Western Australia’s move to legalise plug-in solar and batteries poses a question bigger than what connects to a power point: can apartment and townhouse living offer affordability, comfort and participation in the clean energy transition?
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
The Cook government’s announcement to consult on safety standards and a legalisation pathway is a beginning for plug-in solar, not permission to plug generating equipment into ordinary sockets. But extending cheaper electricity to people without a suitable roof belongs at the centre of housing policy, not whether plug-in solar works.
The question for housing policy is how portable self-supply fits alongside better buildings, shared energy and accessible neighbourhoods.
Our recent article Perth’s urban sprawl hits the wall argued for higher density, greener, transit-oriented regeneration (in short Transit Oriented Developments or TODs). These would benefit from plug-in solar but need much more for them to become the next housing innovation. The next step in housing is how to deliver homes, like TODs, that people can afford to live in as well as be able to buy.
Count outcomes, not just infill
In the Perth and Peel regions a minimum 47 per cent infill target provides a foundation for TODs. But development within existing urban areas does not necessarily deliver diverse housing, walkability, comfortable buildings or inexpensive electricity.
The reported net infill rate reached approximately 39 per cent in 2024, while single dwellings comprised 64 per cent of infill development. These figures measure different things: net additions after demolitions and the composition of infill construction.
Neither makes detached housing inherently undesirable. They show why an infill percentage cannot substitute for a neighbourhood strategy.
Ask instead: how many additional homes are delivered, what do they cost to occupy, and can residents reach services without driving every time?
North Stoneville remains a warning
The State Administrative Tribunal upheld refusal of North Stoneville’s proposed structure plan on 23 September, with unresolved bushfire and evacuation risks central to its decision. Developer Satterley Property Group subsequently applied for leave to appeal; that is not an overturned refusal.
Nor did the tribunal prohibit urban expansion generally.
Government must still decide where growth belongs, which environmental assets require protection and how suitable alternatives will be delivered. Rejecting an unsuitable proposal does not itself build better housing elsewhere.
Infrastructure comparisons also require care. Infrastructure Victoria found greenfield infrastructure capital costs, excluding transport, can be two to four times higher than established-area costs where existing systems have capacity. That is not a universal Perth multiplier.
Major growth proposals should disclose infrastructure requirements, lifecycle costs, delivery schedules and who pays – including necessary upgrades in established suburbs.
Make precincts the delivery mechanism
Precincts WA identifies ten priority station precincts. Improvement Plan No. 65 covers eight, with Ballajura and Redcliffe progressing separately. Detailed development controls follow through improvement schemes.
Those next stages should integrate housing, mobility, energy and greening before individual projects lock in outcomes.
Each precinct needs a coordinated delivery plan covering affordable and social housing, utility upgrades, frequent public transport, walking and cycling, canopy retention and clean-energy access.
Existing residents need retrofit opportunities too – not merely construction disruption while benefits accrue to newcomers.
WA’s Infrastructure Development Fund already addresses water, wastewater and electricity constraints affecting housing delivery. Public support should require transparent reporting of completed homes and community benefits, not just announced capacity.
Clean energy must follow the resident
Urban consolidation will be harder to defend if leaving a detached house means surrendering control over electricity costs.
Portable solar and batteries offer one pathway. Shared rooftop solar, building storage, community energy and fair retail arrangements offer others.
The objective should be access regardless of tenure or roof ownership – not requiring everyone to purchase identical equipment.
Solar alone should remain available where suitable. Batteries should be optional: savings depend on tariffs, losses and purchase costs. Storage does not generate electricity.
Tenancy and strata reforms should establish a clear pathway for certified, removable equipment involving no building alteration or common property. Safety requirements should be proportionate, not an unrestricted discretionary veto.
Portable equipment must complement – not replace – landlord responsibilities for safe, efficient housing.
Shared energy arrangements also need transparent charges, understandable contracts and practical provider choice. Not every precinct requires a private network or proprietary platform.
Connect the reforms
Regeneration must retain mature trees, provide adequate soil and shade, and connect habitat. New WA-funded research on black cockatoos and urban habitat links should inform development decisions, not sit beside them.
Electrification must also accompany accessibility. Cleaner vehicles cannot replace convenient services, frequent public transport and safe active travel.
WA should select demonstration precincts, publish integrated budgets and milestones, and measure completed homes, energy costs, thermal comfort, transport access and canopy.
Perth’s test should be whether people can afford to live well and participate in clean energy – without owning a detached house, or the roof above them.
And plug-in solar needs to be part of all that.
