Epson Council wins the right to order removal of panels from domestic property!

[Markc]

Did anyone else read this?

Lets not hope it opens the flood gates.

 

[Noshocks]

I agree, that is until I saw the install, bit of a dogs dinner, not sure I would want to look out at that roof each morning from my £1m pad in epsom.

 

[smiffy_99_uk]

wouldnt ruin your life though would it? wasting 8k might ruin someone else's

 

[SolarCity]

Noshocks, do you have any good pictures of it?

 

[PvNewbie]

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/resources/images/1744447/?type=display


Nasty!

 

[mattmoo1974]

You can blame them, Thats a right ear sore..

 

[lee foster]

Looks Cr*p but does anybody know what basis the council won it's case on? , looking at the photo other than appearance the only other issue is the 300mm from ridge/gutter and edges.

 

[grandfortune]

OMG, it looks just like mine im doing next week, not the best looking , it will be on the back of the house though and just a big feck off field there, and mine has 300mm from edges.

 

[grandfortune]

can i aslo ask, i know it looks quite bad but what else whould you do, would you refuse to do it or put alot less panels on , it seems the comanpy's made the best they can to fit the most panels, like mine, i assume the client knew it would be like this. there are alot of houses in my area like this and ive seen afew with PV, they always look bad its just the color of the roof tiles and color of the buiding that makes it look bad.

 

[lee foster]

I guess you need to make sure the Homeowner is fully aware of how it will look , at least you will know in your own mind you've done your bit.

 

[mogga]

As a common sparky n not knowing much about 300mm ect That is a dogs dinner n looks like someone has"had a go to see how much they could get on
Its also probably not the home owner but his neighbours who have requested council intervention and removal
Dont panels need planning permision or at least consultation with the neighbours?

 

[lee foster]

Planning normally is only needed if the Premise is within an "Area of Natural Beauty" , Conservation area or Listed and as far as i am aware no consultation with neighbours is required , this case could be either the Homeowner wanting as big a system as possible (and why not) or an install company wanting to install a big as possible system with no regard for looks.

 

[roukel01]

they all look bloody awfull. Unless no one else can see them, they should be banned anyway.

 

[Former Sponsor TM]

they all look bloody awfull. Unless no one else can see them, they should be banned anyway.

Come on now, that's a bit harsh!
Soon you'll be able to get panels that match the colour of the roof & it won't be long before you can specify the colour of the frame too! LINK

 

[roukel01]

Come on now, that's a bit harsh!
Soon you'll be able to get panels that match the colour of the roof & it won't be long before you can specify the colour of the frame too! LINK

That will be lots better!

 

[pjcomp]

But until then, messy-looking installs don't do any of us any favoiurs. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but houses usually follow a regular shape and outline, and something that runs counter to that jars on the eye. When it's on the front of the house like these are, it jars. The opposing point is the one used to justify pylons - they're needed so you've got to put up with them (not sure it's so valid with PV, but there we go). My own feeling goes with the one expressed, that it looks as though someone was trying to squeezer in as many panels as they could, regardless of the aesthetics, and if anyone thinks aesthetics don't matter just look at Epsom council's response. Even if the home owner wins, he's got all that hassle to go through.

PJ

 

[SolarCity]

I think the council is totally out of order and I hope he fights it all the way.

 

[pjcomp]

I suspect the council is out of order, but we're into a new area and there are no rules in place to deal with it. Better the council (which is supposed to represent the wider local society) takes it on and gets some ground rules established in a civilised way, otherwise someone might try to settle it with a couple of house bricks through the panels. Doesn't do any of us any good to have our products caught up in this sort of publicity.

PJ

 

[TedM]

It will be interesting to see what happens with his further appeal.

The GPDO wording has always been problematical and cases like this are just waiting to happen. It assumes that everyone involved understands what 'practicable' actually means in terms of minimising the impact of panels - and I don't think anyone does - and especially not the councils.

 

[jerriais]

It will be interesting to see what happens with his further appeal.

The GPDO wording has always been problematical and cases like this are just waiting to happen. It assumes that everyone involved understands what 'practicable' actually means in terms of minimising the impact of panels - and I don't think anyone does - and especially not the councils.

Very true, I've actually looked at his roof in street view and it really is the only practical option for that house, both east and west faces are shaded, although maybe they would have been OK if they hadn't jammed in the extra two on the dormer.