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:
August 2023 - Code P14CAB-012 (appeal dismissed):
- This appeal decision provides an example of where the applicant submitted (or offered to submit) an amended drawing during the appeal process, and the Inspector did accept this amended drawing.
[Quote: “As part of the appeal the appellant submitted additional documents which were not before the Council when it considered and determined the application. The Encyclopaedia of Planning Law and Practice sets out that appeals under section 195 of the 1990 Act as amended ‘are invariably treated as de novo appeals…the parties and interested persons may submit additional evidence to the Secretary of State which was not before the authority at the time of its decision’ [Encyclopaedia of Planning Law and Practice P195.03]. Consequently, I have had regard to the additional documents in my determination of the appeal. Given that the Council has had the opportunity to comment on the documents as part of the appeal, I am satisfied that their interests are not prejudiced by this approach.”].
- This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that A.1(c) does not prevent solar panels on a roof slope.
[Quote: “In relation to whether the proposal falls within Class A.1 (c), I note the parties’ submissions concerning the various definitions of a ‘highway’ for general and planning purposes, and their assessment of whether the road could be classed as such. However, on reading Class A.1 (c), I am cognisant that it specifically relates to solar PV or solar thermal equipment which would be installed on a wall which fronts a highway (my emphasis). Moreover, that within Class A.1 (a) there is a distinction between a ‘wall’ and a ‘roof slope’. The submitted evidence confirms that the proposed solar PV would be installed on the [south-east] front roof slope of the appeal property, not a wall. On this basis, I am satisfied that the proposal is not caught by Class A.1 (c), of Part 14, of Schedule 2.”].
- 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-east front roof slope of the main house do not comply with A.2(a) and A.2(b)].
- This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the solar panels against conditions A.2(a) and A.2(b) for a scheme for which relatively limited details had been submitted (or for which the submitted information contained inconsistencies), concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis.
[Quote: “The drawing submitted with the LDC application shows almost all of the [south-east] front roof slope of the appeal property covered by a solar PV panel. Whereas the Proposal / Quotation from Team Renewables references 17 x Viridian PV16-335 all black mono panels. A mock-up image is included in the appellant’s appeal statement showing the 17 panels positioned around the existing rooflight and covering a lesser area on the [south-east front] roof [slope] than the original drawing. Having regard to the brochure images of Viridian panels, I am not convinced whether the mock-up image accurately reflects what the actual coverage of 17 panels over the [south-east front] roof slope would be. These discrepancies and uncertainty raise doubts as to the precision of the information provided and lessen the ability to undertake an accurate assessment of the proposal.”].
- Conditions A.2(a) and A.2(b) can require a reduction in the overall energy generated by the solar panels (e.g. the efficiency of their location, their total number, etc). (*)
[Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
[Quote: “I have had regard to the appellant’s comments on the reduced practicality of the panels and/or requirement for more panels if they were to be positioned on any other location on the property. I am also aware that alternative locations may allow some views of the panels from the curtilages of adjacent properties. However, whilst it may be that the proposed siting of the panels would be the most productive and financially feasible over the quotation period, the submitted information does not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their installation in any other less prominent location(s) to minimise their effects, would not be able to be done or put into practice successfully in terms of generating electricity.”].
- 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.