Solar Panels – The Inherent Conflict John Rantino | Partner 12589429_1.PPT

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 john.rantino@maddocks.com.au 12589429_1.PPT