Epson Council wins the right to order removal of panels from domestic property!

[Markc]

Did anyone else read this?

Lets not hope it opens the flood gates.

 

[pjcomp]

But until then, messy-looking installs don't do any of us any favoiurs. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but houses usually follow a regular shape and outline, and something that runs counter to that jars on the eye. When it's on the front of the house like these are, it jars. The opposing point is the one used to justify pylons - they're needed so you've got to put up with them (not sure it's so valid with PV, but there we go). My own feeling goes with the one expressed, that it looks as though someone was trying to squeezer in as many panels as they could, regardless of the aesthetics, and if anyone thinks aesthetics don't matter just look at Epsom council's response. Even if the home owner wins, he's got all that hassle to go through.

PJ

 

[SolarCity]

I think the council is totally out of order and I hope he fights it all the way.

 

[pjcomp]

I suspect the council is out of order, but we're into a new area and there are no rules in place to deal with it. Better the council (which is supposed to represent the wider local society) takes it on and gets some ground rules established in a civilised way, otherwise someone might try to settle it with a couple of house bricks through the panels. Doesn't do any of us any good to have our products caught up in this sort of publicity.

PJ

 

[TedM]

It will be interesting to see what happens with his further appeal.

The GPDO wording has always been problematical and cases like this are just waiting to happen. It assumes that everyone involved understands what 'practicable' actually means in terms of minimising the impact of panels - and I don't think anyone does - and especially not the councils.

 

[jerriais]

It will be interesting to see what happens with his further appeal.

The GPDO wording has always been problematical and cases like this are just waiting to happen. It assumes that everyone involved understands what 'practicable' actually means in terms of minimising the impact of panels - and I don't think anyone does - and especially not the councils.

Very true, I've actually looked at his roof in street view and it really is the only practical option for that house, both east and west faces are shaded, although maybe they would have been OK if they hadn't jammed in the extra two on the dormer.

 

[Kev the gas]

Any one here guilty of this one?

The property is in Tolworth, Surrey. Pic was sent to me by a mate.

Kev.

 

[SRE]

OMG that's worse than the 1st one. I'd turn the job down, it's not worth risking your reputation, you'll have 25 years to regret installing that monstrosity.

 

[alarm man]

i know nowt about solar as i dont do it,but ive seen some right pro jobs,and ive seen a mess like some of the pics on here,is solar the new part p,chancers jumping on the bandwagon giving the pro installers and the game a bad name..looks that way to me..

 

[Worcester]

View attachment 7806

Any one here guilty of this one?

The property is in Tolworth, Surrey. Pic was sent to me by a mate.

Kev.

I'd love to see the calcs for that one

 

[jerriais]

Are those bottom two panels just resting in the gutter and propped against the wall? Really makes the case for the forthcoming MCS regulations about mounting systems.

 

[BruceB]

His installation does look an eyesore and I would be astonished if it met all the MCS rules and guidelines.

In my view the Council cannot stop him putting solar panels on, provided he meets the relevant conditions which are:
"A.2. Development is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions—
(a) solar PV or solar thermal equipment installed on a building shall, so far as
practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the
building;
(b) solar PV or solar thermal equipment shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to
minimise its effect on the amenity of the area; and"

If he has already gone to appeal and lost then he is is probably stuffed because to overturn the inspector's decision he will need to go to the High Court for which he would need deep pockets. A better option might be to apply for planning permission for a slightly more subtle arrangement of panels, showing he has made an effort to minimise the impact. Provided he has done so an inspector would find it far more difficult to find against him.

Isn't that satellite dish big enough to require planning permission as well?!

Regards
Bruce