Hi, I have installed solar panels to my roof, operational for only 1 day before being asked to remove them/apply for retrospective planning by friendly local council! I pointed out the legislation under which they are a permitted development - they agreed, but said I didnt meet the conditions thereof as "they affected the amenity of area & appearance of building". I pointed out the term "as far as is practicable" & that there was no other practicable option. HOWEVER, they say:

"You are interpreting the phrase "so far as practicable" in relation to the efficiency of the installation however this term refers to whether or not the panels can be installed in such a way as to minimise the effect on the building/amenity of the area. For example to comply with these conditions we would usually expect the installation of solar panels on a mid-terraced property to be on the rear rather than the principal elevation. Whilst most properties benefit from permitted development rights not all householders are able to utilise them."

Does anyone have any ideas where I go with this next?? I did (& do) truly believe I am in the right here!
I have already copied in her boss, so presumably he agrees with her (shes an enforcement officer)

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

First off, are you in an area that has any form of planning restrictions? Conservation areas, some AONBs and the National Parks, for example, restrict the normal PD rights under which PV can be fitted (my new house, for example, needs full planning permission to fit PV).

Assuming that you're in an area free from such restrictions, then it sounds as if the planners may be responding to a complaint from a member of the public. It's quite unusual for planners to just take action like this without someone having complained, especially so quickly.

I believe that they are interpreting the amenity phrase very tightly, although it's hard to argue precedent with planners; they frequently fall back on the "every case must be treated on its individual merits" argument.

Best bet might be to just go though the planning process and prepare a solid argument to support your case, maybe quoting similar properties in the area that have PV on a front elevation, supporting this with photos etc if you can. If the worst comes to the worst and they refuse permission, then I think you'd stand a pretty good chance at appeal, unless the installation really is an eyesore.

Applicable national planning guidance:

"...PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development

Supplement to PPS1: Planning and climate change

Renewable and low-carbon energy generation:

20. In particular, planning authorities should:
– not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location
– ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances..."

Get that Mr planning officer...? "...other than in the most exceptional circumstances..."

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppsclimatechange

Hope that helps

J

Guildford Council interprets the rules in your favour. In this document they give examples..

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6396&p=0

Bottom of page 5 shows panels on front roof elevation and says..

"As far as practicable the installation has been sited to minimise its effect on the external appearance on the building and amenity AS THE SOUTH FACING ROOF ELEVATION IS THE ONLY VIABLE LOCATION FOR INSTALLING PV" (My bold).

It declares that to be "Permitted Development".

I wouldn't apply for Planning Permission first. I would apply for a CLD first on the grounds that you meet terms and conditions of the General Permitted Development Order. Explain why and perhaps refer them to the above and the Poole Appeal (see below). If they refuse a CLD then you can still apply for Planning Permission and Appeal if necessary (eg three bites at the cherry).

http://www.prospectlaw.co.uk/assets/ER-Building-Products-Magazine-Article-25.04.11.pdf

"A decision of a planning inspector on an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a PV scheme at Poole in Dorset in July 2010 has, to some extent (although his decision is not binding on subsequent decision makers), helped to clarify the situation since he expressed the view that as regards condition (a), the proposed scale of the PV system on a rooftop was not an issue which serves to limit PD rights for PV schemes and that what matters is the siting of the PV system rather than the size of any roof based domestic PV system. The Inspector also found that as regards condition (b), the only amenity impact causing potential harm was visual and that no harm was caused."

http://www.housingenergyadvisor.com/blog/planning-permission-for-installing-solar-roof-panels-123/

Quote..

conditions on the automatic grant of permission, as follows:

“Development is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions—
(a) solar PV or solar thermal equipment installed on a building shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building;
(b) solar PV or solar thermal equipment shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the amenity of the area; and
(c) solar PV or solar thermal equipment no longer needed for micro generation shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.”

Some councils have looked at points a and b and taken the view that planning applications are required to ensure that the panels are not too large or too visible from the highway. This was a disappointing approach since it seemed to be at odds with the spirit of the new legislation. Fortunately, the planning process incorporates a right of appeal, and such an appeal was made against a decision in Poole earlier this year.

