Appeal 3345421

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The development description on the application form is extensive and also includes wording that is not a description of development, rather seeking to explain the reasons for the development. Therefore, while I have had regard to this text in my assessment, in the interests of conciseness and clarity the description of the development within the banner heading above is taken from the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice.

At the time of the site visit, the freestanding ground mounted solar panels to the front of the property, the solar panels to the front roof slope and posts in the approximate position of the proposed freestanding structure to the rear were already in place. I have therefore considered the proposal on the basis that the appeal is substantively made on a retrospective basis.

The reasons for refusal on the decision notice are specific as to the parts of the development which the Council considers would be harmful. It is also clear that the Council’s concerns do not relate to the solar panels on the front roof slope of the dwelling. I have taken these matters into account in defining the main issues.

The main issues are the effects of: (i) the ground mounted solar panels located to the front of the property on the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) the proposed solar panels and associated freestanding structure located to the rear of the property on the living conditions of occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook and light.

The site is located towards the top of [address] close to the junction with [address]. [address] is a suburban residential cul-de-sac comprising semi-detached houses of similar style. Front gardens mainly include low brick walls to front boundaries and either wooden fences or planting to side boundaries. Where the boundaries between the front gardens are taller, these are typically through soft landscaping, hedges and trees.

The ground mounted solar panels are not highly visible from the neighbouring street, [address]. Even so, they are sited along a side boundary and are markedly taller than other hard boundary features in the local vicinity. Consequently, on [address] their substantial scale, dark coloured materials, and prominent upright position within the front garden of the host dwelling gives them a conspicuous presence, jarring with the domestic appearance of neighbouring gardens on this street. In addition, I saw on my site visit that the panels are mounted on corrugated steel backing sheets which exhibit an industrial aesthetic and this further detracts from the residential character of the street scene.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the outbuilding within the front garden of [address] (No 2) which is situated opposite the site. From my own observations, while that building is prominently sited, it is within a wider corner plot and its form, scale and materials are more typical of the type of structures more commonly seen within front gardens. In these respects, the outbuilding at No 2 does not make the ground mounted solar panels appear any less incongruous.

I conclude, the ground mounted solar panels located to the front of the property have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore conflicts with Policies P10 (Design) and P12 (Landscape) of the [name] (2019), Policies GP5 (Requirement of Development Proposals), N25 (Development and [name]) and LD1 ([name]) of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan ([name]

and Policy Energy 2 (Micro-generation Development of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Development Plan Document (2013) which seek amongst other things high quality design which is appropriate to its context, that boundaries of sites should be designed in a positive manner, that the character of townscapes will be conserved and enhanced and that micro-generation development will be encouraged where it would have an acceptable impact on visual amenity.

For the same reasons the development does not adhere with the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (the SPD), which at Policy HDG1 requires that alterations respect the character and appearance of the locality.

Third-party concerns have been raised in respect of the composition of the solar panels and associated freestanding structure to the rear of the host dwelling. Based on the drawings it would have a canopy form and the solar panels would be laid flat on the roof of the structure. Due to its overall height above the fence line, the canopy would undoubtedly be visible from the rear windows and garden serving No [address]. In combination with the existing single storey extension at No 3, it would result in a substantial cumulative projection of structures alongside the shared boundary with this neighbouring property.

However, the structure would be single storey in height and would have open sides. Consequently, it would not result in any unacceptable massing of built form when experienced from the neighbouring property. Its open sides would also allow for light to pass through the structure and as the Council’s delegated report acknowledges, the siting of the structure to the north of No 5 would limit the potential for overshadowing effects on this property. For these reasons, I am satisfied that there would be no material loss of outlook or light for occupiers of No 5.

I conclude, the proposed solar panels and associated freestanding structure located to the rear of the property would have an acceptable relationship with the living conditions of occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook and light. In that regard, it would comply with Policy P10 (Design) of the [name] (2019) and Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2009), which collectively seek to protect residential amenity.

For the same reasons, the proposal would adhere with the guidance at Policy HDG2 of the SPD which requires that all development proposals should protect the amenity of neighbours.

The appellant refers to the Council having declared a climate emergency and suggests that a benefit of the appeal development is that it would provide a source of renewable energy for the host dwelling, with any excess energy to be sent back to the grid. I also note the appellant’s reasons for the position of the panels in terms of seeking maximum solar exposure. However, any renewable energy benefits would likely be modest in terms of wider aspirations to address climate change and would not outweigh the harm identified under the first

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed as the harm identified under the first main issue indicates conflict with the

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.