Blocking the sun

A patient of mine with less than optimal vision remarked that ever since the tall building went up next to her property she is forced to switch on room lights even during the day in order that she may continue with her intricate work, the source of her only income. The tall building, by blocking direct sunlight, has caused this lady to incur extra expense by increasing her energy demand. This made me think.

Is it not universally accepted that if a property owner causes damage, inconvenience or financial loss to a neighbour, these negative impacts have to be resolved and compensation given? What are the effects of suddenly finding your property literally sitting in the shade of an adjacent tall property development? Have costs ever been quantified?

One can argue that a shaded property will have less cooling needs in summer. Shade from a tall building in the hottest three months of the year at the hottest times of the day when the sun is highest, falls on a small area roughly to the north of the tall building thereby affecting only a small number of north side properties. During the cooler, darker months and during morning and evening hours with the sun lying lower on the horizon, shade from the tall building will fall on a much larger footprint with a significant number of properties being affected.

In the latter case less daylight enters properties lying in the shadowy footprint increasing demand for artificial lighting. There are increased heating costs by reducing solar heat gain, increased dampness from prolonged drying during the wet season which can also affect the performance of roof top laundry drying leading to increased tumble drier use and energy demand. There is reduced solar energy harvesting from rooftop solar thermal water heaters with increased demand for electrical boosts. The shadow of the tall building will tip the scales against financial viability of installing rooftop solar collectors (water heaters and photo voltaic panels). A property owner who has invested in rooftop solar collectors suddenly finds that the energy harvest has diminished when a tall building goes up south to his property. This is a clear example of causing financial loss to a neighbour lying in a tall building's shadow. But what of the loss of viability, created by shade, on future needs of installing rooftop solar collectors. Can the financial loss be quantified? In the case of shaded properties, can the total financial losses from increased energy demands or loss of potential use of solar collectors be quantified?

In the context of surplus dwellings on the island, the construction of tall buildings is done purely for lucrative purposes. I think that financial losses caused to neighbouring property owners, even in the insidious increases to resultant energy costs, should be fairly compensated in view that these losses have been caused during the endeavour for lucre.

There is scope to apply current laws to impose compensation of shaded property owners. There is a need to introduce specific legal safeguards for the right of access to direct sunlight and the right to harvest solar energy on one's property. There is a need to create a technical framework to assess and quantify the costs incurred by putting a property in the shade of a tall building which has been temporally constructed later than the shaded properties.

In the light of increasing energy costs, the need to conserve energy and the endeavour to install alternative sources of energy, this is a most relevant point that needs urgent consideration.