I was interested by the comment about "misuse of power in public office" and I found a very enlightening page http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

Sadly, it contains the condition "Was the breach more than merely negligent or attributable to incompetence or a mistake (even a serious one)?". I guess we use 'incompetent' as a description so often on this forum that there's no chance of any 'misconduct'

That page also seems to indicate that 'public officer' is the correct but undefined term that would be appropriate in the warranties thread.

The key bit is the wilful misuse bit, as if applied to the letter then an officer who acts when he knows that a regulation hasn't been breached (as seems to be the case here) has committed the offence. From the clarification points Emma has made and from the fact that a local councillor has wielded influence, I think there is a case to be made that the officer who wrote that letter has acted wilfully and has sought to obfuscate by quoting an interpretation of the PD rules inappropriately.

It amounts to a bully boy tactic, as if there was truly a breach of PD then they should have followed the normal procedure, which is to ask for a retrospective planning application in the first instance. If the application is rejected, or the person concerned refuses to make a retrospective planning application, they can then invoke the enforcement procedure. As I understand it, a local authority cannot start enforcement proceedings until they have demonstrated (on the balance of probability) that a planning regulation breach has taken place, that all reasonable avenues for seeking compliance with planning legislation have been exhausted and that they have no other option but to seek enforcement.

Or air, or light, or quiet, or other facets of quiet enjoyment...

The government has clearly set out to encourage deployment of PV, with primary legislation to support that, and local authorities and their officers should not be setting out to frustrate the law and policy as it stands, for whatever reasons, corrupt or otherwise.

Rgds

Damon

I've exceeded G83/1 at home with a waiver from the DNO: you might argue that 16A/phase of microgen is the minimum 'entitlement'.

Rgds

Damon

I start with the view that few common/existing roof coverings are things of beauty. Just because something has become familiar is not enough reason to preserve it in aspic and prevent innocuous positive developments such as this. I see no general problem with an entire roof of PV if done safely and tidily for example. I accept that exceptions exist.

Rgds

Damon

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Gavin_A</cite>
Bottom line here though would be that if the council wants to preserve the look and feel of the area then they should turn it into a conservation area, and if they want to remove PD rights for PV then they should then apply for one of the orders (forget what it's called now) to allow them to do this, thereby forcing all residents to apply for planning permission to install PV. This is the legal way for them to go about this, in the absense of this they have no legal rights to try to revoke PD rights in the way they appear to be trying here as far as I can see.</blockquote>

Absolutely spot on.

It seems that the LA haven't made this area a CA, yet the councillor who's made the complaint has wielded enough influence to make them (or an easily influenced individual in the planning department) act as if it is.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Nick Parsons</cite>JSH, did I miss a post? Is it a councillor?</blockquote>

Yes. Back on the first page of this thread I suggested it might have been caused by an "influential whinger" and Emma replied : <i>"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... "</i>

I can't quite tell but the current roofing material looks to be slate?
That angle of roof in that area make me wonder if it might originally have been a flag roof?

My point?

"Character" is a living thing. The current state has been arrived at by many many small changes over they years.

[Edit: Maybe some day the current crop of PV panels will be considered quaint?]

PS. Wheely bins? Surely they aren't in character? Someone should tell the council...

I still can't see how the panels on Emma's roof have any deleterious effect on the visual amenity of the area. So the panels are on the roof - they're not exactly in your face. If the roof was a 20 degree pitch and you put the panels at a 40 degree pitch then they might have a point but they're not are they.
I wonder whether the planners have served a notice on the neighbour for their bins being seriously detrimental to the visual amenity - of course not. I suggest passers by may notice the bins and may never look up.

Thanks Nick, that would be helpful - did try to contact you, but as I said couldn't get the hang of how you might share contact details privately. So, if you can send me your email, I will reply to you. Also hoping Dominic will do the same. Have never had reason to cross the planning dept before, so this is all a v steep learning curve for me!

I did try asking them to tell me precisely how it affected the amenity (which as I understand it is far more than just visuals?), and precisely how they thought I should better arrange it - but they ignored my questions - well, they did suggest houses might put panels on their rear slopes as you would have read.

Am considering a CLEUD - I still think i shouldn't have to do one, but if it will shut them up, it would be worth it.

To answer an earlier query, yes it does fall within a conservation area of the village, but there are no Articles which prohibit permitted developments. Indeed, the council have agreed that it is permitted, (once I had pointed out the amendment re roof slopes in conservation areas). But they maintain that I don't meet their interpretation of the conditions (ie, siting in so far as practicable, etc, etc) - as posted earlier.

No Jeremy that's wrong (let's not confuse the situation any further). Solar is PD on the roof of a dwelling in a CA - due to amended legislation in England brought in in October 2008.

The only time it is not PD in a CA is if the panels are fixed to a wall.

The original change was from 1st October 2008 which was in legal 'edit' language:

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008

4. In paragraph A.1. of Part 40 (installation of domestic microgeneration equipment) of Schedule 2 to the 1995 Order, omit “or roof slope” from sub-paragraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii).

This was then simply consolidated when the 2011 amendment was introduced to add ASHPs and wind turbines.

What Ted said.
I think we covered the whole Conservation Area PV roof-slope issue in great detail on another thread.
There are many Enforcement Officers, Planning Officers (and possibly whole planning departments) that are not aware of the very small amendment that allows PV on roof slopes in Conservation Areas. Never mind Local Councillors who often don't even understand how Permitted Development can exist at all!
This does not appear to be the issue here, as they are obviously trying to argue a very specific point, although I suspect the issue may have come about because you are in a Conservation Area (in other words, if you were not in a Conservation Area, they would not be bothering with hassling you).
This doesn't change the fact that it is PD and they need a good talking to.
we have covered the whole CLEUd process, retrospective planning application process, enforcement appeal process etc. etc. on this thread and others so there is no need to go over it all again.
I have whispered my email to you in the next post, however I think if you click on my name it takes you to my details and website etc.? should have checked before I started typing this.

Summary on the planning Portal here..
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/solarpanels/

Conservation area makes a difference to wall mounted and stand alone panels but not on a roof as far as i can tell.

As far as i can see the only issue the planners can fight on is their interpretation of "practicable" eg

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 sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the amenity of the area.

and I think we've provided evidence their interpretation is wrong.

Posted By: JSHarris

Posted By: tedNo Jeremy that's wrong (let's not confuse the situation any further). Solar is PD on the roof of a dwelling in a CA - due to amended legislation in England brought in in October 2008.

The only time it is not PD in a CA is if the panels are fixed to a wall.

Thanks for the correction, Ted, I thought that CAs were treated like the AONB my plot's in (and I do need PP for PV on a roof).

I'm certainly not an expert on the legislation, but when I researched this last year for my installation in an AONB, my conclusion was that it was PD. I asked the council, and have two emails from senior planning officers confirming that planning permission was not required. No ones complained so far!