A COUPLE are planning to install 200 solar panels in the Burnley countryside as part of their ongoing efforts to make their landmark home more environmentally-friendly.

Gunther and Catja Schmitgen have already been given planning permission, on appeal, for a 15-metre high turbine at Foulds House, off Halifax Road, Briercliffe.

MORE TOP STORIES:

And now Mr Schmitgen, a surgeon at Burnley General Hospital but also director of his own energy firm, wants to erect an array of 250-watt collection devices in a field on the edge of his grounds.

Planning consultant Alexander Ball said that the site had been selected by the Schmitgens because it suffered from ‘little shadowing’ throughout the day.

And he insisted that the impact of the solar panels would be minimal as they would be located near to existing National Grid pylons, the previously-approved wind turbine and would be screened by semi-mature and mature vegetation.

Mr Ball added: “People are unlikely to be affected by the development. It is thought that any effect would be positive, providing an example for low carbon approaches to energy production.

“The solar panels have been carefully located in order to mitigate the visual impacts upon the surrounding area.

“It should be noted that the solar panels have been positioned away from the applicant’s property in order to ensure that the listed building would not be affected by the development.

Foulds House was first built in the early 17th century and was listed because of its special architectural and historic interest.

The battle over his turbine resolved two years ago and was not the first time Mr Schmitgen and his wife, a GP in Nelson, had clashed with the planning authorities in Burnley.

In 2003 he was taken to task after he put up a seven-foot high crucifix, after moving to East Lancashire from Bavaria in the 1990s.

He insisted that the image of Christ, carved in wood, should be allowed to remain as a symbol of his Christianity.

But the borough’s planning committee, which had received a complaint, disagreed and refused to grant a certificate of lawfulness for the feature.