appearance on the building and amenity AS THE SOUTH FACING ROOF ELEVATION IS THE ONLY VIABLE LOCATION FOR INSTALLING PV" (My bold).

It declares that to be "Permitted Development". "

so they can only argue visual amenity ?

rogerblack

jamesingram wrote: »

then why elsewhere they have no problem ?

Different councils interpret regulations differently.
None - that comply with the letter of the law are 'wrong', though there may be different views across the country.

A very anti-PV head council planning officer may take the view that 'as far as practical' implies that it should go on the north side of the building.

The leaflet you post clearly implies different - but unless it was issued by the relevant council, it's almost irrelevant.

The normal planning appeals process can be followed, and possibly even judicial review - but this may well fail, if the decision has not been made on a completely irrational basis, but is based on the letter of the law, as it seems to be.

Kernel_Sanders

Cardew wrote: »

Was discussed here - post #1293 onwards
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3325628

Thanks Cardew, I see Kevin G raised it; I must have missed the end of that page.

whasup wrote: »

If the appeal fails the couple might get a bit back off the contractor - who should have known better. But ultimately planning matters are the responsibility of the householder.

I don't think that would succeed because it is written in to most contracts that it is assumed the householder has obtained all permissions.