PV install - upset neighbours

Kernel_Sanders

The neighbours should consider themselves fortunate. Tell them that if forced to remove your array, you'll erect something like this in its place....


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

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

In the case of a listed building, you're not supposed to do anything that makes it look different to when it was first listed or (preferably) first built. That extends to trivial items such as not being able to replace cast iron rainwater pipes with modern plastic simulations or double glazing the windows.

As of course we all realise, very few listed buildings would have had SPs from new !

Agreed! However some councils allow panels on listed buildings.

There are nearly 500,000 listed buildings in Britain, and millions more in
conservation areas. If Britain is to get anywhere near meeting its new legal carbon reduction targets, these buildings will have to be retro-fitted to save energy, and many owners will want to install solar and other micro generation equipment on them.


Under planning policy statement 22, councils are bound to give householders permission to install micro generating equipment such as solar panels, unless there are very good reasons not to. Judging from many complaints sent to the Guardian, these reasons are nearly always because a planner believes the character and appearance of the building will be compromised, or could compromise others nearby.


Many local authorities are reasonably calm, especially when the installations are not visible from the street, but others have a culture of refusal and interpret the rules with no sympathy of the wider needs of
society.

The same principle often applies to buildings in a conservation area. i.e. OK if they cannot be seen from the road.

The overall point I am making is there is a sizeable body of people who do consider they are undesirable.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Agreed! However some councils allow panels on listed buildings.

Problem solved then!

Cardew wrote: »

The overall point I am making is there is a sizeable body of people who do consider they are undesirable.

But why should the majority bend to a vocal minority? Granted many Brits prefer to moan and complain about anything new. But that doesn't mean the more open-minded should have to suffer for the ignorance of others.

Aren't we endlessly told by the media that Brits don't like wind turbines too:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/19/wind-power-poll-uk-public-favour?intcmp=122

"Overall, 66% of Britons were in favour and just 8% against when asked: "to what extent are you in favour of or opposed to the use of wind power in the UK" in the Ipsos Mori poll, commissioned by wind trade body RenewableUK."

In another 5 years (probably 2 for PV) nobody will care about the look of renewables, we'll have moved on to something new to boringly moan and complain about.

Edit: Going further off topic, but here's another report on the wind-turbine poll:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17783604

"Commissioned by trade body RenewableUK, the Ipsos-Mori poll found that 43% see the UK subsidy as good value for money against 18% who do not."

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Aren't we endlessly told by the media that Brits don't like wind turbines too:-

.

Neither does Donald Trump! However, you are correct - lots of people don't like them; and we are constantly told that by the media!

Your conclusion is??

But that doesn't mean the more open-minded should have to suffer for the ignorance of others.

Well well well!

Those who like panels(and their income!) are 'open-minded' and those who express a view that they don't like or want them are ignorant.

What a well reasoned approach.

Dave_Fowler

A house just down the road from me has panels on the roof, I've just looked out of the window to see how noticeable they are. They did not 'stick out like a sore thumb', but what did strike me was that the skyline is full of television aerials. Just here is a fringe area due to hills. London, Sandy Heath and Oxford transmitters are all just about receivable provided you have a good array. Most houses are semi-detached and several have 6 large aerials on the central chimney. A few also have VHF radio aerials and satellite dishes. There are also telephone poles with *many* wires criss-crossing the street. The whole area is cabled by Virgin Media so all the telephone wires and television aerials are not necessary but no one has complained about this clutter.

Dave F

jamesingram

as far as I'm aware PD rights for PV also apply in conservation area.
They are only out of the scope of PD in conservation areas if sited on a principle wall.

Listed buiding differ as you and Eric suggests, but they are bound to give permission, unless there are very good reasons not to.
Thats why i referred to them as renenage councils is my first post.

I would say there is a sizable body of people that dont consider them undesirable , but there is a powerful minority that do (conservation officers) and vocal nimbys

Ben84

Cardew wrote: »

Your view(understandably) is that it doesn't matter about changes to the roof appearance. Others have a different opinion.

Can you explain then why most councils will not allow panels in conservation area and listed buildings. That surely can only be because they believe it detracts from the appearance of the building.

