I have to add, that I don't feel very black and white about adding solar panels to conservation areas. I know a lot of people (and neighbours) would object, and I can see why. The point of covenants locally, is to preserve the house frontages. A conservation demarcation was added to certain particular streets because they were getting wrecked by bad building works and I absolutely support the covenant. In neighbourhoods close by (built by the same architect around that same time - 1905) there was no spate of destruction, so it was felt covenants were not needed. And indeed, those home owers have largely respected the history and the unique aesthetic of the area.
Our street still very much needs building controls, or neighbours would have ripped out and added all sorts of nonsense (the mind boggles). Adding solar panels to the street front will indeed dramatically change the look of the street - more than velux windows on the roof do.
Also, freeing up planning (as this govt wants to do) will allow all sorts to go on. Add velux windows to cosnervation area frontage, add solar panels, and we do, very much, open the way the end of covenants. We could well have a free-for-all, and that's what the govt seems to be pushing for.
So, as much as I am a huge supporter of panels, we also need to be a bit careful what we wish for.
I agree but within some limits. There are, for a specific example, a lot of Victorian and Edwardian school buildings that are beautiful and, in many ways, ideally suited to their purpose - good daylight in particular. The very large windows are generally single glazed. Now schools, who pay their energy bills with tax-payers money, want to be able to replace those windows with good, conservation grade double glazed windows, which, with narrow frames can look almost identical but they tend to open differently. So heritage officers and people living nearby who, justifiably, value the quality of the architecture refuse to even countenance the discussion. Fair enough, they don't want chunky uPVC windows (we don't either - they aren't very good, thermally). But to not be willing to even look at what is possible condemns the building to redundancy, because the school can't afford to run it.
Therefore, the Local authority spend a load of money to build a new building, move the children out and the school building is converted to flats. The school usually ends up with less playing space in the new location, the original school building's essential quality is diluted by it being broken into small units - floors and finishes get lost.
Wouldn't it be better to take a view that some change is needed to keep buildings fit for purpose, and it is better to control that change than to simply say 'no'? Solar panels of a specific type (as WE suggests) in areas where the conservation is for a streetscape rather than individual buildings? A degree of discrimination rather than a blanket rule? It's not as if those school buildings are rare - although becoming more so as a result of this refusal to work with change.
I'm not advocating wind turbines on the roof of St Paul's. Just some acknowledgement than conservation and preservation are not always precisely the same. Some buildings of outstanding merit warrant preservation. Most need conservation.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
A degree of discrimination rather than a blanket rule?
I couldn't agree more.
We are beginning (very belatedly) the solar conversation in our neighbourhood - at least that I have heard. It seems there is almost no solar panelling at the back of the houses, where it is was always allowed, by planning. I know of only one household in the 700 that has it.
I don't know if planning permission has to be sought before installing panels in our area where it already allowed.
Our schools, residentials blocks, colleges and other council buildings with roof space should have solar installed as a matter of course, in my view, esp those with large quantities of empty, high rooves that nobody sees anyway.
I had to visit our council offices this morning and checked on google earth to find it. As much as they are utterly incompetent in virtually everything they do, they do at least have pv panels on the roof.
In our council it really, really seems to depend on "who you get". Some planning officers seem to be super helpful and go the extra mile. Some are ideologue jobs worth who seem to want to block any small garden shed.
I'm working on a barn conversion at the moment. The farmer is converting it as his retirement house and giving the farmhouse to his daughter. It was easy enough to get permission to convert the stone barn into a house, so it has been accepted that the principle of having a house there is fine and that the change of use is fine. We then suggested that it would make more sense to knock the whole barn down and rebuild it to a modern standard. It would look identical when finished both inside and out but would be a much more efficient building with none of the inherent risks to the building fabric that you get with converted stone buildings. It was a flat no from Planning as that doesn't comply with Planning policy for re-use of existing buildings. We offered to apply for permission for a new house that looked the same as the old barn. Again we were told no because a new house wouldn't be permitted in that location. We asked them to explain exactly what they wanted preserved and why given that the building has little historic or character value but Planning were unwilling to deviate from policy.
Ironically, on the same farm, we got permission about 10 years ago to knock down and rebuild an almost identical stone barn as an extension to the house. That was allowed because it complied with the policy for extensions and character be damned apparently. The Planning Officer even commented that the rebuild work was excellent but no he couldn't allow it for a new house.
When people talk about planning obstacles it's these constraints that are some of the most frustrating, especially when low-impact construction and long-term energy efficiency should now be a priority for everyone. Things like solar slates were always answering a question that should never have been asked in my opinion. In a couple of decades people will be asking why we messed around with petty debates on aesthetics rather than just getting on with fixing some very pressing problems.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
In a couple of decades people will be asking why we messed around with
petty debates on aesthetics rather than just getting on with fixing some
very pressing problems.
No doubt.
Adding retrofit external insulation to Victorian/Edwardian housing is another area of contention in conservation areas.
Posts
Therefore, the Local authority spend a load of money to build a new building, move the children out and the school building is converted to flats. The school usually ends up with less playing space in the new location, the original school building's essential quality is diluted by it being broken into small units - floors and finishes get lost.
Wouldn't it be better to take a view that some change is needed to keep buildings fit for purpose, and it is better to control that change than to simply say 'no'? Solar panels of a specific type (as WE suggests) in areas where the conservation is for a streetscape rather than individual buildings? A degree of discrimination rather than a blanket rule? It's not as if those school buildings are rare - although becoming more so as a result of this refusal to work with change.
I'm not advocating wind turbines on the roof of St Paul's. Just some acknowledgement than conservation and preservation are not always precisely the same. Some buildings of outstanding merit warrant preservation. Most need conservation.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
As much as they are utterly incompetent in virtually everything they do, they do at least have pv panels on the roof.
No doubt.
Adding retrofit external insulation to Victorian/Edwardian housing is another area of contention in conservation areas.