Forum Topic

Please help us save our solar panels

Please see the Petition that we have posted on-line, requesting   Hounslow Council to allow us to retain the solar PV panels on the side wall of our house in Chiswick Lane South. If you agree with the Petition, please sign and make a comment, giving your opinion. The Petition is at:http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/marilyn-smith-please-allow-the-solar-pv-panels-on-the-side-wall-of-heron-house-to-stay-there

Joy Skinner ● 4322d37 Comments

I've walked up and down that road quite a few tines in the past couple of years and have hardly noticed the panels, just a lot of green. I have however noticed a very ugly (to my eyes) garage that backs onto the property, part of a row of modern houses that look entirely out of place in the Old Chiswick Conservation Area (and which were definitely built long after 1950). For that reason and on the basis of "every little helps" in reducing our carbon footprint, I have signed the petition.

Sue Rowe ● 4311d

OTOH, I don't think they look to bad at all on the property at issue in this thread.I believe that you still need permission is a conservation area. The problem is that this couple have, allegedly, lost a lot of sympathy with both  neighbours and LBH I understand for erecting a lift shaft that didn't comply with the submitted plans, erecting something on their roof (do.) erecting a heavy trellis which changed the 'sight lines' of the building (do.) and then applying for retrospective permission which is what I understand they are trying to do again for these solar panels.

Nigel Brooks ● 4315d

I thought planning permission was no longer required for solar?Am I wrong?I would absolutely love to have them on my house but I have most regrettably decided that they really would look too hideous on my particular roof.  If only it was the rear of the house that faced south...OTOH, I don't think they look to bad at all on the property at issue in this thread.

Tony Colliver ● 4315d

Maybe the problem will become someone else`s.I

Debbie Edwards ● 4316d

Old enough to know better I would say.

Keith Iddon ● 4317d

And don't forget they are in their 80's and may have misunderstood the situation.  But - there are some elderly abusers on here.Yes, that 'card is being played' on the Chiswick forum.One wonders if they are the long term residents of this property and therefore those responsible for previous alleged planning breaches.

Nigel Brooks ● 4317d

And don't forget they are in their 80's and may have misunderstood the situation.  But - there are some elderly abusers on here.

Charles Campbell ● 4317d

Let's not forget that the people in Chiswick did ask LBH if they needed planning permission and where told "No",they've been installed for two years,spent circa £20K then got told to take them down... Now I for one wouldn't have gone ahead without a piece of paper that gave the go ahead,but in this case that's not what has happened. Quo vadis?"Those who seek to frack in an area will have to fully comply with relevant planning laws (and then some)"Agreed, but will go ahead against the wishes of some,infact I can't imagine you being a pacifist when it starts on the land between Elthorne Park and the canal,a well known area of shale.

Tony Wood ● 4317d

Not at all Tony.Those who seek to frack in an area will have to fully comply with relevant planning laws (and then some).Imagine them starting to frack and then applying for retrospective planning permission so to do and then bleating when it was not granted. I can only guess that you, like I, would have no sympathy for this position.What, in pure planning terms, is the difference between this and cladding a building in a conservation area, in solar panels without planning permission?I still believe that fracking will play a vital role in making this country self-sufficient in energy while we build a better mix of renewables and primary sources. Those who cannot see this need to remove their blinkers.

Nigel Brooks ● 4317d

"I see no contradiction in my position."I'm sort of not surprised"Fracking won't be taking place on a building in a Conservation Area. Do check the planning history, the link is clearly posted."But it will (eventually) have a huge impact on occupants of "ordinary" housing,to me just as important as residents in conservation  areas.. ymmv and seemingly does?"Moreover, an 'ecomentalist', would have solar panel everywhere do you rather mean a conservationist?"It's perfectly possible to be both and maybe you are,but it was your usage in the fracking thread that I was referring to. You implied that it should go ahead fullsteam (npi) in spite of the ecomentalists and yet over the Chiswick thing you seem to be objecting in the same manner you despise in the anti frackists.Just my opinion.

Tony Wood ● 4317d

I see no contradiction in my position.Fracking won't be taking place on a building in a Conservation Area. Do check the planning history, the link is clearly posted.Glad you liked the use of alleged.Moreover, an 'ecomentailist', would have solar panel everywhere do you rather mean a conservationist?

Nigel Brooks ● 4317d

Blimey Nigel....you on Fracking"Just do it!If we listened to every objection from the ecomentalists we would still be living in caves."And on solar panels"The damned things are hideous and I do hope that LBH. who do not have a great record of enforcement, do something."And for a totally unbiased view you suggest:-"I think everyone who considers signing should look on the BrentfordTW8 and ChiswickW4 forums and learn of the alleged routine planning breaches by the owners of this building since 1969." Nice use use of the "alleged" get out clause Nigel,no signs of any actual evidence of breaches,just alleging hearsay from a newborn ecomentalist.

Tony Wood ● 4317d

I am both bothered what they look like and also the flagrant disregard for planning regulations. Solar is an essential part of our energy mix I agree but such renewable sources need to be sympathetic with the environment around them.Our 'children and grandchildren' will also benefit from the legacy of the built environment that we leave behind which, I hope, will not include solar panels 'slapped' onto the side of an heritage building.

