Council orders removal of permitted development array

jamesingram

I notice from the DM article it's as a result of a single complaint.
Should one complaint be enough to go against generally followed national planning guidance?
It's clear most councils choose to interpret this guidance in the way Guilford have clarified in thier leaflet.

rogerblack

jamesingram wrote: »

I notice from the DM article it's as a result of a single complaint.
Should one complaint be enough to go against generally follow national planning guidance?

Of course one complaint should be enough to cause the council to look at any case, and apply their rules.

It's a separate issue if those rules are correct, or proportional.

whasup

Most television and printed adverts specifically say that PV panels do not need dierct sunlight - just daylight. On that basis are the council not justified in saying that a North facing location is adequate?

EricMears

whasup wrote: »

Most television and printed adverts specifically say that PV panels do not need dierct sunlight - just daylight. On that basis are the council not justified in saying that a North facing location is adequate?

The things produce some electricity in indirect light but for maximum generation need as much light as possible - hence need to be South facing.

Cardew

whasup wrote: »

Most television and printed adverts specifically say that PV panels do not need dierct sunlight - just daylight. On that basis are the council not justified in saying that a North facing location is adequate?

Isn't that more for Solar Thermal?

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Isn't that more for Solar Thermal?

The principle is the same: Any light is good; more is better; as much as possible is best.

larkim

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

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

I'll bet they are more of a problem simply because they are in a bungalow and possibly reflect directly into the front room of the home owner opposite. I'm sure there is a good reason for their reflectivity (surely any light reflected = wasted energy?) and it sounds just like they have been unlucky to have a complaining neighbour (they never give their sides of the story in such articles, do they!) and a petulant council. I wonder if it is a local Tory Party member living opposite?

(Bury is my old stomping ground, I know something of the local area and politics!)

Matt

davidanddeirdre

We've had panels for just over a year. Before installation, I rang East Riding planning dept for a view, and they told me I did not need PP, not being in a conservation area or listed. They said I could write and tell them I was having them installed, but that would purely be for courtesy. I chose not to, as it simply would add to work for all concerned.
Do we know what the situation is now with the array in question? Is the householder contesting the ruling?

EricMears

larkim wrote: »

I'm sure there is a good reason for their reflectivity (surely any light reflected = wasted energy?)
Matt

From the same Daily Mail article : "even picked black solar panels - when there was a choice of silver - because they were not as eye-catching."

whasup

Cardew wrote: »

Isn't that more for Solar Thermal?

Solar Century: "The panels produce energy from daylight, not direct sunlight" (referring to PV)

Solarepages.co.uk: "PV Solar panels do not need to be in direct sunlight, daylight will produce solar energy"

There are dozens more.

Somewhere in the blurb they do usually go on to say that they work best, or better, in direct sunlight but there is no doubt they are using the confusion to try and convince people that they do not need direct sunlight. I realise this is rubbish but they can't have it both ways. In my opinion the contractor should have warned the householder that the panels might cause a planning issue and to be safe they should apply for a certificate of lawfulness. Regardless of signed contracts which attempt to avoid responsibility, contractors are (supposed to be) professionals and that also carries responsibility.