Thank you everyone! The documents have now been sent so let's cross fingers for a Inspector with a huge dose of common sense :-) Will let you know how we go.

Emma said ""Although my case was a little different to yours, I decided to go for retrospective PP & was granted it without needing to make alterations.""

So the planner took your money and granted planning permission. Sounds like a grand money making scheme to me!!

I can hear the members of the finance committee -- "So Mr Chairman if we challenge 10% of all permitted development within the Borough we could raise an additional £1 million for the council".

Great scam and little or no comebacks!!

+1

To raise a million pounds in planning fees for householder PD applications would require over 6,000 applications.

Highly unlikely.

Hello
The first documents have been sent through and I am starting on the writing of my Statement. All the bylaws the council are quoting in the documents are 'how proud they are of their leafy Borough' and 'we endeavor to ensure that this is a place for people to live, work and raise their families'. We are apparently 'not making a positive contribution to the built environment and cause serious harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area' contrary to their provisions of XYZ District Local Plan.
Now, forgive me, but the 6 other houses in the 3 parrallel streets that have south facing panels are doing what?? But by removing 2 panels this will miraculously transform the array into a beautiful contribution... excuse my sarcasm!
And yes we are still being pressured into applying for Planning Permission, which undoubtedly if we did apply ( and I will not) he would have us remove the two panels anyway. So no point!

Tell them something like this is your next project Flavia, that should get them steamed up.
" target="_self" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdkrITb0pEQ

I think every village should have one

Hello All

Unfortunately it is not good news!
Below is the decision and I would love to hear your thoughts, especially about the reflective nature of the panels!
Reasons
2. The appeal property is a detached house on an estate of similar properties. It
has a main roof with half hipped gables and pitched gablets above the first
floor windows in the front elevation. There is an attached garage with a
pitched roof attached to one side of the house and a ground floor front
projection with a monopitch roof sloping back to the main façade. On the main
front roof slope, 14 solar panels in 3 rows have been installed.
3. The appellant considers that the installation of the panels is permitted
development which is defined by Class A of Part 40 of Schedule 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as
amended). This allows the installation of solar panels on a dwellinghouse
subject to certain conditions. Those relevant to this appeal are conditions
A2(a) and (b) which require the panels, so far as practicable, to be sited to
minimise their effect on the external appearance of the building and the
amenity of the area.
4. As these conditions introduce the need for a degree of subjective judgement,
the Council has produced a Solar Panel Guidance Note for Domestic Installation
(SPG) which is referred to in the Council’s adopted Sustainable Design Guide
Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012 supporting the Epsom and Ewell Core
Strategy 2007.
5. The SPG states ‘The installation of some sources of renewable or low-carbon
energy on domestic dwellings can, subject to specific criteria, be carried out
under permitted development rights. However, under certain circumstances
proposals will require planning permission in spite of meeting permitted
development criteria because of their visual impact upon the building or the
surrounding area. This is particularly the case where this involves the
installation of equipment on the outside of a house – such as solar panels, . . .’
6. The guidance note states that ‘Harm can often be avoided by placing the panels
in unobtrusive positions, trying to configure them in a regular pattern and not
extending to the extremities of the roof plane. The percentage of the roof
slope is a factor to be considered and, if possible, the installation should be
symmetrical.’
7. Although the appellants point out that the guidance note and the SPG had not
been finalised at the time of the installation, they were in place at the time the
enforcement notice was issued and the terms of the GPDO applied at the time
the panels were installed. However, the appellants nevertheless believe that
the criteria set out on the guidance note have been met.
8. I note that the panels are set in a symmetrical pattern around the vertical axis
and the shape of the roof has been taken into account in their arrangement,
with the panels covering 48.5% of the upper roof slope and this is less than
some other examples in the Borough to which the appellant have drawn my
attention; however, the top edge of the panels is vey close to the ridge of the
roof.
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 Council’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.
11. A balance will therefore need to be struck between the minimum number of
panels that would be both financially and technically viable and the number
that would produce the best possible return, in terms of electricity generation
and the consequent sustainability considerations and the financial rewards for
the householder.
12. The Council accepts that the panels need to be on a south facing slope to work
most efficiently and that the main roof slope is preferable to the front
projection as a location. However, it submits that it has not been shown that a
smaller installation would not be reasonably practical so that that the impact of
the installation on the visual amenity of the surrounding area would be
minimised and the existing array is consequently not justified as permitted
development. It has also suggested that, whilst panels sited on the garage
roof might not be so efficient, the relocation of 2 of those in the current array
to this location would improve the overall appearance of the installation.
13. This is why it has suggested the removal of the two lower panels, which it
believes would then make the development acceptable. This has been rejected
as a proposition by the appellants, who state that installing 2 panels on the
garage would not be technically or financially viable and that 14 panels are
needed to meet their energy generation aspirations.
14. However, in my opinion, if there is likely to be harm to the appearance of the
surroundings, there needs to be justification for the inclusion of more panels in
an array than would be the minimum necessary to ensure it would be
financially viable and to ensure that the homeowner would eventually recoup
the costs of the installation.
15. In this case, the panels are sited on the prominent front elevation, directly
facing the road and, because of their clearly ‘retro-fit’ appearance and the
contrast with the roof tiles, which cause them to appear unsympathetic to the
host building, I consider they detract from the character of the property and
the street scene in general. The panels have a reflective appearance which
draws the eye to them and compounds the visual differences between them
and the other areas of roof on the host building and its neighbours.
16. Despite reports of discussions between the appellants, their solar panel
installers and the Council, and the statement that the removal of the lower 2
panels would result in the array being technically unviable for their purposes, I
have not been given any evidence to support this claim. The appellants say
that the loss of 2 panels would result in them being unable to produce enough
energy to cover the peak times during the year but, again, this is not
supported by technical evidence or any explanation of why this is essential,
other than the appellants’ personal preference. They have also put forward no
detailed information on the financial implications of reducing the size of the
array.
17. However, the appellants still have the opportunity to apply for planning
permission for the installation, should they consider that they are able to
provide further evidence to show why 14 panels rather than 12 are justified,
but there is no appeal on ground (a) in this case and no deemed application for
planning permission for me to consider at this time.
18. I have noted the other examples cited by the appellants but each case has to
be judged on its own particular circumstances and, in this instance, I consider
that the removal of the 2 lower panels would improve the appearance of the
installation, by reducing the amount of roof space covered, minimising the
impact of the array as far as possible and raising the bottom edge of the panels
to a point where they would be less conspicuous from nearby viewpoints.
Conclusions
19. For the reasons given above I conclude that the siting of the installation fails to
minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building and the amenity
of the area, so far as practicable, as required by the conditions imposed by the
GPDO and is consequently not permitted development. Therefore, the appeal
on ground (c) fails, planning permission is required for the development and I
shall uphold the enforcement notice.