Nigel Brooks ● 4317d

I can't believe that there are people who are bothered about what they look like,(they really aren't that bad) when we really need to be looking at, will they do damage to Earth? Are they the way forward to a less polluted society? Will our children and grandchildren benefit? Really we need to be thinking about the future, and how best to preserve our planet and not does it look nice on the side of a building of a thin road that is very polluted already by petrol fumes.

Jaz Brown ● 4317d

If the search functions on those forums (fora?) are anything like the Ealing one then nothing will be found...

Tony Colliver ● 4317d

No, it isn't you, they are horrible.Had a quick look at the Brentford and Chiswick forums, same plea there.  In over 40 years at least one resident should have realised that putting things up without planning permission isn't the right thing to do, it will cause problems.

Debbie Edwards ● 4318d

Thanks Debbie I thought it was me!Perhaps they think that garnering enough votes from people who don't give a damn for planning rules or who read the story but didn't look at the photo will persuade LBH to change their mind.

Nigel Brooks ● 4318d

Never a truer word said Nigel.What use is an e-petition?

Debbie Edwards ● 4318d

The damned things are hideous and I do hope that LBH. who do not have a great record of enforcement, do something.

Nigel Brooks ● 4318d

Why Gerry?   If nobody objected to any previous "breaches" I can't really support your view,it looks like a B.fine house to me,in fact I'm a little bit jealous.  Our own Tony Collivers comment on the page in question made me laugh,and good to see that Bamber Gascoigne is a supporter,nope...the more I look at the photo the more I think that the lady at LBH has made a bad judgement.

Tony Wood ● 4318d

I think that's wise advice Nigel.

Gerry Tan ● 4318d

I think everyone who considers signing should look on the BrentfordTW8 and ChiswickW4 forums and learn of the alleged routine planning breaches by the owners of this building since 1969.You cannot simply do what you like within a conservation area and then complain about it if the decisions go against you.

Nigel Brooks ● 4318d

Signed.

Lee Page ● 4318d

Thanks NigelYes I know the LUCOZADE (!) sign,I lived in the environs for nearly 6 decades,my point was that I've been past it probably thousands of times without noticing it at all (except as a kid when it fascinated me)."Listing didn't begin until 1950 by which time some of the signs had already been in place for thirty years or more."That's correct,but if they were removed to reveal the  Portland facias people would still complain that "it's not the same,I've known the lights all my life,put  'em back".Others would say "Oooo isn't it lovely,it's just like the Duchess of Duke St.I don't know,but I suspect different peoples reaction to change is related to the "fight or flight syndrome",in this case in extremis, some would say "Take it down you've changed my World and I don't like that happening" the other lot "Do what you want mate couldn't give a carrot". The trick I suppose is to be somewhere 'twixt the two.

Tony Wood ● 4320d

Isn't strange that most present day hideous and inappropriate signs and equipment, eventually become iconic symbols which are much loved and recognised as OK installations...I'm thinking of the white HOLLYWOOD name sign, the once-ghastly Las Vegas giant neon signs and various enormous signs in many other capitals of the world. In time, we learn to accept things.

Gerry Tan ● 4320d

What Lucosade sign? On the Great West Road (near Ealing Road), used to be on the Lucozade factory and now on the side of an anonymous building.

Nigel Brooks ● 4320d

The advertising signs, hideous as they are, in Piccadilly Circus were there well before the buildings were listed.Listing didn't begin until 1950 by which time some of the signs had already been in place for thirty years or more.

Nigel Brooks ● 4320d

There are several "building eyesores" around. My pet aversion are the ugly and unsightly proliferation of dish aerials, especially on the front of houses.

Gerry Tan ● 4320d

What Lucosade sign?

Tony Wood ● 4320d

"Who in all honesty ever looks at the advertising lights in...." No-one, its not a place anyone goes to, ever, and there are never any photos taken of it.  It is not a famous place in this fine city.What do you think of the Lucozade sign?

Debbie Edwards ● 4320d

Oh I'm brain dead meant Piccadilly Circus.

Tony Wood ● 4321d

Signed, It's not the sort of thing that people will notice in a couple of months time,nobody walks along looking up at that height. Who in all honesty ever looks at the advertising lights in Trafalgar Square,and they're all on grade II  listed buildings and burn electricity rather than generating it.

Tony Wood ● 4321d

They are awful, sorry, but they truly are an eyesore.Couldn't they go somewhere out of sight like on a roof?

Debbie Edwards ● 4321d

I hate to say this, as I am a long-time supporter of renewables as an essential part of the energy 'mix', but from the photo on your petition they look totally out of character with their immediate surroundings and I think that the council have a valid point.They did however tell you, before investing, that there was no reason to refuse retrospective permission, have to say that I am never happy when things happen without the requisite permissions in place. and I feel  may need to seek professional advice.I cannot, solely based on the photo, in all conscience, sign the petition.

Nigel Brooks ● 4321d

Signed and commented.  Go for it!

Charles Campbell ● 4321d

Done.

Tony Colliver ● 4321d

Signed

Jaz Brown ● 4321d