Home › Forums › SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION, ENERGY and WATER CONSERVATION › Sustainable Energy & Energy Conservation › Take down your solar panels
August 24, 2009 at 11:56 am #427552
I like that take on it Suz :clap: and you CAN string two sentences together! :lol::clap::lol:August 24, 2009 at 8:57 pm #427553
I too like osakasuz’s take on it but would contradict you Tully in that this is my one area of ‘expertise’ in that it is the one i can stand up in the environment court and provide expert witness on (though clearly in that circumstance my evidence would be less subjective and better researched. Here I have only one copy of a Sunday newspaper article to go on thus must speculate, based on past experience).
All other areas in which I have some knowledge are those in which I have chosen to develop that knowledge using my brain, personal experience and research skills. I continue to be bemused by your attitude in this respect and feel it must create a poor impression of you to newer members. In light of the recent discussions on forum behaviour, maybe you should reflect on your reasons for behaving in this way and PM me so that we can resolve whatever differences may underlie these remarks as I do not recall having ever given cause for you to act in this way.
That aside, while planning law does appear to be a complex area of mutually contradictory rules and objectives to the lay person, it is not quite that confusing to those who know what they are doing.
People of wealth (and owning a house of that calibre implies wealth) can afford to have conservation plans prepared, and have their planning appllcations prepared for them to ensure that they can get what they want. They also have the resources to get it in a way that meets with plan requirements (requirements that are regularly published and to which any member of the public can object should they wish to take the time to do so at the time the plan goes to consultation). This person has not chosen to go down that path. Whether this is as Osakasuz says or as I say, either way it shows a profound disrespect for the rules that the rest of us are obliged to follow and I am afraid that unless it can be demonstrated that he tried and failed to get his panels, then acted, I am afraid that I will have to stand by my original assumptions (though am perfectly happy to change them if reliable evidence to the contrary can be found, though I do not consider Sunday paper reportage to be reliable or balanced).August 24, 2009 at 9:11 pm #427554
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!August 24, 2009 at 9:26 pm #427555
:rol:August 24, 2009 at 9:42 pm #427556
I think you’ll find there isn’t actually an environment court in Western Australia. There is the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, the Department of Environment and Conservation (WA), the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia, the Nature Base (doesn’t really count in this instance as it is more concerned with biodiversity, parks, natural resources, climate change ). There is also the Western Australia Town Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Heritage Council of Western Australia which would be more to the point in this case.August 24, 2009 at 10:16 pm #427557
Indeed, and thanks for that clarification Jaymie. The Heritage Council would only be of relevance in the event the place was of State significance, but I imagine the Town Planning Appeal tribunal would be the most relevant as it is a breach of planning law that has occurred. Each state, as well as every country has a different set of names for these organisations and their functions vary slightly. I have not practiced in WA so am not intimately familiar with their system. but it all boils down to the same thing, a plan is published, the public is invited to respond (though you rarely get responses from anyone other than major developers or green groups), State government authorities are also required to respond (where the heritage council comes in), and the plan is finalised. People who have particular issues they wish to see addressed in the plan are at liberty to make submissions. If their submissions are relevant they will be integrated into the plan.
In other words, mechanisms already exist for expressing one’s view on the internal contradictions of the plan, and this is the stage where they should be addressed. If you have a particular beef, or have moved into the area subsequent to the plan being finalised (they are reviewed around every 6 years in most places), then you can challenge the contraditions, again, through the proper channels.August 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm #427558
Good Lord, hillbilly girl – if your username didn’t have ‘girl’ in it i would have assumed that ‘one’ was trying to compare penis size with the more reasonable folk on the forum. Tsk tsk.
Definitely agreeing with preserving our ‘heritage’ by looking after our rainforests and earth in general rather than some man made shanty. Grotty old houses – cold and stanky. :rip: (generalisations and assumptions made left, right and centre here :rol: )August 24, 2009 at 11:39 pm #427559
What is with you HG.. you always seem like you have a point to prove with your posts :shrug:
Why don’t you relax a bit 🙂August 24, 2009 at 11:53 pm #427560
Hi gang :wave:
As wonderfully uplifting and warm as this thread is, to quote one of our illustrious super admins, it is starting to get ‘narky’.
It will remain open as long as people stick to the topic and stop making personal and public attacks.
Please use facebook or private PMs to continue any vilification and allow the mods and admins to catch up on seriously missed sleep.
