Climate change... What climate change?

[Galahad]

Merton Council (that covers Wimbledon) seem to have a pro-active approach to periodically re-assessing (and extending - never contracting) the Conservation Areas under their control. Such things go out to public consultation and it seems to be what the residents want.

I guess it's what happens if you live in a house valued north of £3 million.

[spread-tee]

Planning regulations are in place for a good reason and in general work pretty well, if they were relaxed to satisfy some concerns raised here we would end up with a right old mess. If allowed to just throw panels up any old how, that's exactly what would happen all over the place, and I am not sure that would make press for PV or anything else. I think we do have to look at the long game here. If conservation areas are a no-go for panels it's hardly going to make a lot of difference in saving the planet, and I am pretty sure there is a conservation area in Kingston where panels are allowed on the front elevation, so hopefully all is not lost.

Desp

[nowty]

I found the planning application, there was just one objection from the Northwest Wimbledon Residents Association.

1 objection was received from the NWWRA association. Comments are broadly summarised
below:
 The association is, in principle, in favour of solar panels and in supporting the move to
stall climate change.
 The proposals are not complementary to the conservation area.


The council decision was (note - I have edited the house numbers and actual road name out),

6.2 SCALE AND DESIGN
The London Plan, Merton Core Planning Strategy policy CS 14 and Merton Sites and Policies
Plan policies DM D2 and DM D3 specify requirement for well-designed proposals that will
respect the appearance, scale, bulk, form, proportions, materials and character of the original
building and their surroundings. Merton Sites and Policies Plan policy DM D3 states that roof
alterations and extensions should ensure the use of sympathetic materials, be of a size and
design that respects the character and proportions of the original building and surrounding
context, do not dominate the existing roof profile and are sited away from prominent roof
pitches unless they are a specific feature of the area. In relation to developments with historic
interest, London Plan policy HC1 and Merton Sites and Policies Plan policy DM D4 requires
development affecting heritage assets and their settings to conserve and enhance their
significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.
The property maintains a hipped roof finished with brown roof tiles.

The visual appearance of the solar panels contrasts with the material finishes of the existing
roof; owing to their scale and design, officers consider that the solar panels would be visually
incongruous and unsympathetic to the architectural character and appearance of the roof of
the host property. The proposed solar panels would also be located on the front roof slope and
would be visually prominent within the streetscene, exacerbating their impact towards the
conservation area. In this regard, the proposals are considered to neither conserve nor
enhance the Wool Road Conservation Area and would be detrimental to the character and
appearance of the host property.

It is acknowledged that the applicant has submitted supporting information that pertains to
other examples of properties (a, bb and cc yyyyyy Road) that have installed solar panels in the
local area. Owing to the locations of solar panels at a and bb yyyyyy Road, it is not considered
that these developments have had the same material impact on the Wool Road Conservation
Area as the current proposal. It is also noted that no planning permission has been granted for
the installation of solar panels to the front roof slope of cc yyyyy Road.

Overall, the proposals are considered to neither conserve nor enhance the Wool Road
Conservation Area and would harm the character and appearance of the host property and
surrounding area; the proposals would therefore be contrary to Merton Sites and Policies Plan
policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 as well as Merton Core Planning Strategy policy CS 14.

Paragraph 193 of NPPF (2019) Section 16 states that “When considering the impact of a
proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should
be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight
should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm,
total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

By reason of the scale, design, positioning and materials of the proposed solar panels, the
proposed development would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the
application property and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Wool
Road Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposals would be contrary to Merton Sites and
Policies Plan (2014) policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4, Merton Core Planning Strategy
(2011) policy CS 14 and policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021).

Whilst the development proposals are considered to represent some benefit in terms of
sustainable development, it is considered that the public benefits of the development are
outweighed by the harm caused to the Wool Road Conservation Area.

Accordingly, it is recommended that permission is refused.

[Mr Gus]

High roof visibility & offended sensibilities seem to rule in these instances.

Which is in part a big reason I keep banging on about low level car canopy / outdoor covered space solar car ports type thing.

This type of construction can potentially be less extreme to planners, sticky-beaks & the like, can serve multiple purpose useage, be it material storage, outdoor shade, cooling area for hot homes & obviously not having blokes work at extreme height via scaffold, cherry pickers, leaving the home roof assembly intact.

You are more likely to sell something as "acceptable" this way due to the perceived practicalities "soft benefits" greening up to councillors, neighbours, blah blah blah, shame council & government don't see this.

[AE-NMidlands]

I have been wondeing whether this is just down to the whim (or prejudices) of a council officer. I looked at our council planning website (n.b. we are not in any area of conservation importance) and it didn't say much, just redirected me here: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/2 ... r_panels/2 which only says

All the following conditions must be observed:

Equipment on a building should be sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the building and the amenity of the area.
When no longer needed equipment should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

All the following limits must be met:

Panels should not be installed above the highest part of the roof (excluding the chimney) and should project no more than 200mm from the roof slope or wall surface.
The panels must not be installed on a building that is within the grounds of a listed building or on a site designated as a scheduled monument.
If your property is in a conservation area, or in a World Heritage Site, panels must not be fitted to a wall which fronts a highway.

As far as I can see I could put panels on my house's front roof, except that it would obviously have an "effect on the external appearance of the building " - but no more than it would on the back. So in theory I could just go ahead...
A

[Mr Gus]

Did anyone see the roof alteration that seemed to involve cutting pre-existing angled trusses out, flattening the area & possibly making it all glass / transparent, & most definitely at odds characteristics with roof around it!? :

[Mr Gus]

Look to the uppermost right of the pic & draw comparisons

[marshman]

Yes but it is not really visible from street level.

[Mr Gus]

Yes but it is not really visible from street level.

The alteration, the streets roofline similarity / continuity DOES though.

[spread-tee]

That's a fairly standard design for the roofline of a two storey side extension, you wouldn't see the flat roof from street level, all you would see is a pitch set back from the original roofline, which almost always is deemed acceptable.

Council officers don't make these decisions BTW, they recommend or otherwise a proposal which then gets voted on by the local elected councillors, who do not work for the council, if you disagree with that decision then you appeal to the secretary of state.

Desp