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

2. Positive encouragement for solar panels
Government subsidies and rebates
Increasing cost of electricity
Government regulation on building design
Planning policy (environmental sustainability)

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. The VCAT decisions Chen v Melbourne City Council (2012)
Gurry v Moonee Valley City Council (2013)
Haus v Boroondara City Council (2013)

7. 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)

8. 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

9. Haus v Boroondara City Council
Applied the Gurry principles

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