Posted By: Flavia5. The SPG states ‘… However, under certain circumstances proposals will require planning permission in spite of meeting permitted development criteria because of their visual impact upon the building or the surrounding area. …

What‽ Parliament says it's PD but the council says, nope, you have to get planning permission anyway. I think somebody (maybe me, but I don't think so) needs to be a bit clearer on what PD is and what the relationship is between national laws and local government policies.

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.

Doesn't seem like common sense to me. If the government had meant the GPDO to limit the number of the panels I'd have thought they'd have worded it as something like “...must, so far as practicable, be sized and sited so as to minimise its effect on the...�.

This is not a good precedent and I hope the government can clarify the matter.

Posted By: FlaviaBelow is the decision

Sorry, but whose decision? Jonti seems to be assuming it was somebody from the council whereas I was assuming it was a planning inspector (i.e., above the council level). Looking back thorough the thread, it's not clear.

(Edit: having posted this I see Dominic's comment.)

Sutton and Cheam has a Lib Dem MP. Get him to bounce this in the direction of Ed Davey?

However, under certain circumstances proposals will require planning permission in spite of meeting permitted development criteria because of their visual impact upon the building or the surrounding area.

Wow! That's news to me. Pretty sure it's wrong.

Despite reports of discussions between the appellants, their solar panel installers and the Council, and the statement that the removal of the lower 2 panels would result in the array being technically unviable for their purposes, I have not been given any evidence to support this claim.

Didn't anyone (on this thread or elsewhere) warn you that such evidence would be required to support your claim that the system was essentially the smallest practicable?

Another example of the permitted development rules being ambiguous. (I had to challenge my council over a loft conversion and won!!!)

Did you go for a CLEUD? (Cert of lawfulness of existing use or development?). Much discussion here seems to suggest that tat is the way to go before a Planning app. However I am not sure what legal standing the Inspector's opinion has in this regard.

In terms of the Inspector's comments re the proportion of panelled area to roof area, he/she comments:

''I note that the panels are set in a symmetrical pattern around the vertical axis
and the shape of the roof has been taken into account in their arrangement,
with the panels covering 48.5% of the upper roof slope and this is less than
some other examples in the Borough to which the appellant have drawn my
attention; ***however, the top edge of the panels is very close to the ridge of the
roof.***'' (***my emphasis***)
.... and then goes on to support the LA in its insistence upon the removal of 2 panels at the *bottom* of the array.

It's a worrying precedent. I wonder if Planners throughout the country will start reviewing every PV installation, especially those which cover most of the roof.

It's too late to say it now (but I will :)), but as the Inspector points out you may have missed a trick in not providing figures to back up your assertions that 'array - 2' ''wouldn't be enough''. Although you and the LA are arguing over different issues, effectively, in the absence of further justification (a 'body of evidence') from you, the Inspector seems to have given more weight to the arguments (however wrong we may feel they are) (-the 'body of evidence') that the LA has put.

Sorry for the fuzzy pic, but the array shown below (in a National Park) was judged to be Permitted Devp't after we submitted a CLOPUD (effectively a CLEUD submitted before the fact rather than after).

So can you now just remove the two lower panels and put them on the garage roof or do you have to apply for planning to do just that OR apply for planning if you're going to leave as is?

Sorry, I haven't bothered to check but if memory serves, doesn't the legislation say that it is not up to the planners or planning system to determine how many panels are 'needed'. Rather they are supposed to assume that the need for renewable generation is established and not question it?

Specifically, there shouldn't need to be a debate about financial returns. This is all supposed to be about saving the planet.