Authorization process for solar installations

An article regarding solar energy was first introduced in 2007 in the Federal Planning Law by Parliament initiative.

In building and agricultural zones, solar installations that are well integrated into roofs and façades are authorized as long as they do not cause major violations to any cultural heritage element or natural site of cantonal or national importance.3

The same article was modified only few years later, also by Parliament initiative. Proponents were not satisfied of the previous version of the article, as, according to them, it did not give the expected boost to solar installations [136] and was restricting the municipal licensing initiative [107]. The current

2_{This section contains some paragraphs jointly written with Emilie Nault in the framework of the task 51 "Solar Energy in}

Urban Planning" of the International Energy Agency (IEA) - Solar Heating and Cooling Programme (SHC)

3_{Own translation, original text in French: “Dans les zones à bâtir et les zones agricoles, les installations solaires soigneusement}

intégrées aux toits et aux façades sont autorisées dès lors qu’elles ne portent pas atteinte à aucun bien ni à aucun site nature d’importance cantonale ou nationale.”

3.1. Legal framework

version of the article enforced since the 1stof May 2014 includes hence major changes.

In building and agricultural zones, solar installations that are enough adapted to roofs do not need any authorization as of Article 21(1)4. Such projects have just to be announced to the relevant authority.

Cantonal legislation can:

• designate other building zones in which aesthetic aspects are less relevant and there- fore other solar installations can be also exempted from the building permit; • establish the obligation of building permit for precisely-defined building zones to

protect.

Solar installations on cultural heritage or natural sites of cantonal or national importance are always required a building permit. They must not cause any major violation to these sites.

Otherwise, the interest in using solar energy on existing or new constructions prevails in principle over aesthetic principles.5

The introduction of this article brought about several comments in the juridical field [136, 231, 107, 1]. Jäger [136] highlighted the unprecedented innovation of this law, which introduced an authorization- free framework for some types solar installations applicable to the whole Switzerland. However, as for the previous article, many authors [136, 231] pointed out the possible conflict between federal and cantonal levels, the latter having exclusive or main competence in matters related to planning (Art. 75 Cst.), heritage and nature protection (Art. 78 Cst.), as well as in energy in buildings (Art. 89 Cst.). Piguet and Dyens [231] suggested that an amendment to the Constitution would have given to this law more solid basis. Similar concerns were expressed already in the parliamentary debate, both for the 2007 and 2014 versions of the article 18a [107]. In any case, according to the Article 190 of the Constitution, laws approved by the Federal Parliament cannot be judged for unconstitutionality by the Federal Court. If on the one hand the 2014 version of the article introduced a permission-free framework for roof- adapted installations, on the other, the 2007 version included also a reference to façades, which are now excluded from the procedure defined in the 2014 version. However, as noticed by Jäger [136], the new version does not constitute any obstacle to other types as installations, but rather facilitates the use of specific ones, i.e., the “roof-adapted”. In general, most of the cantons already provided special regulations facilitating the installation of some solar systems, and this simplification trend seemed to increase after the introduction of art. 18a at the federal level [107].

The Spatial Planning Ordinance RPV-OAT-OPT (Art. 32a) specifies the criteria defining “roof-adapted” installations which are granted the building-permit-free procedure.

4_{This article details the procedure for obtaining a building permit, which is needed for any transformation or new construc-}

tion

5_{Own translation, original text in French: “Dans les zones à bâtir et les zones agricoles, les installations solaires suffisamment}

adaptées aux toits ne nécessitent pas d’autorisation selon l’art. 22, al. 1. De tels projets doivent être simplement annoncés à l’autorité compétente.

Le droit cantonal peut: a) désigner des types déterminés de zones à bâtir où l’aspect esthétique est mineur, dans lesquels d’autres installations solaires peuvent aussi être dispensées d’autorisation; b) prévoir une obligation d’autorisation dans des types précisé- ment définis de zones à protéger.

Les installations solaires sur des biens culturels ou dans des sites naturels d’importance cantonale ou nationale sont toujours soumises à une autorisation de construire. Elles ne doivent pas porter d’atteinte majeure à ces biens ou sites.

Pour le reste, l’intérêt à l’utilisation de l’énergie solaire sur des constructions existantes ou nouvelles l’emporte en principe sur les aspects esthétiques.”

