Forum menu
They can look pretty nasty on new builds, but how can the owners of this house live with themselves 🙁
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6874641381_29e2cd5c03.jp g" target="_blank">
Bonus point for getting the location
Hmm, not all that fitting with the landscape in the Lake District is it? Then again, needs must. Dont want to be a NIMBY.
Totter bank by any chance?
Totter bank by any chance?
spot on!
It has solar panels on the roof, and?
I may object to the grants and the way that side of things is run, i may question whether solar cells are actually a good thing and whether there might be better methods of producing energy.
But if someone wants them, i don't really care,
I fail to see the issue here. Roofline not altered, no significant damage to original sturctures
The point is that it looks shit. That building is part of my heritage, and I don't want it ****ed about with.
Your voice must be heard geoffj!
It's an offence to your eyes and should be destroyed immediately!
It's unimportant that the other 62,218,760 who arguably share ownership of this "Heritage" with you don't really give a crap.
The point is that it looks shit. That building is part of my heritage, and I don't want it **** about with.
No it's someone's home.
Should they be banned form keeping car's on the driveway too? Afterall a 207 is hardly in keeping with the style of the house either, a series I landlrover would be borderline acceptable, but it really should be limited to a horse and cart. And while we're at it that road would never have been tarmaced, it should be left as a muddy rut.
Part of your heritage? You own it do you? No permanent damage has been done to it. So the roof is shiny and black in places not dull and brown. that building is massively altered from how it would have been originally.
Coming to all scenic areas near you due to yet another badly thought out idea 👿 At least my 50ft wind turbine looks nice now ive painted it green.
Those telegraph poles disgust me.
the UK has this issue with houses, they are seen as some magic heritage thing, so rather than ensuring that houses continue to evolve* we seem to think brick built neo tudor is the height of sophistication and that nothing modern might actually be a good idea**
*look at the photo and i think it is clear that the house is not as originally built and has at various times been amended to suit the then owners needs.
**So passivhaus, code6, etc don't get built....
We just had planning permission denied because our extension would 'over urbanise the area' - see google link and laugh...
Its not that bad is it? I'd rather have them over a whacking great plastic conservatory stuck on the side.
Have to say though, they'd be a lot less noticeable if the frames were black instead of white...
But where do we stop? Or do we just put them up wherever the owners want them? I'm willing to be convinced, but it don't feel right to me.
If they just made the bars in between black or the same colour as the roof I dont think they would stand out as much.
I could see there should be some rules that the installers attempt to fit the panels to the house, just a few little changes would make all the difference in terms of visual impact.
The new panels on new builds are hardly visible ! I did even realise they were solar panels until I was told.
Or there was some system to cheaply tile into and around them. Would look so much nicer and natural.
But where do we stop? Or do we just put them up wherever the owners want them? I'm willing to be convinced, but it don't feel right to me.
Why do we need to stop development? i am currently in NZ, every house i have seen is different, yes there are odd conservation zones, but it looks far better than the wimpy/bovis/redrow/etc estates you find in the UK. I am not saying build where you like, rather build what you like with a few guidelines, volume/floorspace/external materials in specific locations that sort of thing. Build houses that perform as houses as well as possible, not that look right according to some planning department but fail in the most basic function of a house as a place to live.
The back of my house faces south/south west. Solar panels would seem like a very good idea, even in the gloomy North West of England.
OK, I understand the idea there do need to be some restrictions, and designated national parks can have additional special rules, but there also needs to be some consideration of progress and evolution of the way we live.
[b]mrmo[/b] is right about the British obsession with turning its housing stock into a museum - for me it's the most convincing explanation of our obsession with Victorian and Edwardian housing, when newer designs are derided.
But where do we stop?
We don't build coal fired power stations in the national parks, seems a good stopping point.
Personaly, I think industrial stuff looks cool, eg the Castleton cement works I think it actualy adds something to the area rather than just being another valley in the Peak district kept as some frozen in time 150year old sheep farming landscape*, it's actualy a living, working, landscape.
*bear in mind the Peaks and Lakes would look nothing like they do now without human input, after F&M there was concern that unless huge sums/subsidies were invested back into sheep farming the farmers would up sticks and do something else and the landscape would be forrested within a generation.
