I have some knowledge of a recent case where the client was advised to place the panels on the rear roof so as to avoid detriment to visual amenity. The rear roof faces North.

In another case we have been advised by the planners to seek a Certificate of Lawful Development.

I would not pay planners in washers, I have been given so much duff advise in the past. From the planning portal:-

Planning Permission
In many cases fixing solar panels to the roof of a single dwelling house is likely to be considered 'permitted development' under planning law with no need to apply for planning permission.

There are, however, important exceptions and provisos which must be observed.

These permitted development rights apply to houses. If you live in a flat and are considering fitting solar panels you are advised to contact your LPA for guidance.

The Important exceptions and provisos:-

Panels should not be installed above the ridgeline and should project no more than 200mm from the roof or wall surface.
If your property is a listed building installation is likely to require an application for listed building consent, even where planning permission is not needed.
If your property is in a conservation area, or in a World Heritage Site planning consent is required when panels are to be fitted on the principal or side elevation walls and they are visible from the highway. If panels are to be fitted to a building in your garden or grounds they should not be visible from the highway.

Exactly what Ted says, they have to be on the side of the roof that faces the sun otherwise they are not "practicable".

You do not have to apply for permission, however they may pursue enforcement action. I would be surprised if they do pursue this, as they would have to show a clearly identifiable harm, and given that they have already advised you (albeit informally) that they consider it to be permitted development, it would be unreasonable to pursue enforcement action in this case.
You have the right to appeal against an enforcement notice, and unreasonable actions leave them open to an award of costs in the event of an appeal.

Have you got the original informal advice in writing? this would help, although it is not legally binding.
Try following the formal complaints procedure. You could probably end up with a letter from a senior manager stating that no further action will be taken. This would be a pretty good situation (although again still not legally binding) and you can probably relax and get on with life.

Other ways to sort it once and for all in order of preference:
1.Apply for Certificate of Lawful Development (CLEUD) costs £75 decision within 8 weeks
if that is refused
2. Appeal against this (it will usually be a hearing for a CLEUD (no cost unless you use a consultant)
if you lose the appeal
3. Apply for Planning permission retrospectively costs £150 decision within 8 weeks
if that is refused
4. Appeal against this (no cost unless you use a consultant)
if you lose the appeal
5. Wait for Enforcement notice and appeal against this. NB If you lose this there will be a record against your property when solicitors do Local Authority searches (could affect the value)

If you lose appeals 2 and 4 then the likelihood is that you will lose appeal 5, but at least it is one more chance.

Not much in the way of expenditure for steps 1 to 4 compared to the costs of a 22 panel solar array.

Keep us posted and ask if you need any more help. Name and shame the Local Authority too!

The Local Planning Authority issues the certificate, but if it is refused you can appeal to the secretary of state via the Planning Inspectorate. I am not aware of any appeals against a refusal of a Certificate of Lawfulness based on the grounds you mention.
(I think everyone on this forum so far thinks their position is a bit tenuous to say the least!)

On the dormer roof sounds fine as long as it does not fall foul of:

A.1. Development is not permitted by Class A, in the case of solar PV or solar thermal equipment installed on an existing wall or roof of a dwellinghouse or a building within its curtilage if�

(a) the solar PV or solar thermal equipment would protrude more than 200 millimetres beyond the plane of the wall or the roof slope when measured from the perpendicular with the external surface of the wall or roof slope;

Make sure you check all the other criteria here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080675_en_1

you're not in a conservation area or a world heritage site are you? and its not a listed building?

Have just read your letter and I thought it was very good.
I doubt if you have actually had an enforcement notice at this stage, this is usually the very last resort after an invitation for retrospective planning permission etc.
I am guessing you have just had a letter form a Planning Enforcement Officer raising the issue as a problem. I appreciate that this can be quite distressing, especially with "enforcement" in their title, but they have a duty to investigate all complaints, even if there is no breach of planning control.
The other thing to remember is that Enforcement Officers are not necessarily qualified planners, and even if they are they might not be very good or knowledgeable. Sometimes they are just downright little hitlers.

