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:

December 2024 - Code P14CAB-018 (appeal dismissed):

• In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information contained inconsistencies (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis.
  [Note: The submitted application form refers to 10 solar panels, but the submitted document shows 15 solar panels. In addition, the Inspector states that there is an “absence of a statement or diagram showing that the panels would not protrude more than a perpendicular distance of 0.2m from the roof slope”.].
  [Quote: “The application for the LDC was for the installation of some 10 panels on the front west-facing roof, but [the submitted document] indicated an additional two panels on the south facing [side] roof and three panels on the east facing [rear] roof. [...] The [submitted document] is misleading in the sense that it refers to ‘systems fit within parameters and not breaching 200mm past the ridge line’ whereas the GDPO limitation refers to the panels not being higher than the highest part of the roof. Although the diagrams show the panels below the ridge line, the absence of a statement or diagram showing that the panels would not protrude more than a perpendicular distance of 0.2m from the roof slope makes the submitted information ambiguous. [...] There is no power for the Council, or Inspector to modify the terms of an LDC application. It is for the appellant to propose the use or operation for which they wish to ascertain its lawfulness. However, the terms may in practice be modified by the appellant or where they agree. In some cases, the Council and appellant may have agreed a modified description or plans and the appeal has gone forward on that basis. However, there is no specific reference by the parties that a modified description has been agreed in this case although the appellant’s details of the appeal refer to ‘Installation of solar panels on the roof of a dwelling which is located in a conservation area.’ In the absence of any agreement, it is not possible for me to modify the application to embrace the 15 panels, but even were I able to do so, the submitted information would still remain ambiguous. I note that the Council acknowledge that the solar panels may comply with permitted development rights but stress that the application must be lawful if begun at the time of the application. Whilst the application fails to be specific about the upstand of the panels being no more than 0.2m, I cannot attach conditions to an LDC restricting its size to those set out in the GDPO limitations. The lack of clarity in the submissions does not satisfy the onus of proof that rests with the appellant to show on the balance of probabilities that the proposed development would have been lawful at the time the application was submitted.”].

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.