ᐅ Restrictions on Photovoltaic Systems in the Development Plan
Created on: 13 Apr 2022 01:21
M
mayglow
I’m currently browsing through zoning plans for new development areas that we found interesting (even though some of them might already be partly completed).
I came across the following passage:
(Source: Zoning plan 900 from the city of Bochum)
At first glance, this seems quite restrictive to me (1.50m (5 feet) distance from all roof edges and a maximum of 50%). Until now, I had always heard that if you install photovoltaic panels, you should place as many as possible on the roof. Here, suddenly, much less seems to be allowed. Or is this actually within the usual range of restrictions? It feels like I often see roofs with only about a 50cm (20 inch) clearance around them...
Are such regulations common? Is the purpose purely aesthetic, or are there other reasons behind them? I’m just trying to understand where this requirement comes from.
I came across the following passage:
(Source: Zoning plan 900 from the city of Bochum)
At first glance, this seems quite restrictive to me (1.50m (5 feet) distance from all roof edges and a maximum of 50%). Until now, I had always heard that if you install photovoltaic panels, you should place as many as possible on the roof. Here, suddenly, much less seems to be allowed. Or is this actually within the usual range of restrictions? It feels like I often see roofs with only about a 50cm (20 inch) clearance around them...
Are such regulations common? Is the purpose purely aesthetic, or are there other reasons behind them? I’m just trying to understand where this requirement comes from.
Thanks for the information regarding the regulations from Baden-Württemberg. That at least provides some context and reinforces the impression that the rules here are overly restrictive.
I suspect there aren’t many comparable examples in the neighborhood yet, since this is still a relatively new development area. Of course, it’s possible that someone applied for an exception and it was granted due to the so-called “climate emergency,” but I don’t know. I can well imagine that could work.
We are not directly affected at the moment, but this is part of a larger new development area where several other land use plans have been recently adopted or are in the process of being updated, and we are following the developments closely. There is also another land use plan currently on display, which includes a similar clause 🙄 For us, it’s probably not a disaster, but I was considering submitting it as feedback. (Even if they don’t change it there, please leave this out of future plans, thanks.)
In principle, they have already incorporated several green concerns into the plans. That’s exactly why I was so confused when I read this and wanted to get a general impression of whether this is common practice. If you had told me, “You’ll never cover more than 55% anyway because (reason here),” then that would be easier to understand. But if Baden-Württemberg is currently requiring at least 60%, then a maximum of 50% in a settlement that tries to present itself as as environmentally friendly seems quite unreasonable.
I suspect there aren’t many comparable examples in the neighborhood yet, since this is still a relatively new development area. Of course, it’s possible that someone applied for an exception and it was granted due to the so-called “climate emergency,” but I don’t know. I can well imagine that could work.
We are not directly affected at the moment, but this is part of a larger new development area where several other land use plans have been recently adopted or are in the process of being updated, and we are following the developments closely. There is also another land use plan currently on display, which includes a similar clause 🙄 For us, it’s probably not a disaster, but I was considering submitting it as feedback. (Even if they don’t change it there, please leave this out of future plans, thanks.)
In principle, they have already incorporated several green concerns into the plans. That’s exactly why I was so confused when I read this and wanted to get a general impression of whether this is common practice. If you had told me, “You’ll never cover more than 55% anyway because (reason here),” then that would be easier to understand. But if Baden-Württemberg is currently requiring at least 60%, then a maximum of 50% in a settlement that tries to present itself as as environmentally friendly seems quite unreasonable.
After several decades of installing solar and photovoltaic modules, I consider it a reasonable expectation that manufacturers design their products to be seamlessly integrated with the roof covering, or even to replace it entirely. It should no longer be a challenge for any manufacturer to produce modules that, when viewed from the sun-facing side, appear blue and, from the street side, appear red (although I don’t expect this from economy models).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
So you mean that with the regulations (since they mainly limit "structures") larger "in-roof" systems or solar tiles might be possible? But that also sounds like deliberately trying to bypass restrictions :p I was wondering a bit about the rule myself.
Although that wouldn’t apply to flat roofs either (since green roofing is mandatory there and any solar systems have to be arranged spread out on top or something like that).
Although that wouldn’t apply to flat roofs either (since green roofing is mandatory there and any solar systems have to be arranged spread out on top or something like that).
D
Deliverer15 Apr 2022 10:41I would ignore that and fully install the roofs. If someone is really so narrow-minded that the local authority sues, they will suffer such a PR disaster that the plan will be quickly adjusted. No local authority can afford that anymore.
The lawsuit will fail due to the Renewable Energy Act and the Basic Law.
The lawsuit will fail due to the Renewable Energy Act and the Basic Law.