I've been wondering why few schools put PV on their large roofs and it turns out the culprit is the effect that adding PV has on Business Rates...

The Times today says...

"The problem with business rates is that they punish investment. Putting solar panels on a roof increases a schools ratable value, a rental equivalence measure used to calculate the business rate bill. A £36,000 investment might increase ratable value by £3,600. At 50.4 percent, business rates in this case would add £1,800 a year to the schools tax bill."

Posted By: DamonHDOur school is refunded all rates it is charged

Is that particular to your school or some type of school or all schools?

AIUI, charitable organisations get rates relief, this includes private schools, academy schools in England, nurseries, universities, etc. The rest are funded by the local authority who get paid the rates, so it's a circular exercise.

If our kid's schools had £36k spare, they'd be obliged to spend it on fixing up the loos and the roof first, and then on something directly aligned with their educational objectives, like new teaching resources. Fitting PV as a pure financial investment is not what they are about.

Edit: however the local authority here did have a programme of installing PV on roofs, mainly their retirement homes but also some of their schools. Don't know how the funding worked exactly.

The point the article makes about 'tax penalising investment' is more general: if you put PV panels on the roof of your warehouse, or in a field of sheep, you have to factor the taxes and reliefs into the decision, same as any investment, if that's why you're doing it!

I was once told they werent allow to borrow for such capital investments even if it resulted in a profitable return.
Dont know if thats correct.
Id like to see a law passed making it required that all public buildings such as school, hospital , government building have PV if suitable roof space exists.

I think the Labour party are suggesting similar.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenThey have lots of governance rules designed to protect public funds etc and allow the school to spend it's budget only on education

I recntly read an article how some ex-state schools were finding it hard to adjust to life as an academy because the governance and financial rules for charities were so much stiffer than for publically-run institutions :)

How much PV area might be needed?

With no attempt to think through carefully, so probably talking nonsense, I have the following case...

My PV generation = my grid consumption, so theoretically net zero.

In summer my PV pretty much does all my hot water, and energy needs (of course not the little bit after sun disappears).

July gives approx 30 times what January gives (over the month)

So even if January ONLY needed the energy demand of July, I would still need 30 times the current PV area. I'd have thought more like 50 to 100 times net-zero area, for my house which is pretty low energy.

Completely agree that public buildings should have PV/renewable generation. We almost HAVE to use PV on new domestic dwellings, to meet current regs. Maybe slapping tougher energy targets for non-domestic buildings would force the issue, so it's not about investing, it's about meeting gov't rules. PV can replace the expensive roof or wall cladding systems, so already getting cost offset.

Slightly hi-jacking this thread...

Perthshire, Scotland, 3.8kWp giving 2.5MWh/yr

In January, my grid consumption hits 350kWhr (for the month), but generation is below 20. So you can see the disparity.

Conversely, in June my grid consumption is 120kWhr (for the month), but generation is over 450.

By the way I record my day/night/generation meters every month, so have this trended over the last 6 years (sad git!!). If you don't measure, you can't improve...or something like that.

Here's an ignorant question from me but who decides business rates? Central government or local councils?

There are plans for a new business park in my area, large south facing slope with road and river to south so unlikely to be shaded by future building. I'd love to push the council to insist all the roofs are PV, but don't really know how to set about it.

All warehouse sheds and supermarkets should have PV roofs, and a clear incentive to do so. I've made my house uglier with PV.

RobinB, think you hit the nail on the head there.

Business rates: the rules are set by central government, the local authority administers them

Planning applications: the rules are set by central government, the local authority makes only the bits of policy that depend on local geography, and administers it

Building Standards/Regs regarding energy usage: set by central government, the local authority administers it

So even if the local authority wanted to do something creative about requiring PV or better insulation, they have to work strictly within the national rules, otherwise developers will appeal to central government to get the local authority's decision overturned.

Unfortunately central government is further from local voters and updates the rules less frequently. The local authority's only freedom is to sneak rules into the local planning policy about only allowing 'sustainable' buildings.

For an individual application such as the business park, the LA has to apply the rules as written, they cannot apply stricter standards to this development than to others. Best bet is to see if there's anything helpful in the local planning policy, and if not then lobby at the next update of the local policy, usually every 3-5 years.

@Will I think in some cases it is established that the LA *can* apply structer than minimum/national standards, eg for energy, though the government would like to take that away again. (See the recent building standards consultation.)

Rgds

Damon

They are good