Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



Renewable Energy: Solar panel planning nightmare!

Bottom of Page

151 to 180 of 288

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. >
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    Posted By: tedIf 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.


    True but the Epsom Appeal decision does appear to suggest that reducing the number of panels is considered a practicable way of reducing the impact. See this paragraph....

    In my view, an assessment of whether something is practicable must, in this context, focus on
    structural and practical considerations, including the nature and aspect of the roof slope concerned and the orientation, height, visibility and total number of panels involved, rather than direct economic factors. The 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.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    Posted By: Joiner..................... Or that where neighbours do exist they have no right to an opinion?

    The downside, is that this quickly becomes the thin end of the wedge and pretty soon "permission" for anything needs to be sought. There has to be a presumption that PV for instance is allowed, no if's and but's. The way I understand it, that is precisely what the legislation does. I can understand the need for caution for protecting the roofscape of a World Heritage site for instance but in the vast majority of urban Britain that's not the case. PV is pretty innocuous, its not like it's noisy and would cause sleepless nights. If it offends at all, it offends the eyes of some; well in that case the colour of your front door may be an affront to my eyes, or the UPVC windows in your wall, where do you stop?
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012 edited
     
    Posted by DhjI 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?


    Thats a good point. It was in the guidance prior to the NPPF so should have been raised at the Epson Appeal. In the case of wind (at least) you don't even have to prove your choosen site makes financial sense.

    I think this all goes to show you should really prepare your case well if you have to appeal enforcement.
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: CWatters
    Posted By: tedIf 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.


    True but the Epsom Appeal decision does appear to suggest that reducing the number of panels is considered a practicable way of reducing the impact. See this paragraph....

    In my view, an assessment of whether something is practicable must, in this context, focus on
    structural and practical considerations, including the nature and aspect of the roof slope concerned and the orientation, height, visibility and total number of panels involved, rather than direct economic factors. The 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.


    IMO the Inspector has overstepped the mark by not focusing solely on 'siting' which is the relevant word in the legislation. A well prepared case should have drawn his attention to that.

    I agree overall that the colour and number of panels does have an affect on the appearance and should be carefully selected - but I don't see it as a relevant consideration given the wording of the condition in Part 40 of the GPDO. Maybe 'siting' needs to be interpreted to take colour and number panels into account (certainly on the basis of that Inspector's comments it does) but I think that is stretching the meaning imposed by the original legislation.

    Reducing the number of panels is always going to reduce the visual impact so where does that argument stop? At zero panels on the roof again?
    • CommentAuthorwindy lamb
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    Surely in Emma's case there was careful consideration of the impact of the panels - Would she have gone ahead if they were an eye sore? Probably not. One could ague that they could have been bolted to the south facing wall but have been sited on the roof so as to minimise the impact - it may have been cheaper to install on the wall since less scaffolding. It just so happens that the roof is the best place for them production wise. Anyway, the case for their size, position etc can be presented so as to satisfy the Practicable bit.

    I'd just let the planners know I will not be doing anything until enforcement action has been initiated (Notice Served) then would be appealing. There is a very very strong case for the PD which if the planners pursue, surely know will be going against their own enforcement concordat.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    On a more general note I think solar panels on a roof has less visual impact than wind farms have on a rural scene!

    It really bugs me that legislation could be so badly written, i.e. ambiguous.
    • CommentAuthorwindy lamb
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    Joe90 - Exactly, that's why wind farms don't have PD and roof mounted PV does. That's the point of it - generally speaking (if people are sensible about it, reasonably practicable if you like) then there is very little impact of PV so it's a waste of resources putting it into the already over stretched planning system. That's why they had a review and gave a host of other things permitted development - like garage conversions,etc.
    Begs the question, why are the planning Dept in Emma's area worried about this - perhaps their workload is not as great as they would have us believe.
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    Can I just make things up and cost innocent people lots of time and money?

    Rgds

    Damon
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     
    Only if you can keep a straight face whilst you're doing it. :neutral:
  11.  
    Posted By: windy lamb
    Begs the question, why are the planning Dept in Emma's area worried about this - perhaps their workload is not as great as they would have us believe.