If that fails, then please eat more chocolate :tup:
Thank you for your continued cooperation and warm fuzzies :hug:
Doc 😉August 25, 2009 at 2:03 am #427561
:tup: thanks Doc!August 25, 2009 at 2:43 am #427562
Jo, I am totally flabbergasted that you have been upset by me acknowledging your experience in this area due to it being your line of work. :jawdrop:
I was, (not in an intentionally negative way at all), attempting to say that I thought you were making assumptions by making reference to the home-owner’s wealth and therefore his lack of adherence to the rules the rest of us must abide by . :shrug:
Also, that there may be other factors surrounding the installation of the panels…ie: In the owners absence.
That’s it, nothing more, so I’ll pass on the PMing, thanks anyway.August 25, 2009 at 2:51 am #427563
Perhaps they didn’t realise they needed to get permission to put the panels up. We didn’t.
PAugust 25, 2009 at 3:24 am #427564
I get what HG is saying about the article…there would be no grounds for action by the council, had the protocols for new installations been followed.
The crux of the issue isn’t that he has to take the solar panels down – it’s that he has to apply to the Heritage Council/Trust for where he is to install them. Failing to do so, means Council can fine the individual and ask the new installations to be removed. It’s standard procedure.
I have Council bylaws telling me how close I can build to our property boundary, even what I can build my home out of, being in a level 2 bushfire zone. If I don’t operate within those limitations, Council can fine me and ask for the structures (whatever they may be) to be removed.
People have gone on the “save the planet” tangent (which is a completely acceptable one given the importance of saving our planet) but unfortunately, have entirely forgotten civic responsibility. No-one likes regulations, sometimes it messes with our personal plans and visions for the future, but they are there to govern more visions than just individual ones.
I’m not getting invovled in the other more personal comments which have been aired, but I think it’s a fair point to make that Council had grounds to act. Maintaining civic responsibility doesn’t mean change isn’t inevitable. It just means you do it in a manner that is worthy of change.August 25, 2009 at 3:43 am #427565
Thanks Metu, you have put it rather more succinctly than me – well done you. Having now eaten chocolate, I will once again try to turn this discussion to one in which we can all share our views in a balanced and measured way. I feel that this thread is an interesting opportunity to intelligently discuss the situations that arise when one environmental interest comes into conflict with another. I am sorry if others view my contributions as being unhelpful.
Osakasuz has posited that this may be an act of civil disobedience – a legitimate expression of rebellion against an unwieldy bureaucracy to highlight perceived injustices or inconsistencies in behaviour. The newspaper report suggests that inconsistencies do, indeed, occur in the way the relevant local authority carries out its decision-making processes. It cites two recent decisions by that authority, the one defending the retention of a building that has obvious environmental disadvantages, the other, allowing the demolition of a listed building. Unfortunately the report does not provide us with the basis on which those decisions were made, so unreliability, while implied, may not actually exist. Any planning decision is a balancing act between the various aspects of the plan and the weight given to one area over another is generally set out in the plan. In the absence of any information regarding the basis of those decisions, it is not safe to assume it reflects inconsistency in Councilâ€™s approach. Cultural heritage, while having weight in a plan, does not generally over-rule other matters except where that cultural heritage is seen as contributing strongly to economic gain. Having worked in the field for 15 years that seems to be the only factor that motivates politicians who get the final say on the contents of these plans. A decision to permit the loss of a cultural heritage place is usually based on a view that the replacement structure will provide a community good that outweighs the community good provided by the listed building.
Balancing the goals of cultural heritage conservation against those of environmental conservation is a debate that is possibly more advanced in the UK where I have been working for the last two years on a major regeneration project that involves the economic and environmental development of the area either side of the Thames out to the sea.
There, the â€˜Better Homesâ€™ initiatives and a number of other such environmental initiatives are becoming a major point of debate in cultural heritage circles. The basis of the discussion is that a building is best conserved if it remains in use. If it remains in use, and fails to meet modern expectations in terms of environmental performance then these issues must be resolved to everyoneâ€™s satisfaction. Interestingly a lot of the perceived failings of older buildings there, are based on a flawed understanding of the performance of traditional building materials. Assessments are carried out using a tick-box mechanism which has assumption-sets designed around modern building materials. For example, it might list masonry, but mean only single-skin brickwork, not 3 foot thick stone work. If anyone is interested in following this discussion, please PM me and I will see what I can do to refer you to various sources that will meet your interest areas.August 25, 2009 at 3:58 am #427566
Rene and JohnMember
:jawdrop: HBG, I think I will need to read that last again when my headache is gone as my brain just doesnt want to absorb today:lol:
Thanx for giving the other side, having read through all the thread I can see where my “greeny” ego jumped to the front before being able to see the whole picture.
I still think, solar panel every house roof though & bugger what it looks like.;):D
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.