@jamespa, thanks for setting up this offshoot of a discussion that sprang up elsewhere. It's an interesting and useful exploration and I wholeheartedly agree that this has nothing to do with rights, wrongs, morality and so forth; merely a discussion about what may be legally allowed or not.

I should also state clearly that I am no legal expert and so there may well be legally significant nuances to the language used that I might miss. However, my interpretation is that solar panels, if they are attached to a roof, form part of that roof and therefore fall under the restrictions placed on using a hosepipe to clean a roof. Looking at that link you provided and specifically going to the section on "Water use: temporary bans", I can see the list of what can be restricted (point 76) is qualified by supplements in point 76A. In particular, 76A (3) (d) clarifies that a reference to something can include something else used in connection with it; the example it gives being a reference to a vehicle naturally also including a trailer. From my point of view, that means a reference to a roof would naturally include structures attached to the roof such as a chimney, a gutter and a solar panel.

The legislation does, of course, allow water companies to choose to apply whatever exceptions they wish; they can't restrict beyond what the legislation allows but they don't have to implement all the restrictions. As such, any particular water company may legitimately choose to exclude solar panels from their definition of a roof. However, from my interpretation of the legislation if they want to include the solar panels, they're not overstepping the mark.

You're right, too, that it is worth trying to get a definition for "artificial outdoor surfaces" within the context of the legislation. Since I can see no explicit definition in the whole Act, my interpretation is that the term has to be taken at face value, meaning that if the solar panel is permanently installed outdoors, and is clearly a surface and artificial, the Act applies to it.

I have often wondered about using a hose to clean our panels but, any current ban aside, could not decide if it would be a good idea or have any safety implications ?

Posted by: @lenny

↑

I have often wondered about using a hose to clean our panels but, any current ban aside, could not decide if it would be a good idea or have any safety implications ?

I wouldn't necessarily recommend sticking a high pressure nozzle onto the end of the hosepipe and directing it up underneath the solar panels but other than that there are no more safety implications than if the panels were being rained on (other than the health and safety issues of using a ladder and/or working at height).

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

You're right, too, that it is worth trying to get a definition for "artificial outdoor surfaces" within the context of the legislation.

This term is defined in the Water Use (Temporary Bans) Order 2010 as amended as follows:

(2) In [the relevant section of the Act], “artificial outdoor surface” means any of the following—

(a)any area outdoors which is paved or laid with hard or artificial material;

(b)timber decking;

(c)a quay;

(d)a trailer designed, constructed or adapted to launch boats or other vessels or craft into water, other than a private motor-vehicle within the meaning of section 76(2)(b) of the Act(1);

(e)the roof of any domestic premises within the meaning of section 76(2)(i) of the Act(2).

(3) In paragraph (2), “quay” includes jetty, pontoon, wharf and slipway

This is why I think it comes down to the definition of 'roof' (on the grounds that solar panels couldn't possibly fit any other category mentioned.)

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

In particular, 76A (3) (d) clarifies that a reference to something can include something else used in connection with it; the example it gives being a reference to a vehicle naturally also including a trailer. From my point of view, that means a reference to a roof would naturally include structures attached to the roof such as a chimney, a gutter and a solar panel.

If you read the full section, which is about the extent to which the Secretary of State has the power to amend the list of permitted banned activities, it is preceded by 'In particular an order may:-'  Thus the wording in 76 (A(3) only applies if the order [made by the Secretary of State] says so.  It is not a general extension to any definition.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

However, my interpretation is that solar panels, if they are attached to a roof, form part of that roof

Ok so following the above clarifications I think this is the crux.  Is a solar panel (attached to a roof) included in the definition of roof?  If it is then it surely follows that anything (and in particular any fixed plant) attached to a roof, whether or not it performs the function of protecting the building, is included with in the definition of a roof.  For me I must say that this would be an absurd conclusion and would, for example, imply that the air conditioners on top of office blocks fall within the definition of 'roof'.   However I too am not a lawyer.  That said I would point to the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 which says (when defining the permitted development rights in respect of solar panels):

Development is not permitted by Class A if—

(a)the solar PV or solar thermal equipment would protrude more than 0.2 metres beyond the plane of the wall or [F1, in the case of a pitched roof,] the roof slope when measured from the perpendicular with the external surface of the wall or [F2pitched] roof slope;

(b)[F3in the case of solar PV or solar thermal equipment on a pitched roof,] it would result in the highest part of the solar PV or solar thermal equipment being higher than the highest part of the roof (excluding any chimney);

Interestingly Affinity Water have still not responded.  They were very quick to respond by confirming that it is legal for a commercial operator to clean panels as a service using a hose, but have strangely not answered the question about cleaning ones own panels.  It suggests that either they know they are on shaky ground if they asserted that solar panels are covered by the ban, or dont know the answer and it hasn't been tested in the courts.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

...

If you read the full section, which is about the extent to which the Secretary of State has the power to amend the list of permitted banned activities, it is preceded by 'In particular an order may:-'  Thus the wording in 76 (A(3) only applies if the order [made by the Secretary of State] says so.  It is not a general extension to any definition.

...

This is one reason I'd never make a good solicitor. I'm not certain you've convinced me but I am certain I'm not sure about that section now - if you see what I mean.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

...

Ok so following the above clarifications I think this is the crux.  Is a solar panel (attached to a roof) included in the definition of roof?  If it is then it surely follows that anything (and in particular any fixed plant) attached to a roof, whether or not it performs the function of protecting the building, is included with in the definition of a roof.

...

Here, I think we are in complete agreement.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the inclusion of items like air conditioning units bolted to flat roofs is necessarily absurd, even if I do happily agree it's not intuitive, but the law only concerns itself with what is, not what is sensible and/or obvious. Bear in mind also, that "definition of a roof" is only in the context of whether or not you're allowed to use a hosepipe to clean it, and in that sense I don't see it's unreasonable to view items attached to a roof as part of the roof in that context (i.e. "please don't wash that roof or any of the stuff attached to it"). To treat the aircon units separately would allow a similarly absurd situation of someone to be very careless with their aim whilst washing the unit and "accidentally" give the roof a wash at the same time.

If a legal expert could provide a definitive argument to show a solar panel attached to a roof is not part of the roof I'd be happy to go with that. As it stands, I can see an argument either way but nothing legally conclusive so far.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Interestingly Affinity Water have still not responded.  They were very quick to respond by confirming that it is legal for a commercial operator to clean panels as a service using a hose, but have strangely not answered the question about cleaning ones own panels.  It suggests that either they know they are on shaky ground if they asserted that solar panels are covered by the ban, or dont know the answer and it hasn't been tested in the courts.

I strongly suspect the latter.