Part 40 GDPO Conservation Areas - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Grŵp agored
|
Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012
|
Gweithgaredd diwethaf - Heddiw
Part 40 GDPO Conservation Areas
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, I have searched.. We are getting more and more 'do i need planning permission' requests for solar thermal and PV equipment. The particular issue is that relating to the installation of this equipement on non listed buildings in Conservation Areas. Essentially Part 40 states that within such areas planning permission is only required if i) the equipment is installed on a wall which forms the principle or side elevation of a dwellinghouse and would be visible from a public highway; or ii) the equipment is installed on a wall of a building within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and would be visible from a highway. The development is permitted subject to conditions which state that the equipment shall, so far as is practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building and to minimise its effect on the amenity of the area. The issue is one of interpretation. We have had a number of people saying that it's not practicable to put the panel on say, the rear facing roof slope because it won't get any sun thus rendering it pointless. Because of this, they are under the impression that siting it on the front of the building (where it will have signifcant impact on the amenity of the area and the apperance of the building) is the only practicable solution.. I'd be most interesetd to know how other Authorities are interpreting 'so far is is practicable' Many thanks
My view would be that if it doesn't come under A.1.(c)(i) or (ii) then it is simply not PD and all the conditions in A.2. would therefore be irrelevant. Or to put it another way, the conditions in A.2. only apply to development which is permitted development in the first place (i.e. development in A. which is not excluded by A.1.). Hope that makes sense.
Paul ... I agree with Nick. The condition is only imposed on development that is permitted by the order. If the development is not permitted the condition is irrelevant. Mike
Hello, yes it does make sense. However, it is often the case where the criteria for A.1. a), b) and c) are met in so far as the equipment would be on a roof slope not a wall (I believe 'roof slope' was deleted in the Sept 2008 amenment) thus making its visibility from a highway and location on a principal or side elevation non applicable. This leaves the situation where it would appear to be permitted development to install solar PV or thermal equipment on any roof slope of a dwelling or building within a Conservation Area. But this is caveated by the 'so far as is practicable' condition which apparently seeks to minimise the effect of such equipment on the amenity of the Conservation Area and appearance of the building itself. This appears to leave the odd scenario whereby you could have a solar panel on a publicly visible roof of a building in a Conservation Area, causing harm to its amenity and the appearance of the building on which it is sited, which is there (as permitted development) because that is the only 'reasonably practicable' place for it. This is the issue we're wrestling with.
PV gets most of its energy from skylight rather than sunlight, orientation should only effect max 15% of output, so being on a rear northfacing slope does not seem a good argument to me. Within 5 years or so PV should have grid parity in the UK so examining the NPV of solar over its 20 or 30 year lifespan its a very hard economic argument to make, especially with current FITs, that they would be 'impractical'.
Hi Paul, Ah, misunderstood your question, sorry. Andrew's advice should help if you want to take a hard line. On the other hand, since the words "or roof slope" were removed from A.1.(c) in 2008 it appears that your concerns are not shared at national level. Rightly or wrongly, the change was made to allow visible panels to be installed on principal roof slopes in conservation areas (and World Heritage Sites!). This suggests to me that the condition is about making tweaks to a proposal which is otherwise PD (i.e. that your number of people are correct). We haven't had a difficult LDC case to test it yet though. Probably one for your legal team! It raises an interesting question about PD conditions. If an LPA knows/believes that a breach of such a condition will occur, at what point does it act and how? For example if it gets an LDC application for a Part 1 Class A extension and the form and plans show that the materials are not matching, can it refuse the LDC or must it grant it with the matching materials condition attached? The answer to that will probably give the answer to your question too. Rambling now...
Really interested to find this thread, very relevant to a recent query that's come my way. Two things: 1 - Nick's point that "at national level" there is not a concern about the roof slope is a key one. 2 - has anyone looked at the Impact Assessment? I thought the one for the NPPF was very useful to understanding what was in their minds with the new "presumption" - same may hold true for this too?