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.




Renewable Energy: Solar panel planning nightmare!

Bottom of Page

271 to 288 of 288

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. >
    • CommentAuthorHollyBush
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2013 edited
     
    3 other thoughts (sorry I'm no expert here, just some ideas):

    1 - convert the roof to be a single plane (get rid of the gables above the window) and add another 5 panels.

    2 - add 3 or 4 panels to the roof of the porch in landscape mode and remove the 2 in question on the roof

    3 - can the rest of the roof be "filled" with similar material to the panels, so it looks like just one material is being used, instead of a mix of tiles and panels (suspect coloured glass would do)?
  2.  
    In his (?) summing-up the Inspector says:

    '' Therefore, the appeal on ground (c) fails, ***planning permission is required for the development***''

    ***my emphasis.

    This appears to suggest that, the appeal having been heard, you cannot apply for a CLEUD. I still think a CLEUD, rather than a full Planning app, ought to be the way to go in circumstances like this. Did you have help from a consultant? I think you probably need one. Dominic may be able to give you some pointers.
  3.  
    Nick is right in that CLEUD would be the first thing to do, however this avenue has already been explored in the enforcement appeal. The Planning Inspector has basically agreed with the Local Authority and decided that the installation has not been "sited as far as practicable to minimise the effect....(etc. from the PD legislation)"

    I also agree that it sets a worrying precedent whereby many LPA's may now look at any PV installations that they think are a bit unsightly and now claim that they are not PD.

    Personally I do not have a problem with them as I also think it is more about saving the planet than how the buildings look. However in reality I think it is more about making money for most people (we wouldn't have seen any where near as many of these types of problems before FIT's)

    The only avenue next for Flavia is to apply for Planning Permission and try and make the case that the installation is so close to what would be PD that it should be granted PP, that removing those 2 panels now would require high costs of alteration/rewiring and render it ineffective financially (i.e. prove the technical and financial case), and show as many other examples of similar installations (if you can find any) as possible - even better if you can find a similar installation that has a CLOPUD or CLEUD from the Council that says that it is PD.

    If you can't prove the technical/financial case (e.g. if there isn't actually one) or can't find any other examples that are the same that have CLOPUD/CLEUD then the removal of the 2 bottom panels should get the LPA off your back.

    Here is the point once again where I will offer again the one piece of advice that I have stated many times on this forum, and excuse the shouting:
    WHY NOT APPLY FOR A CLOPUD BEFORE YOU SPEND ££££''s ON PV PANELS OR ANY OTHER P.D. ON YOUR HOUSE?

    It only costs £86 for a householder (before the installation) and is a legal document from the LPA that states your proposal is Permitted Development. I think it is incredible value for money just for the peace of mind, yet still people on here say things like "i wouldn't pay it...the council can sod off...its PD... bureaucracy...etc.etc." but surely all of these unfortunate cases shown so far would have spent a lot less of their time and money if they had done this in the first place.

    Nick Parsons did it for PV in a National Park and they issued the certificate = peace of mind. It's a no-brainer.
  4.  
    If Flavia now submits a Planning Application as described above, and that is subsequently refused, then she still has the right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission - this will then be assessed on the planning merits of the case, rather than whether it is PD or not.
    Depends how long you are prepared to drag it out for.
  5.  
    You also have the option of a Judicial Review of the Planning Inspector's decision, however that would be very expensive as you will need a Lawyer that specialises in Planning.
  6.  
    Thanks, Dominic, for that really comprehensive reply. Yes, I thought the Inspector had effectively 'done the CLOPUD'. I still think (s)he's wrong, of course! I wish Flavia luck with the application and, if it's necessary (and I hope it's not) the subsequent appeal.

    You say ''The only avenue next for Flavia is to apply for Planning Permission and try and make the case that the installation is so close to what would be PD that it should be granted PP, that removing those 2 panels now would require high costs of alteration/rewiring and render it ineffective financially (***i.e. prove the technical and financial case***),'' (***my emphasis).

