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 £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).

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 “so far as practicable” to minimize the effect on the appearance. It all hinges on the interpretation of “practicable” - 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 “sited and sized” or some such.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

csc, can you post a pic?

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%.

Like I said hundreds of thousands like yours, say nothing

%&#%** 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....

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 £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 £175 would be money down the drain.