Council orders removal of permitted development array

Kernel_Sanders

whasup wrote: »

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

Daylight, essentially, is sunlight, so this statement is nonsense on two counts.

KevinG

EricMears wrote: »

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."

I have never, to my knowledge, seen silver panels.

jamesingram

The spirit of changes/amendments in PD over the last few years to allow solar mirco generation viewed in conjunction with PPs1 etc.
seems clearly to imply that panels should be allowed to the principle elevations under PD.
The huge percentage of installs of this nature go ahead without planners being involved.
For them to pervert the interpretation in these very rare examples seems absurd and some what Kafkaesque.

My panels are currently generating 140W and point SE, so no direct sun for the last few hours., but for this to be considered practicable you'd have to be a moron .
I occasionally deal with planning departments , fortunately most aren't like these norberts in the OPs article.

Martyn1981

KevinG wrote: »

I have never, to my knowledge, seen silver panels.

They might be referring to the frames, some makes / models are offered with black frames, rather than the more common 'silver' (bare aluminium) frames. Might blend in a bit more, and reduce reflection from the sides.

Mart.

jamesingram

From http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=8867&page=1#Item_0

"btw - the term 'practicable' or 'reasonably practicable' has been a common term in UK law, mostly health and safety and environmental law, since the late 1940's, with it's meaning confirmed as including a cost/benefit analysis in the case of Edwards v National Coal Board 1949.

The so far as practicable in this legislation here definitely refers to the actual siting of the solar panels, and can only mean that if no other option is reasonably practicable, then the installing panels on the front of the roof is permitted development.

In areas of particular amenity value, this would need to be taken into account when determining the balance between the options, but I'd think it would need to be an exceptionally visually important area for the north roof to be judged to be a reasonably practicable option.

Essentially the law was drafted in order to create a presumption in favor of solar PV installations over visual considerations if no other practicable options were available, so the council is wrong.

btw - the absense of the word 'reasonably' before the 'practicable' makes not difference, as all UK law is ultimately judged on it's reasonableness whether the word is used or not. "

whasup

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Daylight, essentially, is sunlight, so this statement is nonsense on two counts.

Yes but it really means direct and indirect - which is not the same. The point being that it is a common sales device. It's either true; in which case the couple have no cause for complaint. Or it is not true; in which case I believe the contractor should have pointed it out and solar PV companies should be stopped from using the claim. In case you think it's trivial, I am a chartered surveyor and I am asked for advice on solar PV and HW at least three or four times a month. When I tell people their position is not suitable they more often than not refer to some form of advert or brochure which says solar panels do not need direct sunlight.

And before anybody says it, even though I disagree with the general principle of the wider community being forced to subsidise the wealthy middle classes, I have advised people to consider it anyway just for the feed-in subsidy.

Martyn1981

whasup wrote: »

Yes but it really means direct and indirect - which is not the same. The point being that it is a common sales device. It's either true; in which case the couple have no cause for complaint. Or it is not true; in which case I believe the contractor should have pointed it out and solar PV companies should be stopped from using the claim. In case you think it's trivial, I am a chartered surveyor and I am asked for advice on solar PV and HW at least three or four times a month. When I tell people their position is not suitable they more often than not refer to some form of advert or brochure which says solar panels do not need direct sunlight.

A lot depends on roof angle. For steep roofs, the loss from a North install would be too high, for shallower roofs it gets better, but obviously never as good as a South install.

Using my location (in Cardiff) as a reference point, for 1kWp PVGIS gives me:

40deg roof, S 855 N 456 53% (of South)
30deg roof, S 854 N 536 63%
20deg roof, S 837 N 610 73%

(East or West varies from 80% to 90% depending on roof angle)

The lower angles help, but don't necessarily make an install viable. However, as panel prices drop, householders getting a South install 'anyway' may consider adding panels to a North roof when all the work is being done. Since the additional cost of a larger dual MPPT inverter, and some extra scaffolding might become viable.

Mart.

thenudeone

jamesingram wrote: »

, but for this to be considered practicable you'd have to be a moron .
I occasionally deal with planning departments , fortunately most aren't like these norberts in the OPs article.

Perhaps the council involved have been taking lessons from the planning department of East Riding of Yorkshire, who took every imaginable step to stop Sarah Beenie restoring Rise Hall which, was on the verge of dereliction and would have crumbled into ruins if the Beenies hadn't bought it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2053095/Sarah-Beeny-rips-97-room-listed-mansion-apart-planning-permission.html

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

A lot depends on roof angle. For steep roofs, the loss from a North install would be too high, for shallower roofs it gets better, but obviously never as good as a South install.

It's notable that if you actually go to about 0 degrees, it is pretty close to 'due south' - due to more generation time in long summer afternoons and mornings.

Flat is only 15% down from optimal.

_however_.
The tool may be significantly underestimating reflection losses from the panels.

larkim

EricMears wrote: »

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."

Black <> non-reflective. They are black and glassy, so even if they don't have silver frames, and are "darker" than normal, they still give off a glare.

Matt