It's actually about the architectural value of the building and retaining that. I believe the purpose of listing and preservation areas is to retain unique buildings and environments, not to pass comment on the relative aesthetics of modern building features in all the locations you might find them. Not being able to put aluminium double glazing in a medieval house is no reason to not put it in an unremarkable 1940s house. Without buildings which are unusual, the primary concern, which is preserving unique buildings, doesn't really apply. Also, buildings aren't listed for the benefit of their neighbours' sense of aesthetics either, although it may confer some advantages to them such as knowing the area covered won't be massively redeveloped one day. Gaining benefit from something and having it done specifically for your advantage are distinct things however, so I don't want to evolve listed status in to the right for neighbours to tell each other what colour to paint their houses or if they can have solar panels in for example a cul-de-sac of unremarkable 1980s bungalows! That would be quite a change from what it started out as trying to achieve.

So, assuming the OP has a typical ordinary house, as most people do, their concern should be mainly how do alterations affect conditions in neighbouring properties. As it involves a change to a few square meters of the roof colour and texture, the answer is that it causes no difference. It will not further block any view from neighbouring properties or reduce the light reaching them, nor does it emit any noise or smoke. It really is just a section of the roof looks different now. The neighbours might think solar panels ugly, in fact so do I, but since when do they or I have any right to expect the neighbour's houses to look appealing to us? Why should I set the rules for how the street should look any more than anyone else? I also don't like my neighbour's front garden since they paved it all to park cars. But it's not for me to comment as it doesn't influence conditions on my property at all. Changing your own house and changing the environment in neighbour's gardens/houses are distinct things. Sometimes they overlap, but in this case they really don't.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Neither does Donald Trump! However, you are correct - lots of people don't like them; and we are constantly told that by the media!

Your conclusion is??

Well well well!

Those who like panels(and their income!) are 'open-minded' and those who express a view that they don't like or want them are ignorant.

What a well reasoned approach.

Thank you, I'm glad you're starting to see reason, however you may have over-simplified things, possibly to cause more conflict than actually exists. Also please not that 'many' is often used to disguise or replace 'minority', as displayed in the wind-turbine articles I posted. Again, this is often used by those seeking conflict, when 'moving on', would be far easier and productive.

You don't have to have nor like PV to be open-minded. But if you think that public and government policy should be dictated to by those that somehow feel they should have a say regarding a 'change of colour' of their neighbours roof, then that is narrow minded obstructive nonsense.

I quite like the shark in the above post, however I appreciate that many would not and may wish to object to it. However, do I think my opinion or rights should have a deciding factor on a neighbours choice of slate or tile roof, or the colour of those tiles. Of course not. Neither should I have a say, nor long term concerns about PV installed as per approved regulations.

Life is simply to short to spend it looking at peoples roofs, especially if the purpose of looking is only to provide fuel for complaints and more wasted time.

PS I'm glad you raised Donald Trump, his sort of comical, obsessive sulking is a good example of how the right to object can be misused by those with narrow-minded personal agendas.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

PS I'm glad you raised Donald Trump, his sort of comical, obsessive sulking is a good example of how the right to object can be misused by those with narrow-minded personal agendas.

Mart.

Wonderful!

I suspect you don't appreciate the irony.

As stated earlier, by posing such a question in this particular forum, the OP was certain to get your type of response!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Wonderful!

I suspect you don't appreciate the irony.

As stated earlier, by posing such a question in this particular forum, the OP was certain to get your type of response!

That would depend entirely on your interpretation of irony.

As I have repeatedly posted, I am extremely open-minded about neighbouring developments. I have no issues with wind turbines, PV or even giant sharks. In fact, unless any alterations were to have a considerable impact on my family, I would simply live and let live.

My issue as was clearly stated is if the right to object is misused by those with narrow-minded personal agendas. Who would perhaps, rather spend their time whingeing and moaning than more productively ‘getting to know their neighbours better’.

In the case of something as benign as PV, one needs to beg the question, ‘who exactly is the beneficiary of a complaint?’ If the complaint has no basis other than the change in appearance, then perhaps the complainant is simply seeking conflict for the sake of it, or is merely desperate for some attention.

As regards Donald Trump, you may feel Mr. Trump has a case, you may well value a golf resort above a renewables resource such as an off-shore windfarm. You may even think his concerns have merit. I however think he is barking mad!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/09/donald-trump-alex-salmond-destroying-scotland?intcmp=122

“In his letter to Salmond, he says: "With the reckless installation of these monsters, you will single-handedly have done more damage to Scotland than virtually any event in Scottish history."”

What a wonderfully well informed individual. He clearly has both feet firmly on the ground, and an impeccable knowledge of Scottish history.

"Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR TURBINES!"

Mart.