Transcript Solar panels - the inherent conflict, John Rantino

Solar Panels – The Inherent
Conflict
John 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 | Partner
Direct 61 3 9258 3694
[email protected]