Posted By: Ed DaviesYes, seems a waste of money to me. Why not just ask them to get on an serve the enforcement notice so you can appeal that? It'd be cheaper but have the same effect - and they might back down.

I don't know about the ins-and-outs of the different approach, but if you make it absolutely clear you will take it all the way if necessary, they often back down. Meanwhile it is working nicely and annoying the NIMBY. win win!

I got a reply back from the Planning Portal but it's not helpful...

The Planning Portal offers interface between applicants/agents and Local Planning Authorities allowing the completion and submission of on line planning application forms, it is not a point of legislatory control and the information provided through the site is intended solely as non-specific general guidance.

The national network of Local Planning Authorities are responsible for the interpratation and application of planning regulations within their area, if you would like to discuss these regulations on a national level I recomend contacting the Department of Communities and Local Government on 0303 444 0000

For some reason I can't access the search tool here to look for the 2152306 decision. Anyone else able?..

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/appeals/online/search

Posted By: CWattersRe that Epson case that was refused at appeal.

Info on the web cofirms this is the house/installation that was deemed not to be permitted Development .

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/resources/images/1770982/?type=articleLandscape" rel="nofollow" >http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/resources/images/1770982/?type=articleLandscape

tbf to the council, that is a right pigs ear of an installation.

Posted By: djhborpin wrote: Their DNS seems to be having issues.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17648852" rel="nofollow" >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17648852

Doubt it is related. Anonymous would have to be pretty desperate to DDOS the planning portal.

It is quite possible that the sites are hosted on the same pool of machines: blast one ministry off the Net and several others may go with it...

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: CWatters

Posted By: Gavin_A
tbf to the council, that is a right pigs ear of an installation.

Apart from perhaps not putting a panel on the left hand side I'm wondering how it could be done better?

not try to squeeze quite so many panels on, eg leaving the top panel off the main array to give room to ensure the panels line up better with each other.

I'd also have seriously considered the east north east face, and tbh I'm not sure it would have had much if any worse performance than this one will with the inevitable shading impact on the panels closest to the dorma section.

Not at all surprised the council won this one, it nicely demonstrates the difference between minimising the visual impact so far as reasonably practicable, and 'anyone can install panels on any roof anywhere under any circumstances and in as untidy a way as they like'.

I agree with Gavin that the install isn't the prettiest, but once you start down the road of what is "nice " and what isn't, it's a slippery slope. Each install then hinges on subjective evaluation with all the whims and fancies of whoever has an axe to grind. There has to be an overiding principle that PV is permitted and provided structural and safety issues are addressed, the issues surrounding style etc are removed from the equation. If the install is aesthetically poor then surely only the owners property is devalued. Is there a right to a pretty view?

AFAICS there are 3 key words in the GPDO Part 40 - 'siting', 'minimise' and 'practicable'. If an objection doesn't pertain to all of those then it isn't a valid objection.

'Siting' means where are the panels and how are they laid out. Not 'how many' or 'what colour are they'.

'Practicable' should be down to the owner and installer to decide and include factors affecting economic return. Not the Planning Officer's decision.

'Minimise' is the only one that might have a subjective element. Shuffling the panels around in various combinations will have differing effects - but which one has the minimal impact? Present the Planning Officer with a set of alternatives and they can then choose which one they think is best.

Not putting the panels on the roof at all is not one of the alternatives.

Just to add.

If there are no 'practicable' alternatives to the one chosen then all that can be done to 'minimise' the impact has already been done. So the panels stay where they are.

Posted By: tedAFAICS there are 3 key words in the GPDO Part 40 - 'siting', 'minimise' and 'practicable'. If an objection doesn't pertain to all of those then it isn't a valid objection.

yep.

Posted By: ted'Siting' means where are the panels and how are they laid out. Not 'how many' or 'what colour are they'.

I was only referring to the how many because that then related to how they could be laid out, and the fact that squeezing the extra panel on was what had largely caused it to look such a mess. Had this been a rear roof, it may have been acceptable, but on the front, not really IMO.

I'd also argue the point that black framed, or black black panels can be used to mitigate the visual impact to the point where the visual impact on the building / amenity value of the area would be more acceptable, meaning that negative visual impact of mounting on the front would not have been great enough to warrant the loss of income that would come from mounting on the side. IMO both the loss of amenity value, and the practicablility or otherwise of mounting on a different roof faces are sliding scales that depend on many factors, one of which is how much the amenity value of the area would be damaged by the installation - this can obviously be reduced by making it blend in better.

I'd argue that this was all included in the word practicable.

Posted By: ted'Practicable' should be down to the owner and installer to decide and include factors affecting economic return. Not the Planning Officer's decision.

Well in the first instance yes, but the planning officers also have the right to challenge that decision if they're sure enough of the legal grounds to do so, just as the HSA would have the right to intervene in a health and safety situation despite it initially being the companies responsibility to determine what was reasonably practicable steps for them to take.

Posted By: ted'Minimise' is the only one that might have a subjective element. Shuffling the panels around in various combinations will have differing effects - but which one has the minimal impact? Present the Planning Officer with a set of alternatives and they can then choose which one they think is best.

well, only if the installer isn't capable of using their professional judgement, and willing to stand behind that if necessary, and explaining the potential risks to the customer of mounting on the front rather than the side etc.

Posted By: tedNot putting the panels on the roof at all is not one of the alternatives.

True, but that's not really the situation with this 2nd case that CWatter quoted. IMO in this situation there were several practicable options they could have taken to minimise the visual impact of the installation on the amenity value of the area, but they opted to install a pigs ear of an installation on the front of the house, doing nothing at all to minimise it's visual impact, then act surprised when someone complains and the council intervenes.

What I'm really getting at here though is that IMO this decision should in no way be seen as setting a precedent for the council to use in EmmaG's case, where the installation looks to have been done to high standards to minimise the visual impact as far as practicable, and the only viable alternative to have improved the visual impact would have been not to install it at all, which as you rightly point out is not one of the alternatives available to the council.

Gavin, my points weren't aimed at anyone in particular or any installation. Just an idealised way that these GPDO conditions might be handled.

Windy, the object of the alternatives presented would be to show the planners that the alternative with the least impact was the one already used and that all other possible alternatives could do nothing to minimise the impact any further.

This is really interesting, thank you for posting it up. Some good learning points for making a case.
It also worries me alot as this inspector seems to be taking a somewhat similar stance to Bradford Council! Very dissimilar to the Poole decision - is it really down to luck of the Inspector draw? I'd like to hope my panels arent as noticable as the ones in this case, but it all depends where they choose to draw the line :-(

Spot on Dominic.

Posted By: CWattersThe evidence from the appellant appears to suggest that a smaller number of panels would still generate electricity and be worthwhile in the sense of off-setting energy usage from non-solar sources.

I don't remember the details at the moment but isn't it the case that you now don't have to demonstrate the need for renewables at a particular site? There's a presumption that whatever renewables are asked for are required. Was that in the NPPF or somewhere?