They don't look good do they.
Pretty sure that the nice shiny "glass" could be more matte to blend in more.
On Channel 4's "Home of the Future" programme on Sunday (crap programme btw) they installed PV cells that seemed to replace the tiles and just looked like a shinier part of the roof. That may be a better subsidy-harvesting technology for visually-sensitive areas of the country.
Yes that is awful.
Thank god harmful pollutants that damage the environment and cause health conditions like asthma are unseen or else people would actually have to give a shit about car use and the like.
...the house is not as originally built and has at various times been amended to suit the then owners needs.
Is it a relatively recent thing where we feel the need to stagnate the evolution of our housing to meet modern needs?
Lots of useful relevant points above. I guess my main gripe is with inconsistency. You can bung the panels on, but not stick a UPVC conservatory on the side without lots of expensive paperwork.
*goes off to see if the solar thermal panels are heating the store just now 😉
I have to agree with the OP here - I see them all over the shop now and they do look pretty ugly. Not saying they aren't a good idea, just think they look pig-ugly.
i was about to type "they could have installed it on the other side of the roof"
I'll get my coat
ps- they do look sh*T!
is the urban myth true aswell, you have to have them installed for about 300 years before you get any visible payback financially?
how can the owners of this house live with themselves
Perhaps because they want to support green technology?
Honestly, if you think how a house looks is more important than how much energy it uses then you are a pillock. What about the virgin countryside that they bulldozed to put coal fired power stations in? What about farmland in sub saharan africa, lovingly tended by generations of people, that's now desert?
Get a grip ffs. Talk about first world problems. Of course one set of solar panels isn't going to save the world, but one sale from one company making a bit of profit to re-invest, when taken with all those other sales, just might.
Look at all that farmland in the background. This all used to be forest you know, stripped bare just so we can all eat lamb. How can farmers live with themselves, raping our landscape like that?
I kind of agree that a little more thought could have been put into stealthing up the design.
Perhaps because they want to [s]support green technology?[/s] rake in the subsidies paid for by all other energy users
FTFY
The house would certainly look better without them...It would look even worse with one of these though...
[img] 
[/img]
You may not think the planners are blocking enough, but you've actually more chance getting the planners to refuse permission for something that doesn't "look" nice (subjective opinion) than getting them to refuse permission for something actually seriously affects the neighbours. We now have kids nurseries on both sides of the house - the constant crying and screaming all summer really affects us, but the planners think it's OK
It would look even worse with one of these though...
Good point - I'll make sure to object if one of my neighbours wants to build a 1960s power station on their roof.
if you think how a house looks is more important than how much energy it uses then you are a pillock
Which really does make the planning system a pillock. If you want to understand the true hipocrisy of the system try asking the council for permission to put windows with 21st century insulation values (which is a proper energy saver, not just greenwash) into a listed house or one in a conservation area and see how far you get.
Which really does make the planning system a pillock
I won't argue with that 🙂
I just don't get why the preservation of the way things were a hundred years ago has any value. We have stacks of history in this country. It's more important to stop pollution and resource waste than just keeping things twee.
I'll let you know when mine are installed next week.
The only thing holding me back from installing them on my house is the fact they look so god damned ugly and I cant bring myself to ruin the look of the house with them.
What bothers me is that they could have put another one in the top row and had them all nicely lined up!
LOL @ Molly. Easy tiger you're gonna pop something. 😯
[i]What about farmland in sub saharan africa, lovingly tended by generations of people, that's now desert?[/i]
The goats are getting a lot of stick for that, tbh, more so even than global warming.
but how can the owners of this house live with themselves
i'm sure the huge subsidies help a little...
(the house has got glass in it's windows, now it's got some glass on the roof too - i don't see any problem)
The panels are probably just under 250W, so another one would have put the total capacity over 4kW and so they would have dropped into the lower band of FIT payments.What bothers me is that they could have put another one in the top row and had them all nicely lined up!
No permanent damage has been done to it. So the roof is shiny and black in places not dull and brown. that building is massively altered from how it would have been originally.
😆
NIMBY'S!