Solar ... In the news

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

. . . the PD rules do have conditions, and one of them (possibly the main one(?)) is that panels mustn't be higher than the ridgeline as this then changes the height of your property, which would require PP. . . . .

Quite so - but the original planning permission (and subsequent building regs application) must have included some detailed drawings to show exactly what was proposed. Even if that didn't comply with the PD conditions, having studied the application and approved it the council are certainly morally wrong and very likely legally wrong as well to withdraw PP for a house already built in line with their previously given PP.

What, one wonders, will that council do next ? Perhaps pick on some five year old building and insist all the windows are changed ?

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Quite so - but the original planning permission (and subsequent building regs application) must have included some detailed drawings to show exactly what was proposed.

My thoughts too, but ....

Hands up, I don't know what I'm doing, and this may be irrelevant, but if this drawing (see the bottom 'section B - B') shows the panels, then I think the householders are in trouble.

It seems the house was partly buried to meet max height requirements too, so it only gets worse.

What a silly thing to do ..... if I've got it correct.

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

. . . .
Hands up, I don't know what I'm doing, and this may be irrelevant, but if this drawing (see the bottom 'section B - B') shows the panels, then I think the householders are in trouble.

I can't follow that link; suspect one needs to register with council before being able to access their planning pages (that would certainly be case with the NE Derbys webpage).

But I still maintain that if proper drawings were submitted and PP granted then it can't subsequently be withdrawn. However, what might have happened is that the max height shown on those drawings may have been exceeded and that council are taking enforcement action to ensure that height restriction is observed. Such enforcement action is of course very different to withdrawal of PP - but would a DM journo really understand that ?

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

I can't follow that link; suspect one needs to register with council before being able to access their planning pages (that would certainly be case with the NE Derbys webpage).

But I still maintain that if proper drawings were submitted and PP granted then it can't subsequently be withdrawn. However, what might have happened is that the max height shown on those drawings may have been exceeded and that council are taking enforcement action to ensure that height restriction is observed. Such enforcement action is of course very different to withdrawal of PP - but would a DM journo really understand that ?

Sorry Eric, my bad. The drawing shows panels mounted on the back wall, so they start level with the top wall, and then go down, whereas the photos show panels on the roof, which are higher than the property. I suspect they've breached the height requirement.

For the pic, go to this page:

East Lindsey District Council - Planning

Then click on the yellow box:-

You can search, view and comment on Planning Applications online Search, View and Comment on Planning

Select "advanced"

Under applicant name type:- mcgarry

click on the third one down

click on "16 documents"

Then click on the plans, 4th item "ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND ROOF"

Look to the bottom centre drawing.

Edit: And it gets even worse, go to the fifth item "DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT AND HERITAGE STATEMENT", scroll down to item 4.0 Involvement. Not only are they the solar panels, but they say they are tiles that will imitate slate.

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry Eric, my bad. The drawing shows panels mounted on the back wall, so they start level with the top wall, and then go down, whereas the photos show panels on the roof, which are higher than the property. I suspect they've breached the height requirement.

For the pic, go to this page:

East Lindsey District Council - Planning

Then click on the yellow box:-



Select "advanced"

Under applicant name type:- mcgarry

click on the third one down

click on "16 documents"

Then click on the plans, 4th item "ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND ROOF"

Look to the bottom centre drawing.

Edit: And it gets even worse, go to the fifth item "DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT AND HERITAGE STATEMENT", scroll down to item 4.0 Involvement. Not only are they the solar panels, but they say they are tiles that will imitate slate.

Mart.

Got all the way through that - then saw
"Document Unavailable
This document is unavailable for viewing at this time. "
:rofl:

I may look again later but it doesn't really matter, I do understand your comments and would think that it's obviously enforcement action rather than the 'withdrawn PP' the DMJ described.

I've little sympathy with anyone who submits plans but goes on to build something different.

pinnks

I managed to get through to the docs - yeah, I'm a nerd too - and it does look as though this could be an enforcement issue. Unless anything changed from those documents during the passage of the permission it does look as though they may have breached the consent. The panels are not mounted where drawn and would appear to protrude above the highest point of the planned structure. Not by much perhaps but...

It is therefore possible that they were told to submit a new application to "rectify" the transgression (assuming there was one) and that has been refused. Petty perhaps but a slightly different scenario to that portrayed in the DM.

Who knows and frankly who should care. Either way, I can't see a problem with the aesthetics but then, I have panels on the front of my house, so what do I know. :rotfl:

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

I've little sympathy with anyone who submits plans but goes on to build something different.

Totally agree.


This happens time and again where planning permission conditions are deliberately breached by the builders and too often retrospective plans to cover these transgressions are approved.


The Daily Mail article is exactly what one would expect!

Martyn1981

Chinese government to set 20GW per annum solar quota through 2020

Should the planned increase in the quota system be introduced, China would be expected to reach around 150GW of installed PV by the end of 2020, solidifying its leading position, compared to more than 36GW already deployed.

IHS gets aggressive on 2015 and 2016 global solar demand

IHS expects global solar installations to grow by 33%this year, the fastest growth rate since 2011 to reach installations of 59GW.

A new major milestone of 300GW installed is expected in 2016, should the forecast be met.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Some interesting suggestions and numbers.

UK can cut bills with decentralised solar-plus-storage strategy, new report claims

The UK government could deliver cheaper electricity bills to households and businesses by pursuing a decentralised energy strategy with solar and storage at its centre, a new report has claimed.

‘The Decentralised Energy Transition’ report has been co-authored by Lightsource Renewable Energy, Foresight Solar and Good Energy, with research co-ordinated by Big Four consultancy group KPMG and inputs from global technology giant Tesla and DNO UK Power Networks.

The wide-ranging report proposes a future strategy at government level which it claims would help the UK meet several energy market dilemmas by reallocating funding for solar currently available under the Levy Control Framework, and not exceeding it.

Its main recommendations consist of a re-working of future feed-in tariffs for solar and a time-limited incentive for households to purchase domestic storage solutions. Its feed-in tariff recommendations (below) offer a significant increase on those currently proposed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for next year, but includes them ending a year earlier than DECC envisages.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Now even the Daily Mail is arguing for PV and against nuclear?

Why you shouldn't get solar panels even though they've saved me hundreds... as well as driving my poor wife around the twist

Mart.