The "GPDO Part 14 Classes A and B - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to solar panels on domestic premises, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2020 - Code P14CAB-010 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector assessed the solar panels against conditions A.2(a) and A.2(b) (which require that such equipment is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on (a) “the external appearance of the building” and (b) “the amenity of the area”) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
  [Conclusion: The solar panels on the south-west front roof slope of the main house and the south-east side roof slope of the original two-storey front projection do not comply with A.2(a) and A.2(b)].
• In particular, it was concluded that certain alternative locations would not be “practicable”.
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Conclusion: The north-east rear roof slope of the main house would not be “practicable” because insufficient light].
  [Quote: “I also accept that given that the rear roof pitch of the dwelling faces to the north east, that the most practical option – in terms of receiving most sunlight - would be to position the panels on the [south-west] front facing roof pitch.”].
• Conditions A.2(a) and A.2(b) can require a reduction in the overall area covered by the solar panels (e.g. the size of each solar panel, their total number, etc). (*)
  [Quote: “The recommendation [within the submitted quotation] is a PV array comprising 15 panels, configured as one block of eight panels, located on the south west facing roof, and one block of seven panels (configured as one row of four panels over one row of three panels) to be mounted on the south east facing roof elevation. The second option is a larger solar array comprising 17 panels with the additional panels being installed on the south west facing roof elevation. To pursue an option beyond the recommended 15 panels runs counter to minimising their effect because, in general terms, a lesser number of panels is more likely to be able to be sited in a way which minimises their effect. Moreover, the quote demonstrates that the required amount of panels can be accommodated in two locations on the roof. The sketch provided however, shows that the panels would have a significantly greater roof coverage than that stated in the quotation, being sited in two locations on the main front facing roof pitch and on one side of the pitch to the projecting feature gable. All of these locations would be visible from various points of [the highway]. Consequently, restricting the location of the panels to two locations on the roof, rather than three, would result in a lesser effect on the external appearance of the dwelling and the amenity of the area.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the effect of the solar panels on (a) “the external appearance of the building” and (b) “the amenity of the area” for a scheme for which relatively limited details had been submitted, concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis.
  [Quote: “Moreover, the sketch provided shows only the general location of the panels and does not show how they would be arranged in relation to architectural features of the roofscape, including the smaller gables and pitched dormer. It has not therefore been shown that they would be sited so as to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the dwelling.”].

Notes:

• To view the conclusions, summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the "GPDO Part 14 Classes A and B - LDC Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website for no extra cost.
• Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.