NPPF definitely cancels all the PPS's - apart from PPS10 (waste). I went through the list and checked them all yesterday.

All the documents that are replaced by the NPPF are listed in Annex 3.

My PV 'permission' was achieved by a council-provided form on which I added a sketch showing roads, site orientation, distances to boundaries and proposed panel positions to the council accompanied by a cheque for £30. The permission was granted by letter, but not absolutely - that would be another £70. Great system, eh?

GavinA >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.

--

Can someone do a quick calc of your PV prediction (I guess panels, slope and orientation - and should match figues given by your installer) and then the same calc on the opposite elevation.

Could in theory give you a very quick cast iron reason why it's only "practical" on the elevation that they are on..

-Steve

RIght, have taken some photos... bear with me while I attempt to upload them...
This 1st one should be the front elevation from across the main highway!
(if you can spot the panels!)

What is all the fuss about?

Finally, I have taken a photo from the pont where I think the panels are at the most visible angle as you walk along the higway. You may see them for all of about 5 secs whilst passing the end of the side street at walking pace!

What do you reckon? Hardly a monstrosity?

Pictures can sometimes be deceptive but those are quite possibly the least obtrusive solar panels I have ever seen.

21 days could be the required response time to a Planning Contravention Notice.
You would know if you had one of these though because you would have a big bundle of papers with
"Planning Contravention Notice" at the top.

If you have had one these contact me privately.

It is not a formal Enforcement Notice. They have to serve an Enforcement Notice on you as a legal document - i.e. they have to hand it to you in person.

These panels do not need permission.

Are you in a Conservation Area? they may not be aware of the amendment that allows PV on a roof-slope in a Conservation Area. But they do not seem to claiming that this is the problem. I am really struggling to understand why they have taken this tack. The only explanation I can think of is that the Enforcement Officer is acting on their own 'initiative' and has not consulted a qualified Planning Officer or any senior members of staff.
Either that or they are being put under pressure behind the scenes by a Local Councillor, which is downright corrupt if you ask me.

If you want to email me copies of all the documentation you have received so far I would love to have a look and possibly get involved (unless you would rather i keep my big nose out...)

Posted By: tedPictures can sometimes be deceptive but those are quite possibly the least obtrusive solar panels I have ever seen.

I have a candiate - black Sanyo HITs on a slate roof in my opinion look really quite nice..

(although the foreground may need some attention..)

I've also had the joy of being on the wrong end of council planning enforcement - the tactic seems to be to start making threats - we were told they considered our development in breach and gave us 21 days to submit a planning application before they would consider enforcing.

After a bit of email to and from I rather crazily picked up the phone and called the lady at the planning enforcement division - she was one of the nicest people I could want to deal with and we had a very civil conversation about what, where, why etc. I would suggest that you do this, at least try and work out what the objection is - it's amazing how much you can learn in a 2 minute phone call that you can't get from a letter/email.

For what it's worth, my understanding is that "enforcement" is a very formal process that costs the council a huge amount of time and involves lawyers etc - they do not do this without huge provocation. They also are only allowed to enforce, if my memory serves, if it is in the public interest - and there is some rule like they can't put an enforcement action on you if they suspect that your planning application would be granted. Their tactic is threatening letters and negotiation (a bit like TV licencing, as those of you without a TV will surely know...) and only use their powers of enforcement in the most extreme of cases.

Give them a call, you might be pleasantly surprised - just be nice/worried and not stroppy/agressive. You seem like you have a rational handle on this, at least you might understand the concerns more fully.

-Steve

-Steve

My guess is they are trying to make it seem difficult to try and discourage everyone else in the street from doing the same.

Dominic - I'd gladly share my correspondence to date with you. I have tried to respond to those who had offered advice outside of the open forum, but for some reason (probably being technically a bit lacking!) havent quite mastered the whispering thingy. Ended up publishing all contact details - which is probably not a good thing to do! So, if you would be OK to 'whisper' me an email I can get you on, I could reply to that. Thanks again to all.

Owlman said: ''I think Gavin may have a point here, apologies if I've got it wrong Gavin. in this case TWO elevations are being used. Could it be the council can have an objection to either of the elevations, their choice and interpretation; ( West ) because it fronts the main road, or, (South) because it is the most visually prominent. Therefore, they may have a point and as a consequence they could demand that the "other" elevation is their preferred choice.''

EmmaG, does their letter refer to individual roofs, or simply to the installation as a whole? Are tey, as Owlman suggests, possibly objecting to the use of one particular roof, and tacitly agreeing to the use of the other?

Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, it's not jealousy that prompts objection by local councillors but an innate parochialism, one that manifests itself as a knee-jerk reaction to change.

I recently got appointed to our parish council, having been challenged by friends to either put up or shut up about "stupid bloody parish councillors", and was impressed by the professional way they approached their role - in everything except planning!

A small development of four terraced houses was submitted for outline approval. A nice development that would have tidied up a pretty grotty area of land at the rear of a village-centre pub and immensely improved the approach to a terrace of what had been built as miner's cottages at the turn of the century. The ground was what used to be the bowling green attached to the pub, but not used for at least the 12 years we've lived in the village.

Half the councillors hadn't bothered to download the documentation and when I offered to project the drawings and relevent documents onto the screen in the room I was looked at as if I'd exposed myself. There was apparently no need to look at the documents in any detail because they couldn't approve the development because it would "encourage a conurbation" (go figure), and "anyway, we can't be seen to be encouraging infill in just any open space in the village". Two votes for the development, eight against.

A woman at the bottom of our lane wants to repalce her flat roof chalet-style bungalow with a brick-built, apex-roofed bungalow on the same footprint. Parish council objected because they didn't want to "encourage a conurbation in the area".

I'm working on them.

It won't be jealousy that's fuelling EmmaG's objector, but resistance to change, specifically the "fears" that Gavin mentions and Cwatters underlines. Proliferation.

Perhaps it's a case of an elevation too far?

Ah, I see, they were using a hypothetical scenario in their letter.

In that case, I reckon I'd put the onus back on to them, and write to them asking them to apply the law specifically to your situation rather than a hypothetical situation and explain to you firstly which of the roof faces they are specifically objecting to, and secondly which other roof face they believe would be a reasonably practicable option for mounting that solar PV array on to.

I'd also explain that the only other available roof face is north facing with serious additional shading issues from 2 chimneys and is therefore highly unsuited for solar PV, so as far as you can see there are no other practicable options available, and the system you have installed is therefore classed as a permitted development.

I'd suspect that would shut them up.