The Courts' Minimalist Approach in Resolving Planning Disputes

This essay discusses the Courts' preference for a minimalist approach in resolving planning disputes and argues for its effectiveness. It defines planning law and its provisions, and explores the key points of land-use, the Planning Act 2016, and minimalistic approaches. The essay also provides examples and references to support the arguments.

UPL /AUPL Template for drafting your short essay answer
Note: Text that is underlined and shaded in should become a sub-heading in your essay.
FIRST, write out your essay question in full here: “The courts generally prefer to take a minimalist
approach to resolving planning disputes.” Do you agree?
Introduction In this essay I will argue that ….
For the purpose of undertaking minimalistic approach in order to resolve
planning disputes, the Courts are at the authority to apply the statutes of
planning law accordingly.
Definitions I define [any key term eg “sustainable development”] as [or to include]…..
The concept of planning law which is a part of administrative law that has been
governing planners regarding planning, designing and controlling the physical
development of lands especially in the urban regions. The provisions of
planning law from the beginning has been dealing with laws and policies
relating to buildings, environmental factors, infrastructural development,
maintaining urban-rural relationships by conserving the heritage in the long
run.
Alternative Dispute Resolution can be referred to as the processes and
practices that are applied by the Courts for the purpose of taking a minimalist
approach in resolving planning disputes. In such cases, Arbitration and
Mediation are mostly used in resolving planning disputes.
OR The [issue /problem(s)]I will focus on are …..
 The dynamics of planning law.
 The legal statutes governing the functioning of planning law; its
development and application.
Key points The key points in my argument are:
1. Whether the nature of the approach is such that the planners would end up
adopting a minimalist, incremental or instrumental approach towards
planning?
2. The philosophy that could be applied by different stakeholders in planning.
Questions shall be raised regarding the validity of such philosophy.
3. The proper scope of resolving planning disputes.

Sub-heading one Write your first key point here….
Land -Use
State your first key point in one sentence here……
In Australia, the states and territories have developed legislation of its own
that has been governing the scope and functioning of land-use planning.
List the examples or evidence you will include to demonstrate your point.
 The matters involving land-use planning are not clearly depicted in the
Constitution of Australia however; there are no specific planning
matters that are solely reserved to the Commonwealth. This is due to
the reason that, Commonwealth has very limited jurisdiction over the
concept of land-use planning.
 Commonwealth plays significant role in the coordination of reform
initiatives. It has created favourable impact upon the states by
applying the administration of grants; most importantly in case of
large infrastructure projects.
 The Commonwealth has also administered the provisions of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act, 1999 (Cth) (EPBCA) that
has been catering the protection and management of national
environmental issues.
 A number of statutes relating to land-use has been administered by
the State Government of Queensland. These statutes can be
categorized as the Coastal Protection and Management Act, 1995, the
Nature Conservation Act, 1992 and the State Development and Public
Works Organisation Act, 1971.
List your references for this paragraph here…..
1. Fünfgeld, H., & McEvoy, D. (2014). Frame divergence in climate change
adaptation policy: insights from Australian local government
planning. Environment and planning C: government and policy, 32(4),
603-622.
2. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for
public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-
739.
3. Holden, M., Scerri, A., & Esfahani, A. H. (2015). Justifying
Redevelopment ‘Failures' Within Urban ‘Success Stories': Dispute,
Compromise, and a New Test of Urbanity. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 39(3), 451-470.

Sub-heading two: Write your second key point here …..
The Planning Act 2016.
State your second key point in one sentence here……
To what extent the Planning Act 2016 was successful in governing the planning
and development control in Queensland.
List the examples or evidence you will include to demonstrate your point.
 Since time immemorial, the Planning Act 2016 was considered as the
main statute governing the functioning of planning and development
in Queensland. In such process, the Planning Act 2016 was successful
in governing the regulations of both the State and local government by
formulating and administering their future plans regarding the
development of future projects.
 After the Planning Act 2016 came to an end, immediately, the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
These Acts proved to be beneficial in providing appropriate solution in
resolving disputes regarding planning.
List your references for this paragraph here…..
1. Farhat, R. (2015). Discourse, institutional identities and intractable
planning disputes: The case of Interstate I-710. Urban Studies, 52(9),
1722-1739.
2. Gray, J. (2015). Courting a remarkable history. LSJ: Law Society of NSW
Journal, (17), 26.
3. Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for
resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Sub-heading three: Write your third key point here ……
Minimalistic approaches.
State your third key point in one sentence here……
The Courts have undertaken various approaches for the purpose of resolving
planning disputes.
List the examples or evidence you will include to demonstrate your point.
 In the case of Chesol Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2007] QPEC 001, the
issue was regarding the development of one part of land which was
previously cleared leaving a portion of the land for the purpose of
conservation. In this case, it was held that the land could only be
utilized for urban purposes. However, the Court refereed to the
statutory provisions of the Planning Act 2016 and laid much emphasis

on ecological sustainability and held that the proposal was based on
the basis of first principles.
 In the case of Metroplex v Brisbane City Council &Ors[2009] QPEC
110, the Court has taken a different approach. The issue of the case
was concerned with the future development of the site of Wacol Army
Barracks. In this case, the Judge directly referred to the regional plan.
 In the case of Macadam v Moreton Bay Regional Council and Anor
[2012] QPEC 38, the main issues were regarding public nuisances and
various other environmental issues. In this case, the Court referred to
the development of future residential projects by keeping aside the
issues of present rural residential land. In this regard, the Court relied
upon the ground of future strategic planning and approved the
application accordingly.
List your references for this paragraph here.
1. Chesol Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2007] QPEC 001.
2. Macadam v Moreton Bay Regional Council and Anor [2012] QPEC 38.
3. Metroplex v Brisbane City Council &Ors[2009] QPEC 110.
Conclusion In this essay I have argued that ….. Unused areas of land are often targeted by
the government for the purpose of planning and development that generally
includes construction of residential and commercial buildings.
This is because [summarise your key points in one sentence here] ……
Planning and development has proved to be beneficial in resolving matters
involving contention by protecting the interests of the community.
Bibliography
/Reference list
Compile your bibliography /reference list from the sources relied on above.
1. Chesol Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2007] QPEC 001.
2. Farhat, R. (2015). Discourse, institutional identities and intractable
planning disputes: The case of Interstate I-710. Urban
Studies, 52(9), 1722-1739.
3. Fünfgeld, H., & McEvoy, D. (2014). Frame divergence in climate
change adaptation policy: insights from Australian local
government planning. Environment and planning C: government
and policy, 32(4), 603-622.
4. Gray, J. (2015). Courting a remarkable history. LSJ: Law Society of

NSW Journal, (17), 26.
5. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for
public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6),
711-739.
6. Holden, M., Scerri, A., & Esfahani, A. H. (2015). Justifying
Redevelopment ‘Failures' Within Urban ‘Success Stories': Dispute,
Compromise, and a New Test of Urbanity. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 39(3), 451-470.
7. Macadam v Moreton Bay Regional Council and Anor [2012] QPEC
38.
8. Metroplex v Brisbane City Council &Ors[2009] QPEC 110.
9. Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies
for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.