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