Fusion has made a submission to the Department of Transport and Planning's consultation on switching off the planning permit requirement for visible solar energy systems within Heritage Overlay Schedules. We support the proposed change, and think the consultation understates how straightforward the case for reform actually is.
Our Position on the Heritage Overlay Solar Permit Requirement:
Since Amendment VC226 gave councils the option to switch off this requirement in November 2022, not a single council has done so. Nearly four years on, that is not evidence of considered local preference, it is evidence of a default nobody has bothered to touch. A statewide switch-off simply catches policy up to what councils have already shown, through inaction, that they don't consider a priority.
1. The Permit Requirement Is a Disincentive to Decarbonisation
Fusion's national policy platform backs an aspirational target of expanding renewable energy generation to 800% of current consumption, a target that leans heavily on distributed rooftop solar, not just utility-scale projects. Every household deterred from installing panels by an added permit process, cost, and delay is a small but real drag on that trajectory.
A visible solar panel is a minor, increasingly normalised streetscape change. It is also fully reversible. Treating it as requiring the same planning scrutiny as a permanent structural alteration is disproportionate to its actual heritage impact, and the disincentive it creates outweighs any benefit from retained aesthetic control.
2. Local Autonomy Should Be Preserved, Not Defaulted To
Fusion supports retaining a council's ability to reinstate a permit requirement in a specific Heritage Overlay area through the normal, transparent scheme amendment process, where there is a genuine and evidenced heritage justification. What we don't support is a statewide default that makes that permit requirement the baseline everywhere, regardless of whether any individual council has ever considered it necessary.
This distinction matters: reform should shift the default, not remove local judgement. Councils that can demonstrate a real heritage case retain the tools to act. Councils that have simply never turned their mind to the question, which is the overwhelming majority, stop imposing an unexamined barrier on households trying to decarbonise.
3. Consistency with State-Significant Protections
The proposal rightly leaves properties on the Victorian Heritage Register untouched, meaning state-significant buildings retain full permit requirements regardless of this change. Fusion supports this distinction. Reform at the local Heritage Overlay level does not weaken protection for the places where heritage value is highest and most clearly established; it removes friction only where that value is presumed rather than demonstrated.