PV install - upset neighbours

jamesingram

Cardew, I agree re. OPs situation and peoples right to complain , and some dont like the look of Pv. Always good to consider others if possible.

My concern is more with council re-acting to complaints and removing permitted developement rights post installation.
It seems some councils choose to interpret 'practicable' as practicle.
.They are different , as mention earlier on "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."
So no good on the North facing aspect because it wouldn't be 'practicable'

That why I asked how people might feel if a council choose to take away PD for say a porch post contruction . I'd have thought the council would have no right to.

re. conservation area , again conservation officers are not aware of the law (PD rights) and often miss inform people , telling them they cant install panel facing the road . This is only the case if there on the walls!

Cardew

jamesingram wrote: »

Cardew, I agree re. OPs situation and peoples right to complain , and some dont like the look of Pv. Always good to consider others if possible.

My concern is more with council re-acting to complaints and removing permitted developement rights post installation.
It seems some councils choose to interpret 'practicable' as practicle.
.They are different , as mention earlier on "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."
So no good on the North facing aspect because it wouldn't be 'practicable'

That why I asked how people might feel if a council choose to take away PD for say a porch post contruction . I'd have thought the council would have no right to.

re. conservation area , again conservation officers are not aware of the law (PD rights) and often miss inform people , telling them they cant install panel facing the road . This is only the case if there on the walls!

I can't think there are many cases where Councils order the removal of panels; which is why the Prestwich case has had such media cover.

I certainly don't like the appearance of those panels, but am very surprised at the Council's decision.

As planning permission is not required, presumably the OP has discussed his intent to install with his neighbours and they have given their opinion. If that opinion was not what he wanted to hear, he has a dilemma!

However I am not surprised at the reaction of some panel owners on this thread;)

Numbnuts

I didnt read the full post sorry.

still I dont see why its anybody business what it looks like , if they think its unslightly or not as long as planning permission is followed then I think they do not have a case to argue.

if the person across the road does not like them , will they pay for 3400 kilos watts per year for you & the fits payments you had to miss out one because they do not like the look of the solar panels ? why should my fuel bills rise or why should I miss out on an investment because bob and val over the road do not like the look of them?????

is their a fair solution for both partys?

next we will be telling each other what christmas lights we like on each others house's .... or what colour cars to buy where does it stop.

and your right half my neigbours I do not speak to because they all lazy window watchers with nothing better to do but moan about people trying to earn a decent living.

Numbnuts

larkim wrote: »

I'll tell that to my 98 year old grand mother then, shall I...

whats this post got to do with your 98 year old grandmother ?

I was voicing my opinion to the first post....

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I can't think there are many cases where Councils order the removal of panels; which is why the Prestwich case has had such media cover.

I certainly don't like the appearance of those panels, but am very surprised at the Council's decision.

However I am not surprised at the reaction of some panel owners on this thread;)

The Prestwich case is actually quite interesting. Something new goes up, and somebody complains.

Once the council are involved and the householders are made to jump through hoops, the complainant appears to have got bored and moved on to something new. So we end up with the council being placed in a difficult position, and having to decide a planning app. on what is normally classed as permitted development with no objections.

End result, wasted time, upset and money. No winners.

Mart.

larkim

!!!!!! wrote: »

whats this post got to do with your 98 year old grandmother ?

I was voicing my opinion to the first post....

Apologies, given that your post was 40 posts later than the OP, I presumed you were replying to my comment that I could understand an objection based on someone's amenity being impaired due to reflections from PV. If my 98 year old grandmother lived opposite a house where the reflections consistently and annoyingly affected her sitting watching Bargain Hunt / Cash in the Attic etc I could see that an objection / request to re-site the panels might be more reasonable.

Matt

larkim

FYI, the "Prestwich" case has a target date for a decision on granting retrospective planning permission for 17th May. Perhaps that storm in a teacup will disappear.

Matt

EricMears

larkim wrote: »

FYI, the "Prestwich" case has a target date for a decision on granting retrospective planning permission for 17th May. Perhaps that storm in a teacup will disappear.

Matt

What on Earth will we find to talk about when that's gone ?:eek:

Perhaps we could go back to sharing tips on getting the most advantage from our SPs ? :beer:

larkim

EricMears wrote: »

What on Earth will we find to talk about when that's gone ?:eek:

Perhaps we could go back to sharing tips on getting the most advantage from our SPs ? :beer:

I think we should celebrate the Prestwich case on the basis that it appears to be an issue on which there is most consensus!! Just about everyone agrees that Bury Council are nuts!

(I'm interested mainly because Bury is my home town, though I'm no longer there - I've taken a look at where that particular installation is, and strikes me that its more likely that they've wasted money on the installation, as it faces ESE, with a large tree blocking in the SSE direction, and more trees in the SW)

Matt

Martyn1981

larkim wrote: »

I think we should celebrate the Prestwich case on the basis that it appears to be an issue on which there is most consensus!! Just about everyone agrees that Bury Council are nuts!

(I'm interested mainly because Bury is my home town, though I'm no longer there - I've taken a look at where that particular installation is, and strikes me that its more likely that they've wasted money on the installation, as it faces ESE, with a large tree blocking in the SSE direction, and more trees in the SW)

Matt

Hiya Larkim. I think the case is fascinating, but for slightly differing reasons. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that none of the nearby neighbours have PV. I'm making the dangerous assumption that the Daily Mail would have included such a fact - Daily Mail and facts - ok my limb is getting a bit shaky now!

Anyway, 11 neighbours are consulted, and 6, over 50% reply, and all in support. That's a pretty good result for open-minded, forward looking, friendly neighbours (even if some have got the sun in their eyes).

I'm even more convinced now that the majority of people, with or without PV, either don't care about their appearance, or don't care enough to cause offence. Much in the same way that most people when asked by a neighbour if they liked their new haircut, would politely admire it, regardless of their 'honest' opinion.

Good neighbours are worth their weight in gold.

Mart.