The 2010 Poole Council Appeal Decision

Following a decision by Poole council that a homeowner was obliged to make an application for planning permission to install solar panels, the home owner decided to appeal to the planning inspector. On 21 July 2010 the planning inspector ruled in favour of the homeowner, i.e. that Poole council were mistaken and in fact no planning application was required to install the solar panels in question.

On the subject of the size of an installation, the planning inspector said “As to size, plainly a smaller array would have a lesser effect, but that could be said of any installation; condition (a) is concerned with siting, not size. Had Parliament intended to impose a size limitation it would have been a simple matter to do so.”, and on the subject of visual amenity “Condition (b) is that solar PV or solar thermal equipment shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the amenity of the area. In this case the only effect on amenity is visual – the appearance of the building – and accordingly I conclude that this condition also would be met.”

As a result of this very welcome decision local authorities around England have little choice but to reconsider their policies on solar panels and refrain from insisting on a specific application being made except where the exceptions at Part 40 Class A (1) of the 1995 Order (as amended by the 2008 Order) apply or where the installation is significantly larger than a typical domestic installation or is otherwise unusual in appearance. "

Well done CW, I think that about answers the question!
EmmaG, I suspect your Planning Officer hasn't been keeping up to date - and they are always "on a coarse " when you phone!!

Wow, thanks for such a swift response everyone!
Just for clarification, I am in England (authority is Bradford).
I have already quoted PPS22 at them & the Poole Council Appeal (largely from following previous threads on this site!) - but to no avail.
I have also explained to them why no other roof space would be practicable.
(and believe me, they are really not that visible due to the height of the roof & narrowness of the street)
The only reason they give for asking me to apply for PPerm is their 'interpretation' of conditions (a) & (b) - which makes no sense to me either.
There are certainly a couple of other examples of front elevation panels in the village, and they are on much older & more attractive properties than mine.
I believe you are right about the influential whinger - I understand it was a parish councillor who 1st made an 'enquiry' to the P Dept...

what about this NPPF will that be of any use ? lots of use of the vague term 'sustainable' being thrown about.

Be nice to tell the planning office were to stick thier app.
Get the Daily Fail on the case :)
'Banana parish council republic', 'hell in a hand cart' etc.

Unsure Robin, but I think it is time to start knocking on doors and asking.

I did a CLD for a property in a National Park - albeit before we put the panels up. Don't know if I have a copy now, but I do remember having to deliver about 2kg of paper to the planning office (and then I had to go back when they asked for more!!). Would some of the text be of use if I can find it?

Have just sent this to the planning portal...

Dear Sirs,

I write with regard to this page on your web site..
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/solarpanels/

Specifically I feel additional guidance must be provided on the following conditions:

“Panels on a building should be sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the appearance of the building. They should be sied, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the amenity of the area.”

It is clear some councils are interpreting these conditions very differently to others. At issue is the interpretation of “as far as practicable” when the only available south facing roof surface fronts a highway.

Some councils are saying that putting the panels on the NORTH face would minimise the impact on the appearance of the building so by implication panels on the SOUTH face require Planning Permission. Clearly putting solar PV on the NORTH face isn’t “practicable” but they say “practicable” applies to the impact on the building NOT the impact on the solar panels.

Other councils such as Guildford council interpret the GPDO in a totally different way. They say that it is the practicability of the solar system that matters so that solar panels on a south facing elevation fronting a highway would be permitted development. They give several examples:

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6396&p=0

So a lack of clarity here is leading to totally different interpretations of the law. Some councils are asking people to submit retrospective planning applications for installations other councils say is permitted development.

Please can you clarify the situation and/or refer me to additional guidance.

Thank you.

In the past they have replied to questions and corrections but can take awhile,

Have now sent them much the same email.

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.

My limited experience of a difficult planning issue was resolved by me making it absolutely clear I would fight it all the way. They decided discretion was the better part of valour and just passed it through on the nod.

Make it clear you will fight them all the way and let them decide if they want to risk losing.

Posted By: Dominic Cooney
Incidentally, PPS22 is cancelled as of yesterday, so are all the others.
From now on it's just the NPPF and the Local Plan.

Not so fast. I've only had a quick look but the NPPF refers to EN3 (in the case of wind energy at least) and EN3 appears to refer to the companion to PPS22, ETSU-R-97 etc