Chapter 3. The case of Switzerland

A solar installation is enough adapted to a roof (as of Art. 18a(1) RPG-LAT-LPT) if: (a) it sticks out from the roof for maximum 20 cm orthogonally;

(b) it is contained in the roof shape from side and front orthogonal views; (c) it is low-reflecting according to the scientific the state of the art; (d) it has a compact shape;

Specific cantonal prescriptions based on the cantonal law are applicable if based on justi- fied protection needs and if they do not limit solar energy use more than what prescribed in the former paragraph.

Projects that are not subjected to the building permits must be announced before the works start to the cantonal authority giving the building permit or other competent authority defined by cantonal legislation. Cantonal legislation establishes the delay for announcing the project and defines the drawings and documentation to enclose.6

Figure 3.1 exemplifies the prescriptions stated in the first paragraph. It should be noted that the last three examples of Figure 2.4 would comply with these requirements.

Nonetheless, according to Jäger [136], these guidelines are not much clear, in particular with regards to the paragraph 1d, which presents also slightly different translations in the three official languages. The intention of the legislator is to require that the installation is tending towards a rectangular shape. This follows the principles of many cantonal bylaws setting geometric rules for the visual appearance of solar installations. An interpretation mostly based on the German version of the law text [136] is that the installation should be as compact as possible, allowing hence installations composed by multiple surfaces when this is need. In any case, in pitched roofs, multiple standalone installations, one for each slope of a roof, are allowed [136, 231].

max 20 cm

Figure 3.1 – Criteria defining “roof-adapted installations” according to the Art. 32a RPV-OAT-OPT, adapted from [332]

6_{Own translation, original text in French: “Les installations solaires sont considérées suffisamment adaptées aux toits (art.}

18a, al. 1, LAT) si les conditions suivantes sont réunies: a) elles ne dépassent pas les pans du toit perpendiculairement de plus de 20 cm; b) elles ne dépassent pas du toit, vu de face et du dessus; c) elles sont peu réfléchissantes selon l’état des connaissances techniques; d) elles constituent une surface d’un seul tenant.

Les dispositions concrètes fondées sur le droit cantonal traitant de l’intégration desdites installations s’appliquent lorsqu’elles visent de manière proportionnée la défense d’intérêts de protection justifiés et ne limitent pas l’exploitation de l’énergie solaire plus strictement que l’al. 1.

Les projets dispensés d’autorisation doivent être annoncés avant le début des travaux à l’autorité délivrant les autorisations de construire ou à une autre autorité déclarée compétente pour recevoir les annonces par la législation cantonale. La législation cantonale fixe le délai dans lequel l’annonce doit être faite et précise quels plans et autres documents doivent y être joints.”

3.1. Legal framework

A second article in the Federal Spatial Planning Ordinance (Art. 32b) specifies what should be consid- ered as “of cantonal or national relevance”. In particular, it states that only some types of monuments in the federal inventories should fall into this category.

According to Jäger [136], traditional tilted installations on flat roofs are not included in the procedure of article 18a, as they do not respect the aptness criteria. On the contrary, roof-applied installations (BAPV) are included in the facilitated procedure, while the “well integrated” installations (which we can consider as a reference to BIPV systems) which were the only target of the previous version of the norm. Design regulations and guidelines at the cantonal level cannot be more restrictive that those of the Art. 32 OAT [107]. Jäger [136] summarized all cases that require a normal authorization procedure, which are:

• installations in cultural heritage elements or natural sites of cantonal or federal importance; • installations in protected zones;

• isolated installations (e.g., not attached to buildings); • installations applied or integrated to façades; • tilted installations on flat roofs;

• installations that are not compact.

Despite the fact that the new norm highly simplifies the procedure for some types of installation, Piguet and Dyens [231] and Abegg and Dörig [1] raised the possibility that the procedure would not be completely straightforward both for constructors and local authorities. A simple notification procedure does not allow the competent authorities to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the interests involved in each individual case [1].

Paradoxically, the longer, normal procedure requiring a building permit can be still considered a valuable option, as it allows the competent authorities to examine the compliance with the law before the works start. According to Abegg and Dörig [1], the absence of a preventive legality check in the framework of a building permit procedure postpones litigation to the time after the construction of the solar installation, which leads to considerable legal uncertainty. Similarly, it is impossible to apply recovery measures for unlawful installations, creating hence a problematic situation also for the public authorities [1]. Moreover, in its implementing normative at the cantonal level, the Canton of Zurich specified that the notification does not exempt the client from the duty to comply with the legislation when constructing the solar system [1].