    Surely in granting (or not granting) PP (or determining PD) Planners do *not* have to look at the economic case? And is it not going to be very hard to argue what is the 'right size of array'? Before FiT and its attendant price-drop the 'right size' might have been only 1-2kW, because of the very high prices. The price drop (and the right size of roof) has allowed householders to get close to matching, in generation, 'typical' electrical consumption (somewhere in the range of 3000 - 4500 per E.S.T.). That does not necessarily mean, though, that a 4kWp system is 'right'. It's a matter of personal choice, and Planning isn't (I think!).
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    Posted By: Nick ParsonsSurely in granting (or not granting) PP (or determining PD) Planners do *not* have to look at the economic case?
    In principle I think you are right. However, in this case the planners, supported by the inspector, have chosen to interpret “…so far as practicable, to be sited…” to include sizing so the practicability (i.e., the economic case) for keeping or not the two panels becomes an issue.
    • CommentAuthorskyewright
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Flavia8. I note that the panels are set in a symmetrical pattern around the vertical axis...however, the top edge of the panels is *** very close to the ridge of the
    roof ***    .

    (with my addition of *** emphasis ***)

    Isn't how close panels can be to the ridge (& other edges) of the roof bit covered by legislation? If so, and if the panels conform to that legislation I wonder what's meant to be useful or pertinent about the PO's "very close" comment?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    There are building regs and wind age issues about too near the edge but not planning issues that I have ever heard of before.
  10.  
    Posted By: skyewright


    Isn't how close panels can be to the ridge (& other edges) of the roof bit covered by legislation? If so, and if the panels conform to that legislation I wonder what's meant to be useful or pertinent about the PO's "very close"

    Panels can be no higher than the highest part of the ridge of the roof to be PD.
    The fact that they are "very close" is irrelevant to whether they are PD or not, I think the inspector is discussing here the visual impact / effect on the appearance of the building aspect rather than any clearly stated dimensional criteria for PD.

    With regards to applying for PP it is fair to bring in pretty much anything and everything you can think of to justify and add weight to your argument as to why they should grant you permission to retain the panels. I always take the 'lay it on thick with a trowel' approach. Of course you're relying somewhat on having some actual technical/practicable/financial reasons here!
  11.  
    Sorry I don't know why it's format like that I messed with the HTML and can't figure out how to get it right (too much bank holiday wine).....
  12.  
    Anyone had trouble with panels on single storey flat roof . fella I know just been asked to make a retrospect application . Rear of house but can be seen from road. My view is it permitted development. Urban area not conservation or ssi listed etc. Not had trouble before but complaint from neighbour brought planners round Cheers
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2014 edited
     
    How does installation on a flat roof not fall foul of?:

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

    A.1. Development is not permitted by Class A, in the case of solar PV or solar thermal equipment installed on an existing wall or roof of a dwellinghouse or a building within its curtilage if—

    …

    (b)it would result in the highest part of the solar PV or solar thermal equipment being higher than the highest part of the roof (excluding any chimney);…
    Of course, it's possible to meet that requirement but it seems more likely than not that even laying the panels flat they might not. Depends on what you mean by “the roof” - whether it's interpreted strictly as the bit of flat roof on which the panels are actually mounted or the overall roofs of the whole building.
  14.  
    I've always presumed ridge referred to was the one on the top of the house . Not a lower single storey extension. But you might be correct. Just not had trouble before.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2014
     
    Why is it usually the neighbours complaining. Time for the 'Australian Christmas Present' I think.
    But then we love NIMBYs and BANANAs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2014
     
    ST, not heard of BANANAs, please explain:bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthoratomicbisf
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2014
     
    Posted By: joe90ST, not heard of BANANAs, please explainhttp:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt=":bigsmile:" title=":bigsmile:" >


    Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything [or Anyone]. However, I think it's more likely to be someone worked up into a frenzy by the tabloid press that renewable energy is a fraud, climate change a communist plot etc etc.

    Ed
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2014
     
    Posted By: atomicbisfclimate change a communist plot
    Send then to me and they will find I am not left wing at all :wink::wink:

271 to 288 of 288

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. >
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press