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:

June 2022 - Code P14CAB-011 (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 front roof slope of the main house do not comply with A.2(a) and A.2(b)].
• In particular, it was concluded that certain alternative locations would be “practicable” (or the applicant has failed to demonstrate that they would not be “practicable”).
  [Conclusion: The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the north rear roof slope of the main house would not be “practicable”].
  [Quote: “While panels located on the north facing roof would most likely be less efficient than panels located on a south facing roof, it has not been demonstrated that they would not generate energy. I saw that there are roof lights on the north facing roof. The appellant suggests there is not the required structural integrity of the north roof slope, however, I have been provided with no substantive evidence to show why this would be the case. Indeed, a brochure submitted by the appellant in support of the appeal shows a number of examples where panels are positioned around roof lights. Consequently, I see no reason why it would not be practicable to locate such panels on the north facing roof.”].
• In particular, it was concluded that certain alternative locations would have a lesser visual effect.
  [Conclusion: The north rear roof slope of the main house would have a lesser visual effect than the south front roof slope of the main house].
  [Quote: “Although [the south front elevation of] the dwelling is set back from [St Andrews Lane] with intervening vegetation, it is a prominent feature along St Andrews Lane. The panels would be clearly visible from the public domain and would also be visible from the nearby listed buildings and their curtilages. Although the northern [rear] elevation of the building faces towards Butchers Paddock, the set back from the highway is greater compared with the [south] front elevation, and views of it are interrupted by an outbuilding. I therefore consider the north [rear] elevation is a less prominent elevation compared with the south [front] elevation.”].
• 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). (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Quote: “While panels located on the north facing roof would most likely be less efficient than panels located on a south facing roof, it has not been demonstrated that they would not generate energy.”].

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.