    This is my concern. What is their motivation for pursuing this. It is clear that we all agree the siting of these panels is acceptable. They are having to go out of their way to take the view that this installation is not PD.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     
    Posted By: windy lamb............permitted evelopment - like garage conversions,etc.

    Sorry to digress but I'm curious, is this really the case? Can you now just go ahead convert? Are there provisos e.g. detatched/integeral etc ?
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     
    Posted By: windy lambJoe90 - Exactly, that's why wind farms don't have PD and roof mounted PV does.


    Wind farms are only temporary where as solar panels are permanant...according to government advice.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     
    Posted By: owlmanPosted By: windy lamb............permitted evelopment - like garage conversions,etc.

    Sorry to digress but I'm curious, is this really the case? Can you now just go ahead convert? Are there provisos e.g. detatched/integeral etc ?


    Garage converstions, extensions and outbuildings have been allowed for years subject to some limitations. There is guidance here. See the links down the right hand side for whatever project you want to do....

    http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     
    Posted By: CWatters
    Posted By: windy lambJoe90 - Exactly, that's why wind farms don't have PD and roof mounted PV does.


    Wind farms are only temporary where as solar panels are permanant...according to government advice.


    That seems bonkers, solar panels can easily be removed without much remedial work to a roof but to remove a windfarm!!!!!! (when did government advise apply common sense?).
    • CommentAuthorbillt
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     
    According to the planning portal, solar panels should be removed when they are no longer in use, so I think they are regarded as temporary in the same way as wind turbines (which seem to have end of life removal as one of the planning permission conditions).
    • CommentAuthorwindy lamb
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     
    Billt- you are sought of right about end of use wind farms but planning conditions have gone further; they usually have a condition to remove the turbines if they are no longer in use BUT ALSO commonly have a 25 year condition. So if you're turbine is still perfectly good and working after 25 years you have to remove it or re-apply.
    However, if I know planning departments they will have moved offices during that time and lost all the paperwork...............
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: billt</cite>According to the planning portal, solar panels should be removed when they are no longer in use, so I think they are regarded as temporary in the same way as wind turbines (which seem to have end of life removal as one of the planning permission conditions).</blockquote>

    They don't regard them as temporary but what a good idea. If you need PP for solar panels you could apply for 25 year temporary PP. Then cite the temporary impact they have on the building and local Heritage assets. eg The same argument that is now commonly used for wind farms.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8999705/Wind-farm-to-be-built-at-site-of-decisive-Civil-War-battle.html

    “The argument that you can build a wind farm because it is relatively temporary compared with the battlefield is absurd. By the same logic, there is nothing to stop you building an entire array of wind farms around Stonehenge.”

    I bet the guy who thought up the "temporary" argument gets a knighthood :-)
    • CommentAuthorEmmaG
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2012
     
    A bit of good news... a green councillor within the authority was also incredulous as to the stance the planning dept are taking. Whilst he has not got them to change heir minds about my PD rights, he has secured an assurance from the relevant portfolio holder that their interpretation of the legislation will be reviewed.
    So it won't help in my case, but maybe it will help other people in the future.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2012
     
    Posted By: billtAccording to the planning portal, solar panels should be removed when they are no longer in use

    Does that mean they have to be taken down at night? :wink:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2012
     
  22.  
    Hi, not really relevant to this case but gives another view on the householder vs planning vs energy needs.

    In November, the California Appellate Court upheld a trial court decision that homeowners improperly installed a solar energy facility on their home in contravention of the community's covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).
    The California Solar Rights Act - The California legislature enacted the Act in 1978 to protect a homeowner’s right to install a solar energy system by limiting an HOA’s ability to object to such installations through its CC&Rs. Section 714 of the Act permits CC&Rs to include provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on installations. “Reasonable” restrictions included those that: 1) do not significantly increase the cost of the solar system, 2) do not significantly decrease the system’s efficiency or specified performance, or 3) allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency and benefits. “Significant” is further defined as those restrictions that increase the system’s cost by over 20 percent or decrease the system’s efficiency by over 20 percent.

