Solar panels must come off Listed House

The Stroud News and Journal reported this week the listed house owner in Bisley's efforts to go green. For a while I've had some correspondence on this specific case with various people and the case is clearly not straight forward - I'll try to set it out from notes and bits that will hopefully make sense despite my flu-adled brain.

Photo: Copy of view of the panels from SNJ

advertisement

Heres the background from the SNJ:

John Cowen installed solar panels at the 500-year-old Over Court in Bisley six years ago as part of his family's efforts to live in a more sustainable way. The equipment was placed inside a roof valley at the grade 2* listed building where it remained without any complaints until a few months ago when it was spotted by a planning officer at a neighbouring property. Mr Cowen's subsequent application for planning permission was supported by Bisley-with-Lypiatt Parish Council but turned down by Stroud District Council on the grounds that his panels were "highly visually obtrusive" and "immediately catch the eye".

He is now planning an appeal, but if this fails he will have to remove his panels or face the prospect of enforcement action and a possible criminal record. Mr Cowen, whose family has owned Over Court for 38 years, said he was disappointed that his solar panels had upset the planners, especially as their location had been carefully considered to avoid detracting from the overall appearance of the house.

"We feel that our solar panels are well hidden - they are only visible from very limited areas of Over Court and Jayne's Court," said Mr Cowen. "From a conservation point of view they are reversible - they can be taken down without damaging the building in any way."

He added that he had not received any other objections, even though the house had been visited by hundreds of people over the last six years including staff from English Heritage and members of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

"We carried out a survey of public opinion in June when our garden was open to the public. Of the 140 people who responded over half did not notice the panels, although prompted to do so, and no-one thought they were visually intrusive. To our knowledge, nobody from Stroud District Council has actually visited Over Court to view and assess the panels."

Mr Cowen said he felt the local authority was being "hypocritical" in encouraging residents to be more responsible for the environment while penalising those who were doing something.

"As an engineer I assessed the heat losses from the property," he said. "Fifteen years ago we increased insulation levels, reduced draughts and installed an efficient condensing boiler. Solar panels heat our water in summer and make a contribution in winter, saving a significant amount of energy through the year. Over Court has adapted over the years to respond to the needs of its owners and to outside pressures. We feel it should be allowed to continue to adapt to meet new challenges of our time. The solar panels should be seen as a positive historical development."

Bisley-with-Lypiatt Parish Council member Lesley Greene disputed the planners' assertion that the solar panels were "visually obtrusive" as nobody else had noticed them in the six years they had been up. "We are concerned that many local authorities are embracing renewable energy installations on listed buildings - but not apparently Stroud," she said.

A spokesman for Stroud District Council said that in planning terms, the historical status of listed buildings outweighed all other considerations - including energy efficiency. "We have a legal obligation to give priority to the preservation of the building itself, its setting and features of special architectural or historic interest," he said. "This obligation invariably outweighs other factors, including energy efficiency. We recognise that Mr Cowen may have acted with the best of intentions, but solar panels by their nature and materials are an inappropriate addition to a natural Cotswold slate roof. Our decision was reached following consultation with English Heritage."

What are some of the issues?

Rather than look at this specific case initially I would like to make a few general points. Firstly the issue of energy efficiency in listed buildings remains one which requires stronger and unambiguous advice upon the Government. For example, the Building Regulations expressly exempt listed buildings from any requirement to introduce thermal efficiency when undertaking building works. There is therefore no requirement to provide double glazing, wall, floor or loft insulation or comply with carbon targets.

It is also noted that the proposed revisions to the General Permitted Development Order (works that do not require permission) excludes listed buildings and those in conservation areas, in effect requiring planning application for such works.

I've heard it argued that Greens should not waste too much time on Listed buildings as they make up such a tiny fraction of the building stock - all efforts should go into improving the general stock and new build. However clearly there are also principles at stake.

With regard to the use of solar panels, in the absence of specific guidance, our Local Planning Authority has noted that it would prefer that they be positioned at ground level, say within the garden. This lower position would also facilitate their operation without a pump, using natural circulation of the water- this method would also be the least invasive to the building.

Photo: St James's Church, Piccadilly

We should also note that solar panels have been used on a number of prominent listed buildings. Many examples like Brighton & Hove where solar panels have been allowed on Grade II listed homes in a key Conservation Area (Planning Ref: BH 2006/02391 and BH 2006/02403), St. James's Church, Piccadilly, London, a Grade I Listed Sir Christopher Wren Church, has installed solar panels on its roof. We are also aware that high profile preservation organisations such as the National Trust are considering Climate Change with renovations such as the cafe at Kynanace Cove and many others.

However it has to be said that I understand that these have been carried out in co-operation and under the watching brief of the DCMS and English Heritage. It is also worth noting the obvious that energy efficiencies can be incorporated before resorting to material alterations. Replacement of aging boilers with more efficient ones, the prudent increasing of loft insulation, the use of traditional heavy drapes and perhaps the renovation of the timber shutters could be considered first.

Parish support panels

There is now lots of info in the public domain regarding this specific case in Bisley. The Parish Council supported the solar panels and wrote a letter which made various points - perhaps one of the key points being that if these panels are “highly visually intrusive,” and “immediately attract the eye” why have there been no complaints (at all) and why has the installation of these panels not been raised before (even comments from the public) for the six years that they have been in place? The house regularly opens its gardens to the general public and no one has raised the matter. In fact because the panels are in a valley on the roof they are quite difficult to see. How, therefore, can the phrases “highly visually intrusive” and “immediately attracts the eye” be used to describe these installations?

Where to now?

This application has already been refused and therefore it is normal practice for the Council to now consider enforcement. As noted it is a II* listed property and as such deserves added protection. Whilst it is understood that the panels have been in place for sometime, an offence has been committed by the owner and as such the Council has a duty of care to pursue.

The key bone of contention seems to be that these panels are foreign to the design of this building and that damage has possibly occurred that should not. The Council have also expressed concern about a precedent being set, that once released would be difficult for the Planning Authority to close the Pandora’s Box?

To me it is clear work needs to be done to improve our planning guidance particularly as these types of applications are hopefully going to multiply. It is estimated that this installation alone will have saved over 4 tonnes of carbon emissions since its installation. It seems tragic that in this case the panels could not be given permission, particularly as I fail to see how they are that visually obtrusive and unless we start to tackle climate change at every corner there wont be old buildings to celebrate. Nevertheless the argument that these could be on the ground is also sound....

And in terms of precedent I would argue that a case could be made to get around that - indeed a case was made for retrospective permission for UPVC windows within the Bisley Conservation area: these were granted permission for the period of ownership by the current occupier only.

Broader picture?

This country has been far far too slow in developing solar - as Keith Barnham, professor of physics at Imperial College London, says "the UK has already been 'crazily' slow in its development of solar power - and that so far we have had a poor record on serious sustained investment."

Germany, with similar sunlight levels, already has 30 times more solar panels on its roofs. It was the Green Members of parliament who got that initiative up and running - and if the Germans continue to expand solar power at the same rate, in another six years they will be getting more electricity from solar power than the UK gets from its nuclear power stations. Increased investment in solar power would make the technology more efficient and cheaper - it should be just one part of the way forward to tackle climate change.

Time for me to go to bed with that flu - but just before I go I read that a Planning Inspector has just approved a micro-turbine on a listed building on appeal, after refusal by Mid Suffolk DC. The term he used to describe the micro-turbine made me smile - a "Benign Utilitarian Structure."

Update 2nd Aug: Bristol Evening Post carried story re solar on listed property here