Solar panel removal?

[moggy1968]

This is everything to do with permitted development rights and the related conditions A2(a) and A2(b).

They are permitted to have solar pv. The questions that arise are whether they have minimised the effect (a) on the building and (b) on the area. If there was another south facing roof of equivalent area at the back of the building then the planners would have a case. If there is no practicable alternative available then I suggest the planners would lose any appeal. If there are suitable east/west roofs available then I suggest it is more finely balanced, but the bottom line is they are permitted to have solar pv.

What I mean Bruce, is the council isn't claiming a breach of permitted development rights, it's an unrelated and rather obscure part of their powers which really wasn't designed for this.
I got involved with a planning case for panels on my parents garage and the local planning officer really was a cxck! The problem is they make the decision entirely in isolation so if they've had a row with the missus that morning thats you stuffed.
The folks took it to appeal and permission was granted (there's was very different to this case). Like you, I think if it went to appeal the planners would lose. I think permitted development rights (as you have described them above) would be a very strong part of the case against the planners.

 

[FB.]

Take them down and put mirrors on the roof..*FIXED*

Or get permission for a loft conversion and add some fairly reflective windows to the roof. :smartass2:

 

[BruceB]

....... it's an unrelated and rather obscure part of their powers which really wasn't designed for this.........

Are you able to give a reference for those powers? The planners might think they have them but unless there is some legislation supporting them they probably do not.

 

[moggy1968]

No, there was a similar case in London last year. At the time I was installing a system for one of the planning officers in Poole so I asked him about it and that was what he referred to.
The relevant bit is 'detrimental to the ammeinty of the other residents abd the area in general.'

 

[Gavin A]

sod this, when my hangover clears I'm going to be writing to bury council planning dept to ask what their legal grounds are for doing this, and to point out that no court would consider it to be a practicable solution to mount the panels on the North facing roof, and I'd happily arrange for a parade of experts to make them look very silly in court if they tried to argue that line.

I'd also thing that the couple opting for black framed panels to reduce the visual impact would count well in their favour.

 

[Crusader]

Loved the comment about the couple where it says yes they are an eyesore and should be put on the back of the house, along with the panels!

 

[Gavin A]

No, there was a similar case in London last year. At the time I was installing a system for one of the planning officers in Poole so I asked him about it and that was what he referred to.
The relevant bit is 'detrimental to the ammeinty of the other residents abd the area in general.'

The only way I can see this applying is if they're able to argue that the was a practicable alternative option that would have had less impact.

The council in this case is obviously trying to argue that the north facing rear roof was a practicable alternative and the couple should have installed it there, not the front. I'm pretty much certain that they'd get laughed out of court if they did try to make that argument though, at least they would if the right expert witnesses spoke in court against them.

If it were an east facing front / west facing back or something, then the council would have a strong case, but from what the article says this isn't the case.

 

[BruceB]

Edit: this is in response to Moggy's post, x3 others got in before me!

There was a case in Epson last autumn where a man lost on appeal where the council issued an enforcement order against him saying remove solar panels. I believe it went to appeal and the planning inspector decided that the householder had failed the test referred to previously of minimising the impact......
I have not chased down the case so do not know whether the householder is taking it further to the high court. The planning inspectors do not I think set precedents for each other in the formal sense so each case I suspect is subject to the judgement of the individual inspector.

The phrase you are using is a reason for refusal if a planning application were required. But if one is not required because the development is prima facie permitted development then I believe the planners would have to refuse it citing one of the permitted development conditions which had not been met.

But I do not hold myself out as an expert on the law in this area so will carry on observing with interest.

Regards
Bruce

 

[moggy1968]

yes, thats the one, thanks for the refernce Bruce. I agree with you. I think it is a misuse/missinterpretation of the rules. This isn't what this rule was designed to stop.

This is designed to protect an areas character. For example, if you live in suffolk and paint your suffolk pink house the wrong shade this clause can be used to make you repaint it because it doesn't fit with the character of the building or the area. In this case of course there is a viable alternative, namely the right colour.

Gavin, I think this would form the basis of an appeal, that the householders have considered alternatives and none are viable

 

[whinmoor]

Interesting case. I just looked at their bungalow on Google Maps. (Their street has been published elsewhere and you can see the house number behind them in the Daily Mail photo.) The front of the property faces south east and the huge tree must cast an almighty shadow on the roof for large parts of the day. Their solar thermal collector is clearly visible on the smaller south-west facing roof. Again, this would probably catch a fair degree of shade.

Of course I agree with the solar supporters but here's an alternative: maybe they should plant a few of those massive leylandii trees to shield the panels from the neighbours opposite!?!

 

[Glen Powell]

So far I can see visual impact flying right out of the window, they are on a street which I can guarentee has different designs of building all along, In keeping with the surrounding is a nonsense and therefore they should win. The fact that they might have to wait 3 years until they win is another matter.

I would strongly advise if you are going to install on the front of a property you tell the client to get planning (OK it can take 8 weeks [17 months my longest]), there is a chance the others said don't bother, but if your client has it in written word it must be true and they will thank you for it.

 

[Glen Powell]

Looking at the photo, surely they could of got another 2 on there

 

[Gavin A]

I would strongly advise if you are going to install on the front of a property you tell the client to get planning (OK it can take 8 weeks [17 months my longest]), there is a chance the others said don't bother, but if your client has it in written word it must be true and they will thank you for it.

I'd strongly advise the exact opposite unless there's a suitable alternative option, but the customer insists on putting it at the front.

If no other practicable option exists, then mounting on the front is permitted development, which specifically means it already has planning consent whether or not it has a separate piece of paper from the planning office stating this is the case. There's no point in us having a law stating it's permitted development if solar companies are going to ignore that law and advise their customers that they should be getting planning permission for it.

It does mean that you're in effect taking on part of the liability for that advice, but frankly IMO if you're not confident on the legal position on something as basic as this, and prepared to fight to preserve the permitted development rights if a council such as this one decides to challenge it, then you shouldn't be doing this. It took a good couple of decades of campaigning on this issue to get these permitted development rights granted, so please don't just give them away because you want to play it safe or some other rubbish reasoning - please take the time to understand properly what the law actually means in practice, advise your clients accordingly and make sure you have PI insurance to cover your advice in the unlikely event that there is a problem.

Aside from all that, there is a very good reason for not applying for planning when permitted development rights apply, which is essentially that in the act of applying for planning permission you're actually stating that you do not believe that permitted development rights should apply in that case, which should mean that there actually is an alternative practicable option available, or that there is some other reason that you want to deviate from the standard permitted development rules. To me all this is doing is flagging this up with the planning officers as a potentially problematic installation, which is fine when there is something potentially problematic about it, but not something you should be doing as standard IMO as it gives them carte blanche to use their personal judgement to decide on something that would otherwise have been permitted development.

Just my opinion mind, but this sort of advice really boils my ****, particularly as it has knock on affects for others as the council planning officers get it into their heads that all systems mounted on the front roofs should have planning permission because that's what company X are doing, then others who're operating entirely within the law will have to waste their time battling with these officials to get them to understand the actual law they're supposed to be operating under, instead of their assumptions on what it might mean.

 

[The Solar King]

Gavin is 100% right. Do nothing to set a precedent that diminishes PD. Some people are just not good with change and cannot accept that change is the norm not the exception. No change means living in caves.

Just glad I am in Scotland with regard to this one.

 

[moggy1968]

relying on planners using personal judgement - never a good idea!!