Climate change... What climate change?

[AE-NMidlands]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/ ... for-decade (Homeowner told to remove solar panels – but next door has had them for decade)

A south London man has described his incredulity after Merton council ordered him to remove his solar panels – flying in the face of attempts to tackle the climate crisis and in spite of the fact his neighbour has had some on their roof for more than 10 years.

In 2019, Merton council declared a climate emergency and said the borough would become net zero by 2050. But that hasn’t stopped council officials ordering Syd Reid, who lives in Wimbledon, remove his panels because his property is in a conservation area.

A year ago he put up photovoltaic panels on his south-facing roof at the front of his home in an effort to reduce the property’s carbon footprint without realising he needed planning permission to do so. He had been assured, wrongly, by the installer that he didn’t.

“I did a cursory investigation but somehow missed the conservation area rules,” he said. “The main reason I thought I would be fine was that our immediate neighbour has had almost identical south-facing solar panels on their roof for more than 10 years....

Would you believe it? His comments on the conservation area are interesting:

He said the decision is all the more baffling given that the road that he lives on features a mixture of house styles and roof types. Not even the road’s greatest fan would describe it in any way as architecturally extraordinary, or important.

“While the panels have been up I have reduced my carbon emissions by over 400kg,” he said.
“The whole thing is madness – a combination of nimbyism and inconsistent, out-of-date planning bureaucracy that is failing to recognise the state [in which] we are leaving the planet. This has to be changed.

A

[Stinsy]

There is a whole class of incompetent fool who gets their kicks exerting power with no reference to the bigger picture. Their number has multiplied in the last few decades. And it is us, as taxpayers, who pay their salaries!

[nowty]

I quite easily tracked down exactly where the house in question is, I’m not going to publish the actual address, but it took me about 20 mins to find it.

I have my own view on this but I am not going to say one way or another. I used to live in a conservation area, so I know the Rules are the Rules issue and what neighbours may think. The house’s in that road are currently worth about £3m each.

The house to the left is the one having to remove the panels and the one to the right is the one who has allegedly had them for a decade but may of course have had planning permission and they are more symmetrical.



The house with the X is the house in question (not showing the panels), I note a couple of properties across the road have the advantage of having south facing rear roofs where either planning permission would be easier or no one complained because they were at the rear of the property.

[spread-tee]

It's all about setting a precedent with PP, if he had applied he almost certainly would have been granted PP, but if the council allow him to get away without having PP, then every tom dick and harry would be claiming "why not me guvnor"? I have to say I have some sympathy with the Councils position if that is the case, people are quick to complain "why didn't they do something about it"? when something gets built they don't like.

Desp

[nowty]

He's got a difficult roof, but he could have made it a bit more symmetrical even using dummy panels or some of the triangular ones. I noted that some other conservation areas only ask for planning permission if you fit them on your wall. The Merton council guidelines don't even seem to cover solar panels. I quick chat with the planning dep't could have saved him a load of grief.

But I guess he just left it to the installer so that was that, shame he did not consult us lot for advice. Still, might be some cheap kit coming up on ebay.

[Mart]

This is quite annoying as the planning rules for conservation areas were changed last decade, so that PP isn't typically needed in conservation areas for roof mounted PV, even on the front/road facing roof, but of course that doesn't mean all areas, and all properties.

I appreciate it's a conservation area, but so many properties are in one. My aunt had to pay twice as much for DG sash windows, because her house, like approx 2,000 identical ones in the area are 'conserved', so 'normal' DG windows are not allowed. My sister once owned a house in a conservation area, and my father made some improvements, including having new railings fitted where the original ones had been removed. He photographed existing original ones, and had some made up to match by his friend the 'iron man'. The council forced her to make a retrospective planning application for them, so my sister paid ...... she didn't take Dad's advice which was to tell them to go F ..... themselves, as they'd get bored eventually!

I'd have thought conserving the environment/planet trumped conserving the look of properties so they are locked into a specific moment in time, but I'm funny like that.


Just a bit of silliness, but where my sister's house was, the conservation area covered 4 long roads, plus the side roads linking them. They ran for about 3/4 mile and had a thin park running along the center. At one end a long road cut across all of the roads, and this was the end of the conservation area, even though the houses on the other side of the cut off road where identical to the ones in the conservation area ..... well .... the very first house on one of these non CA roads was painted bright orange, and had been as long as I could remember. It was a great landmark for giving directions, and of course because it had been that way for a long time, it was completely accepted, it tends to be change we object too, not difference.

[Galahad]

The original report says that the owner in question applied for retrospective planning and was refused, appealed that decision and also lost the appeal.

From what the council says it would seem that the neighbour, who has had panels for longer, also does not have planning permission but no one has complained specifically about them so it has never been looked at.

[spread-tee]

Oh dear the spotlight may now fall on the neighbours panels too, they won't be happy with an enforcement notice.

Desp

[Mr Gus]

It may have the tennis by association area name, but why is it an area of special conservation exactly?? Presumably a "protection" spod is now going to go over google.maps with a fine honeycomb & address various streets for non compliance, or else this will be singling out.

Messy looking panel alignment though.

If someone wants to get the local government to go in tooled up to several hundred of my neighbours back gardens & cite the (our) estates deed covenant restrictions pertaining to the "shed ban" ...nah too much like hard work.

Very selective work by conscience free councils these days, which isn't enforced so why bother following the rules, ..unless they are looking on a 50th anniversary estate letter drop for a council cash bonus of retrospective planning permission (doubtful)
Looks like those 2 families may have been set at each other's throats due to this particular case too, maybe they'd better sue for discrimination, asking why various electioneering councillors & officials have ignored the neighbours panels the last decade whilst inspecting works at various neighbours homes
#councillorsfiddledwhilstWimbledonburned (planning depts & the likes love trips out)

Both houses have modern double glazing..why no restrictions there!?


We need to cut through the BS if we are to get out of this climate emergency only partially burnt.

[Stinsy]

I remember reading the UK came lower-than-expected on some international "corruption" league table. I was surprised so read into it and a major reason was corruption in the processing and enforcement of planning.

Maybe in this case the homeonwer has fallen out with someone who's brother in law works for the council?

The astonishingly selective way that one house is prosecuted and the one next door not, for something so obvious, raises concerns.