Green Building Forum - PV Panel Retrospective Planning

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:01:16 +0000

Hi, After much research and quotes from various installers , I have 15 panels fitted on the front elevation of my roof which is a semi detached 1952 build, 3 bedroom. The panels were fitted in September 2013, they met and complied with regulations under the Lawful Development Planning, I have now been contacted by The council have said I have installed excessive number of panels and have asked me to reduce the number to no more than 10 panels or apply for retrospective planning permission with a fee of Â£175. My question is this how is an installation of 15 panels illegal when a installation of 10 panels is going to be deemed to be legal. If I had fitted 10 in the first place would there still have been a complaint. THEY HAVE SAID THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN SITED TO MINIMISE ITS EFFECT ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING.

My street does not face a major highway, it is not a listed building, it is not in a conservation area. The street can only be accessed by one direction as it is in a hammerhead. Having looked at other installations in this area that are bigger than my install I cannot see why the council has asked me to reduce the number of the panels and this would effectively incur a cost to me. The council have been installing larger systems and panels in this area that take up as much or maybe even more of the roof space on the properties. Does anyone have any advice on this as I feel I have not committed no offense. The council have quoted the Town and Country Act 1990 (as amended).

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

SteamyTea — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:28:01 +0000

Is one of your neighbours a councillor or trying to sell their place?
We had a thread about this from someone with a similar problem.

Start collecting evidence of other installations.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Ed Davies — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:50:07 +0000

Previous (long) discussion of the subject:

http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=8867

The English permitted development rules say that the panels needed to be sited â€œso far as practicableâ€ to minimize the effect on the appearance. It all hinges on the interpretation of â€œpracticableâ€ - in particular whether siting includes reducing the number of panels. Unfortunately, there is at least one case which has gone to appeal where the inspector has ruled that it does. Personally, I think that's a silly interpretation - if parliament had wanted that the drafters would have written â€œsited and sizedâ€ or some such.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

pmusgrove — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:28:26 +0000

Fight them all the way. If siting did include the number of panels the logic would end up that no panels should be placed so it is not only a silly interpretation but an incorrect one.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Triassic — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:32:41 +0000

CSC - Please do keep us up to date with progress with you installation, as no doubt this will prompt others here to comment and provide helpful advice.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

tony — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:05:29 +0000

I would try doing nothing!

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

renewablejohn — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:35:26 +0000

I would just write back and state there is no reference to size within the act but if the council want clarification then your quite willing to approach your MP to raise the matter in Parliament for clarification.

You may find there attitudes change when there neck is on the line.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Nick Parsons — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:04:01 +0000

Have a look through that previous thread to read about CLEUDs - Certificate(s) of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development. It costs (or did when I did one in (?) 2009/10) half of the cost of a Planning App and is dealt with slightly differently to a Plg App. It is all about the baseline legality - it is not a Plg app as such. (No, I don't really understand the niceties). Mine succeeded in a National Park, where the authority had effectively reserved the right, once I had installed, to do what your authority has done.

Good luck!

Nick

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

CWatters — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:55:30 +0000

Do some research as this has happened to other people. In particular see what happened to Flavia on this thread. At least one Appeal Inspector has ruled that size does matter and you can bet the council will refer to previous appeal decisions if it goes that far.

http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=8867&page=9

9. The appellants make the point that the conditions imposed by the GPDO refer to the siting of the panels, requiring them to be placed where they would have the least impact, so far as is practical. However, they appear to dispute that the number of panels should in any way be controlled and seem to consider that, once a householder has decided on the number of panels that would best suit their needs, the technical constraints of where the installation can be sited should prevail. The appellants have explained that the capacity of the panels is well below the residential limit of 4kw/h and, if the Councilâ€™s suggestion of the
removal of 2 panels is imposed, the capacity would be reduced to below half the allowed domestic output.

10. However, it seems to me to be common sense that it cannot be the intention of the GPDO to allow the installation of as many panels as suits the aspirations of the homeowner, which can then be justified because they are placed in the position that would give the best technical performance. The fact that conditions are attached by the GPDO is a clear indication that visual appearance is a concern and this will be affected by the number of panels proposed, as well as where they are located. Considerations relating to the practicality of the siting of the panels will therefore be directly affected by the number that would make the installation viable, both technically and financially.

In my opinion the wording of the rules makes it rather risky not to make an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development before installing PV.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Ed Davies — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:06:24 +0000

Move to Scotland. None of those silly English rules:

Class 2B.â€”
(1)Any improvement, addition or other alteration to the external appearance of a dwellinghouse that is not an
enlargement.
(2) Development is not permitted by this class ifâ€”
(a) it would protrude more than 1 metre from the outer surface of an external wall, roof plane, roof ridge or chimney
of the dwellinghouse;
(b) it would be a wind turbine;
(c) it would be a balcony;
(d) it would be on the roof and would result in a raised platform or terrace;
(e) it would be within a conservation area; or
(f) it would be development described in class 2A(1), 3B(1), 6C(1), 6F(1), 6H(1) or 72(1).
(3) Development is permitted by this class subject to the condition that the materials used for any roof covering must be as similar in appearance to the existing roof covering as is reasonably practicable.

