Interesting recent legal ruling regarding solar panels i came across which could become be a useful precedent (barring any appeal) and may be of interest to others:

 

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/solar-panel-row-leads-to-landmark-court-win-208321/

 

and a more in-depth article for those legally minded..

 

http://www.raymondcooper.co.uk/land-law/planning-system-protect-solar-panels-overshadowing/

Just had a quick scan of the article.

A similar case happened in the US about a decade ago.

But the picture amazed me, how does that produce 11 kW as claimed by the article.  Maybe there is more hidden away on the other walls and under the shed.

 

29 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

But the picture amazed me, how does that produce 11 kW as claimed by the article.  Maybe there is more hidden away on the other walls and under the shed.

 

 

Sloppy Journalism I expect, they probably mean 11KWh in a day not 11KW instantaneous.

 

But even on mid summers day with a completely clear sky all day, I would be very surprised if those 4 panels could produce that much in that orientation.

 

EDIT: Is that another one showing it's edge on the back sloping roof? so there could be more on that sloping roof?

Thats good for us as it could be used to stop our neighbors overshadowing our solar where they ever to go for two stories.

Just reading the longer piece about it.

I hate legal language, but it is quite interesting about the 'material and weight' aspect.

The real answer is to develope more, low density, housing.

If your neighbour is 200 metres away, it would be a rare event.

Some interesting points looking through this.

- The legal basis for a right to light comes from the Prescription Act 1832 and was for "the beneficial use of the building for any ordinary purpose for which it was adapted upheld", and upheld to show a Greenhouse is  an ordinary purpose and requires a higher degree of light (and warmth) from the sun. Which is an extremely good analogue for solar panels: growing your own food is effectively small scale energy harvesting, as food is energy.

- As more solar PV is installed, this is increasingly provable to be an "ordinary purpose" of a building / property

- speculation: with  a future framework for local area "generated energy sharing" (as some countries already have) I wonder if a reasonable compromise  could be reached in civil law where the infringed party instead accepts a perpetual "right" to capture an equivalent degree of sunlight on the planning applicant's land. This would ordinarily be fed into the grid under the applicant's meter/tariff, but if in future it's possible to assign it to the benefit of the infringed neighbour then perhaps this would be a amicable compromise.

 

So ... cue NIMBYs installing lots of installations of three solar panels.

 

Does anyone have a link to the ruling?

 

My initial impression is that the chap is being somewhat vexatious and the judge is being somewhat illogical, absent some sort of #scientific evaluation of the cost benefit.

 

Needs an higher court to rule.

 

Presumably the other chap can make the development acceptable in planning terms by putting the same number of panels on the other end, since the judgement is on the basis of damage to the environment not the saving of electricity to the first chap. And that is the assumed damage he is having to mitigate. Or perhaps he only needs one panel because he will have only blocked a bit of the energy produced by the array.

 

I think this may be sufficiently trivial that it may not last.

Edited September 6, 20197 yr by Ferdinand

10 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Presumably the other chap can make the development acceptable in planning terms by putting the same number of panels on the other end, since the judgement is on the basis of damage to the environment not the saving of electricity to the first chap. And that is the assumed damage he is having to mitigate.

 

Yes very good point -- this is looking at my final point from the other angle: if the damage done is in the new reduction in renewable energy generation (not the financial benefit thereof) then yes the applicant can mitigate that entirely themselves, no need for export sharing. Which could lead to an interesting eventual approval with a perpetual condition that XX kWh of solar generation remain on the extended property.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Does anyone have a link to the ruling?

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/1738.html

21 minutes ago, joth said:

 

Yes very good point -- this is looking at my final point from the other angle: if the damage done is in the new reduction in renewable energy generation (not the financial benefit thereof) then yes the applicant can mitigate that entirely themselves, no need for export sharing. Which could lead to an interesting eventual approval with a perpetual condition that XX kWh of solar generation remain on the extended property.

 

 

 

My legal thought is that a fix that simple suggests that the ruling is in a rather small context.

 

Presumably he could also buy the first chap some more insulation.

 

And given that Planning Law is framed such that equivalent solutions are acceptable, perhaps he could even plant a row of mature trees in front of the solar panels if he can demonstrate absorption of the same amount of CO2 as saved by the panels!

 

But I want to read it because High Court judges are usually good with complicated evaluations, so I may have the wrong end of a different stick.

 

Interesting area of potential development of law to think about.

Edited September 6, 20197 yr by Ferdinand

I see his house has had dormer extensions yet he begrudges his neighbour doing similar. To$$er.

Better pictures here:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7233275/Engineer-gets-neighbours-house-extension-stopped-landmark-High-Court-win.html

 

Maybe he likes seeing his name in print:

 

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/-airport-leaflet-biased--5089/

 

 

 

House wanting to extend to the right of the white van. Mr McLennans property...the gable he has his panels on faces due South plus those on the rear.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3647629,0.5120271,45m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Edited July 7, 20206 yr by Onoff

I must really grate that his neighbour's roof is so much better suited to solar.

6 hours ago, Onoff said:

I must really grate that his neighbour's roof is so much better suited to solar.

I think the guy at this house must have been upset when an arrogant architect moved in next door and put the roof extension on.  It is a 'look at me' house.