exactly what does the enforcement notice say the remedy is, and the timescale allowed to implement remedy

be VERY aware of the time allowed to put an appeal in as if you miss it you are entirely screwed

I persoanlly believe that point 3 is your key point of appeal, point 1 being the back-stop if 3 fails however it will cost you to argue on point 1 so depends on how bullish you are feeling.
If you don't appeal on ground 1 (that PP should be granted) and pay the fee, the inspector will not consider if he would have granted PP if you fail your appeal on point 3

-Steve

Remember that when a module gets shaded it reduces the lifespan of it as well as the overall power output (with a normal inverter, not the case with individual panel inverters).

There are also rules about where modules can be fitted on the roof with regards to the edges (not sure if it is an MCS or a BC rule).

Taking off two modules may mean you need to change the inverter as well.

Posted By: FlaviaJust to clarify the 'only' request now is to remove the lower two panels.

I'm not an expert but isn't that a request to change the size of the array rather than its siting? As such, doesn't that mean it is something they are absolutely not able to request?

Why/ how does shading reduce the life of a panel? Or is it going to reduce the lifespan of the inverters?

I'm glad I didn't come across this thread earlier (have been very busy lately) It makes my blood boil.
I cannot believe that there are Local Authority Enforcement Officers and their Managers who take this approach to renewable energy.
These people are paid by us as taxpayers!
What a total and utter waste of time and money; for you, them, and everybody.
They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

You must follow it all up with complaint letters to the highest levels, otherwise nothing will change.
Look at the Council's complaints procedure to show you how.

Unfortunately there are still LPA's that have a very small minded and picky approach to Permitted Development (they hate it!)
I think it may be a psychological thing - the loss of power that they once had over their residents.
(interesting possible research topic there for an MPhil or suchlike...)

Some will go to extraordinary lengths and argue that black is white, especially once they are backed further and further into a corner. The tragedy is, this just makes them look like complete idiots.
(I was once to be found banging my head on the table in despair during a meeting with the Head of Planning and the Deputy Chief-executive)

They are desperate to keep control because they need to stop some people doing what the hell they like with buildings etc., which is fair enough, and why they have jobs in the first place.
But being so very very picky about PV and going on about "how awful it all looks" is, in my opinion, pathetic.

Get a good Planning Consultant, but unfortunately it will cost you, and it should all be so unnecessary.
I would love to do this work for you, but unfortunately I am far too busy at the moment.

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not sure just how much of it is down to their perceived loss of control and how much is the loss of income where they see themselves missing out on the boom of PV installation over the last couple of years.

Maybe a letter to Pickles is in order to get the PD guidance updated especially in light of various appeal decisions.

Incidentally the PD guidance has recently been updated to make it clear that SWI is not considered 'development' and so will not need planning permission - http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

Solid

And just to follow up on Dominics note

I've heard that when you come to sell a house more and more solictitors are asking for Certificates of Lawfulness as evidence that planning permission isn't required.

It's a fairly straightforward process as well, you send in your application and they check what you proposed against the Technical Guidance posted above by Ted. they is no public consultation like there is in planning.

I actually used this to my advantage - made an application for a house in my large back garden, it got turned down and I lost the appeal. One of the reasons being that the building would be out of the pattern of development to the surroundings.

I then applied for a Certificate for Lawfulness for Proposed Use for a double garage, office and playroom of approx 85m2. Once I got this I made an planning application for a 2 bed bungalow with the same layout externally, just changed the 2 garage doors to a front door and a bi-fold door. Used garage as the fall back option saying the structure was going to be build anyway so only thing they should look at is what is different between the out building and dwelling.

Council rejected application saying there would be significant differences but didn't bother to say why and didn't seem to want to engage with us after several letters. I appealled and was sucessful AND awarded costs asinspector could see a significat difference and and they had acted unreasonably as they wouldn't explain their position or talk to us.

Not the normal route of getting planning, whole process took 2 years and now have approval for 2 bed bungalow and not 3 bed house. So this is going to have to be a step for us to get the house we want.

I think planning can be a bit of a game, and would recommend you get a planning consultant. I didn't use one for my first application and it got called into the full planning committee. Turned out my lovely neighours had clubbed together and hired a consultant to get the application turning down - I got cruxified in the meeting. You need to talk that planners language and us their own policies against them.

I'd recommend using a Consultant anything you think there might be a issue with the planners..

So what do people mean by “solid wall insulation”?

Insulation for application to houses made with solid walls, i.e. no cavity!

If your home was built before 1920, its external walls are probably solid rather than cavity walls. Cavity walls are made of two layers with a small gap or ‘cavity’ between them. Solid walls have no such gap, so they let more heat through. Solid walls can be insulated – either from the inside or the outside. This will cost more than insulating a standard cavity wall, but the savings on your heating bills will be bigger too.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Insulation/Solid-wall-insulation

Quick update! I have asked for a quote from a reputable consultancy and they recommend going for full planning permission because of the Hylands Close case, this will be at a cost of 1,400. The consultant did not even consider the other route or mention that it was a question of siting not size merely that it was a question of aesthetics. Have one more to contact but looks like I'm the muggins to fight this one :-) Will be digging deep to speak to 'Planners' language!

''Why have this registry in place if you still need to get a certificate for a Permitted Development? ''

Because that's about Bldg regs compliance, not Plg.

As far as I can see the nub of the issue is that the GPDO as amended says in the two relevant clauses (A2 (a) and A2 (b)):

“...must, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the...”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2009/2193/article/2/made

It says “sited” not “sized”. I think the inspector in the Hylands Close case was wrong to ignore this distinction and so are the planners in Flavia's case, unlike the inspector in the Poole case.

Further, the inspector seems to have been requiring evidence that the panels were deliberately sited to minimize the impact. I don't think the GPDO requires this, only that they're so sited - if you do it by dumb luck and ignorance then you're still compliant, surely. E.g., if you drive at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone because you're looking for a particular address when you would otherwise have driven faster than the speed limit I doubt meany people would think it reasonable that you get a speeding ticket anyway.

The Hylands Close case is also slightly different from Flavia's in that there was the option of putting the panels on the other roof and the inspector seems not to have had enough information on how much effect that would have in order to be able to assess if installation on that roof would be practicable. Perhaps some numbers on that effect would have been sufficient change things.

You might realize that I'm a bit annoyed about all this. I think the whole way renewable energy has been encouraged by recent governments is pathetic and cack handed but at least they have done something. The last thing we need is a bunch of NIMBYs undermining it further - particularly by abusing legislation to scare people out of doing reasonable things.

It's making me cross too! It seems to me to be about the minutae of visual impact. It could be considered of national importance and a full public enquiry maybe necessary to sort it out.

I've looked at the 2 pictures again - it can't be because it's not a rectangle as they made the other house separate their rectangle and 'step' it. So it's either they don't like the depth of 3 panels (which would mean they ARE making an issue of size) or that the bottom 2 panels don't line up with the grid lines of the others.

I would argue that the whole array constitutes the visual impact, not a single grid line.

It's interesting that the planning rules are being relaxed for exterior wall insulation through the efforts of the Minister for DECC. Maybe he needs to address Epsom's attitude to pv/st installations.

That's true, but it does all swing around the interpretation of 'practicable'.