Basically, you can do almost anything so long as it doesn't increase the internal volume of the building and doesn't protrude more than a metre from the building (you can even go a metre above the ridge). The guidance notes specifically say: â€œSolar PV or solar thermal panels are not considered to be a roof covering.â€

2A is access ramps; 3B any building, engineering or other operation (â€œâ€¦is intended to apply to garden
works, free-standing solar panels, flag poles, swimming pools and oil tanksâ€); 6C and 6F are flues, 6H ASHP and 72 CCTV cameras.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

ted — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:39:02 +0000

Unfortunately Scotland has almost exactly the same rules: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/34/made

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

tony — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:42:09 +0000

Is the array that we are talking about symetrical and rectangular?

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

skyewright — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:08:18 +0000

Posted By: tedUnfortunately Scotland has almost exactly the same rules:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/34/made" rel="nofollow" >http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/34/made

Always happy to accept that you take much more notice of such things (& read more diligently) than me but I think Ed is quoting (p40 in the pdf edition?) from "Guidance on Householder permitted development rights", published in 2012.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/02/9140/0
Does that trump the 2009 document?

For example, though not exactly the same situation, 2 years ago we needed PP for a sunroom. We are now considering another(!) of the same size, same construction, different side of the same house. This time planning say PP isn't required, just BC. Maybe that's indicative of a change?

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Ed Davies — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:19:31 +0000

Ted, past tense is needed there:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/357/article/2/made#article-2-5-a

basically scraps all of the special rules related to PV, etc, and replaces them with the wider ranging bit I quoted above.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Ed Davies — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:25:41 +0000

Yes, as Skyewright says, page 40 in the PDF edition of the Guidance which itself is quoting from:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/357/schedule/made

Bit about Skyewright's sunroom is at the top of that page in Class 1A.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:43:07 +0000

Posted By: tonyIs the array that we are talking about symetrical and rectangular?

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:47:11 +0000

Hi, the panels are arrayed with 12 panels soldier like in 2 rows of 6, 3 panels laid along the top on their side. The top 3 panels finish about 600 short of the edge of the upright panels on the left hand side to allow for chimney and shading

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:48:34 +0000

Posted By: TriassicCSC - Please do keep us up to date with progress with you installation, as no doubt this will prompt others here to comment and provide helpful advice.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:50:59 +0000

Hi Triassic have put my problems to my local MP and submitted 20 photos of similar and bigger installations within our location and she is investigating the situation. As it stands now this puts on hold the retrospective planning until I hear further. Lets see what they come up with. I am determined not to take them off.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

tony — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:54:17 +0000

I reckon do nothing, wait and see nothing is going to happen there are hundreds of thousands of similar installations.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Nick Parsons — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:05:05 +0000

csc, can you post a pic?

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:03:59 +0000

Hi Nick I am not allowed to upload jpg file.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Nick Parsons — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:10:44 +0000

Hi csc, I think that'll be because it's over the size limit. I think it's 500kB. This one (206kB) opened OK. It started off as 1MB+. Click 'edit', 'resize', and I usually select 30%.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

csc — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:51:05 +0000

HI nick, my installation.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

tony — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:06:42 +0000

Like I said hundreds of thousands like yours, say nothing

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

renewablejohn — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:33:47 +0000

Have a word with your neighbor spouting forth all the benefits of your PV and suggest that you will be willing to help them do a similar system on there roof. Always strength in numbers.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

borpin — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:35:58 +0000

%&#%** planners. If they had their way we would still be building mud huts as that would fit in with the surrounding area. HHGTTG eat your heart out....

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Nick Parsons — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:48:00 +0000

Nothing wrong with that! Given the choice I'd avoid the mix of landscape and portrait, but as Tony says, it's a typical set-up.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

billt — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:56:48 +0000

Have to agree there's nothing wrong with that. The one that lost the appeal was a pigs ear installation and there was a slight aesthetic justification for the appeal decision.

Posted By: cscThe council have said I have installed excessive number of panels and have asked me to reduce the number to no more than 10 panels or apply for retrospective planning permission with a fee of Â£175. My question is this how is an installation of 15 panels illegal when a installation of 10 panels is going to be deemed to be legal. If I had fitted 10 in the first place would there still have been a complaint. THEY HAVE SAID THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN SITED TO MINIMISE ITS EFFECT ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING.

This sounds to me as if they're trying it on. If there really were grounds for the claim that it was not permitted development then planning permission would not be granted either so the Â£175 would be money down the drain.

PV Panel Retrospective Planning

Nick Parsons — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:14:05 +0000

billt said:

'' If there really were grounds for the claim that it was not permitted development then planning permission would not be granted either so the Â£175 would be money down the drain.''

I am not sure that's wholly correct in every case. PD is often quite heavily circumscribed, and specific conditions included. As an albeit unlikely example, if you wanted to install panels which sat 201mm (or 225 - I'm not really being that silly!) above the plane of the roof it would not be PD. It would be pretty likely to get PP on application, though. There are of course other similar potential scenarios.

Nick