    Full article at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/04/testing-the-limits-of-the-california-solar-act?cmpid=SolarNL-Thursday-April19-2012.

    The thing that struck me was this was 1978 legalisation.

    Cheers Mike up North
    • CommentAuthorFlavia
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2013
     
    Firstly, hello! I have just joined the forum and secondly, thank you for all this input.
    I am in the controversial Borough of Epsom and Ewell and am having problems with the council re my solar panals. Unfortunately we have tried to avoid it but been served by an Enforcement notice to remove two panels from our array.
    After speaking to a number of people in our village (Langley Vale) who had 'run ins' with our Mr Dorrington (Enforcement Officer) re their solar panels a few interesting points came to light. Over 90% of solar panel applications are declined!
    I am wondering if I could ask opinions or any assistance to actually fight this. The other people in the village were harrassed into giving in (being elderly and disabled did not help their vulnerability)so did not fight their order. But I'm not in that position.
    There are incredible inconsistencies through out the Borough and I have managed to gather these for our Appeal case. We have tried to find reason with the officers through meetings but apart from 'We don't like them' we have struggled to find any legal reason as to why they have an issue with them.
    Is there anyone still on this thread who I can bounce ideas off of?
    Many thanks
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013
     
    Hi Flavia and welcome.

    How many panels are on your roof? Are they in a straight rectangular configuration or are there odd ones? What does the enforcement notice say? Can you post a picture of the roof?
    • CommentAuthorFlavia
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013
     
    Hello Ted
    Please see the image of our house. We have complied with all the regulations but they are using the 'get out of jail free' one: 'panels in their entirey have not been sited so as to minimise their effect on the external appearance of the building and on the amenity area.' And, 'do not make a positive contribution to the built environment and cause serious harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to the provisions of policies BE1, and DC1 of the E&E District Wide Local Plan (200) and policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2007.'
    They have demanded that we remove the bottom two panels to have compliance.
    Unfortunately we disagree! Personally removing two panels seems to be the mantra here in the Borough, as with the Hylands Close array. I do not think removing two panels will remove the 'serious harm' from the surrounding area. There are 4 other arrays in the village: 2 rectangles and the other 2 have an interesting story. Will put those images up in a separate post to avoid confusion.
      home.jpg
    • CommentAuthorFlavia
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013
     
    We have only used 48% of our roof while others have used over 90%!
    The other case in the village is quite interesting, they have complied now but it does show insight into how the enforcement officer is working. They put their panels up as a partnership between the terraced houses and then were told to make a one meter gap between them. This was impossible as they would then extend beyond the roof, after numerous meetings they were mad to change the shape. See below before
      115 grosvenor.jpg
    • CommentAuthorFlavia
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013
     
    And after:
      117 grosvenor.jpg
    • CommentAuthorFlavia
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013
     
    But I digress! What has made us most frustrated is that they we have produced two very in depth documents to support why south facing is our only option and causes minimal impact on the environment (1 direct facing home as opposed to 9 homes)as well as how we have complied with each and every point on their Guide to solar panels in the Borough. But they will not listen. We will take this to appeal and show all these documents again. Even after the Enforcement Notice was served they have now indicated that they want more money as their fees have gone up. As far as we are concerned the Enforcement Document is legally binding and therefore at time of issue those were the fees, they don't get to change it at will. Sure you can tell we are very frustrated!
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013
     
    You should quote them all their policies that say anything about supporting renewable energy, kindness to the environment or about encouraging green technologies, there are plenty of them and sit it out.

    I cant believe the nonsense involved in making that gap either, insanity.
  30.  
    Oh tish! just done a long reply then went back a few pages to look for something, and lost it! The gist was, what is the 'appeal' against an enforcement notice? Since you presumably installed them under PD, do you need to do a full plg app, or a CLD? I don't know, but I bet Ted or Dominic do.

    Fight the good fight and, if possible, get them to acknowledge that that gap was a crazy stipulation!

151 to 180 of 288

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press