When you submit your CLEUD it will be dealt with by a Planning Officer and probably approved then you will have a legal document that will put the whole unfortunate incident to bed once and for all, and you can show this to your solicitor if/when you come to sell the house.

Anyone else who is worried about the same thing happening to them, you can submit a Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) before you do the installation, to get a legal decision as to whether it is Permitted Development (so does not require Planning Permission) before you spend £££thousands on a PV array.
Should be determined within 8 weeks and is a legal document as long as you undertake the installation in accordance with the submitted plans.

The best thing about Certificates of Lawfulness is that neighbours and their objections are not a consideration - it is simply an assessment of whether it is Permitted Development or whether Planning Permission is required. (Obviously if PP is required for whatever reason then the neighbours will be consulted at the planning application stage - but even if people do object it does not mean that it will definitely be refused)

I would be concerned about going above the ridge height of the main roof. The 200mm is above the roof slope but the way I read it you cannot go above the highest point on the roof. May be this is the issue?

A picture of this abomination in the local context would be of interest, so we can see just how terrible it is.

I think that the use of "practicable" here is like sprinkling the word "reasonable" in legal documents: it's to make it hard for either party to be unreasonable or outrageous or win on an unfair technicality, ultimately giving a court a great deal of discretion to enforce sensible behaviour if one party won't play nice.

This means less money for crafty lawyers, and more PV going up IMHO, which is good.

Rgds

Damon

How does 'practicable' interact with 'cost-effective' in this legislation if at all? It's perfectly possible to put PV on a north-facing slope and as long as you add some more of them, you'll get equivalent output. So while it's not cost effective, is it practicable?

(just playing devil's advocate to try to understand the law a bit better)

Ok so what about following scenario:-

Firstly:
1. The manufacturer recommends that the panels are placed at a minimum of 10 degrees to the horizontal if installing them onto a flat roof.
2. Doing so would bring them above the roof line (hence not PD).
3. If the manufacture's recommendations are NOT followed, this introduces a risk on the warrantee.
4. nb efficiency drops slightly compared to their current position at 110 deg from north (i.e SSE)

Therefore is it reasonable to say it is not pratical to install them onto the flat roof because of the risk to the warrantee ?

Secondly:
In order to reach a compromise with my neighbours, I could put some of the panels onto the flat roof (there is not enough space to put all of them along with the solar hot water panels) and agree to take the risk on the warrantee for some of the panels. This would give me 3 neat rows of 5 panels with 7 on the roof.

Would this jeopardise my position ?

This raises an interesting question. If PP to put panels on the flat roof is refused does that alone make that location un practicable? In other would a refusal on the flat roof make the other roof pitches the only practicable place for them?

Anyone who has permitted development rights removed for their property may have a strong case of compensation against the council if it means they are unable to install solar panels on their roof and thereby lose the financial benefit of FiTs. This is one of the possibilities that councils are supposed to take into account before issuing an Article 4 direction.

But no one should go ahead with any development on the understanding that they are covered by PD without being certain that the specific PD rights they will be assuming are in place have not been removed from their property.

Just for some perspective, I noticed this elsewhere:

"Section 714 of California Civil Code: Municipalities and Home Owners Associations can restrict your solar energy system if these restrictions don’t increase its cost by more than $2,000 or decrease its efficiency/performance by more than 20%".

Having dealt with local planning departments I am not suprised that the head of a department comes to a different conclusion from his "team". I dont see why you should have to pay anything for a decision from the council when their head of planning management agrees with you (and everyone on here). If I were you I would do nothing else and if you are asked again by the council for a response simply forward his response that in his view it is Permitted development!!!! (without the suggestion to apply for LDC) I dont think anyone will want to disagree with "the Boss".

Posted By: veckieHe suggest applying for an LDC - which for this authority is almost the same as applying for planning permission. They charge is the same as apply for planning permission !

I thought the fees were regulated? Isn't your development "proposed" and therefore classed under para 12(2) of http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/developmentcertificates.pdf so they should be charging you half of the planning fee?