Solar Panels – The Inherent Conflict John Rantino | Partner.

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

Solar Panels – The Inherent Conflict

John Rantino | PartnerDirect 61 3 9258 [email protected]