solar panels – the inherent conflict john rantino | partner
TRANSCRIPT
Solar Panels – The Inherent ConflictJohn Rantino | Partner
Positive encouragement for solar panels
Government subsidies and rebates
Increasing cost of electricity
Government regulation on building design
Planning policy (environmental sustainability)
No legal right to light
The English ‘Ancient Lights Law’ does not apply in Australia
A legal right to light would need to be acquired (by contract or property law)
Planning scheme protection of light
There is only limited recognition of the impact of development on access to light (eg Rescode – generally only equinox)
Access to light is seen as an amenity issue not a sustainability issue
Discouragement of solar panels
Existing character of an area may already be ‘medium density’ (eg Fitzroy)
Policy encouragement for increased density and multi-storey:
– Improved energy efficiency of buildings
– Urban consolidation (maximise infrastructure)
– Transport and activity centre policy
The VCAT decisions
Chen v Melbourne City Council (2012)
Gurry v Moonee Valley City Council (2013)
Haus v Boroondara City Council (2013)
Chen v Melbourne City Council
Permit refused as development unreasonably impacted on solar panels
MCC has a local policy seeking to “minimize impact … on solar collecting devices”
Noted that there is no guidance (hence ad hoc decisions)
Gurry v Moonee Valley City Council
Impact on solar panels was not unreasonable
Laid down guiding principles
– Reasonableness of proposed building
– Legitimate expectations of solar panel owner
– Reasonableness of solar panel locations
Haus v Boroondara City Council
Applied the Gurry principles
