Alternative Dispute Resolution in Urban Planning Law: A Report

This report delves into the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) within the framework of urban planning law, particularly focusing on the Queensland context. It examines the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the preference of courts for a minimalist approach to resolve planning disputes, often favoring ADR methods like arbitration, mediation, and negotiation over traditional litigation. The report highlights the benefits of ADR in reducing economic loss and environmental externalities, as evidenced in cases like Grant Vs Cairns City Council [2003] and Chesol Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2007]. It discusses the role of minimalist and incremental planning, and the courts' inclination to apply ADR to resolve planning-related civil disputes, thereby streamlining processes and offering efficient solutions. The report concludes by emphasizing the courts' reliance on ADR as a preferred method for dispute resolution in urban planning.

Running head: ADVANCE URBAN PLANNING LAW
Advance Urban Planning Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1ADVANCE URBAN PLANNING LAW
“The courts generally prefer to take a minimalist approach to resolve planning
disputes”
The Queensland Government enacted the Integrated Planning Act, 1997. The purpose
of minimalist planning is to make sure that there is a level of development. It has been stated
that the Courts usually prefer in taking a less approach for solving the disputes regarding
planning. The process of planning reduces the economic loss and environmental externalities
as observed in the case of Grant Vs Cairns City Council [2003]. There is an effect of the
process of minimalist planning. The objective is to preserve the status quo.
The objective of Alternative Dispute Resolution is to provide an appropriate solution
rather than imposing a decision, which does not comply with the dispute of the parties.
Usually the Courts avoid the age-old process of litigation, which quite uncertain and time-
consuming (Goldberg et al., 2014). In this regard, mention can be made regarding the existing
methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which are Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation
and Negotiation. In case of Arbitration, the decision is usually presided by an arbitrator who
acts as a judge. In case of arbitration, the decision is final and bound by the parties. Mediation
states that the third party or a mediator usually solves the dispute and the nature of the
decision is such that it is not considered to be binding. Conciliation is termed as the voluntary
proceeding in which the parties can discuss the disputes freely (Ionescu, 2015). Negotiation
involves the negotiating terms of disputes in the presence of a third party. The concept of
minimalist planning involves simple and casual lines that will enhance the minimal concept
of architecture. Instrumental planning is influenced from the historical events that consist of
representation of urban planning. The purpose of incremental planning is to develop solutions
to all such problems that arise from process of planning which was observed in the case of
Chesol Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2007] QPEC 001.

2ADVANCE URBAN PLANNING LAW
In general, the Courts apply the process of alternative dispute resolution in all the
disputes related to the planning disputes. It is however, significant or essential to determine
the reason for applying alternative dispute resolution in resolving the civil disputes. The rules
of Civil Procedure help the judges to disqualify any kind of court proceedings if they
consider the facts to get resolved with the help of ADR. There are plenty of options and
purposes that can be made effective in various ways. It therefore, permits the disputes to be
settled accordingly. This method is however, related to the original legal system that is
referred to as the Administrative Tribunals. It has been observed that all the necessary
disputes in the Planning and Environment are generally narrowed and resolved by the
agreement. The Court participates in the alternative dispute resolution and produces the free
service to the parties who are involved in the matter. The parties must therefore refer to the
Alternative Dispute Resolution or the order that has been produced by the Court. Hence, the
parties associated with the matter must have access to the private negotiations.
The nature of the process of Alternative Dispute Resolution is such that the decision is
considered to be final and binding upon the parties. However, the neutral third parties are not
at the authority to impose any kind of decision. Lastly, it can be concluded by stating that the
Courts always rely upon the process of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which in general can
be regarded as a minimalistic approach to solve disputes.

3ADVANCE URBAN PLANNING LAW
References:
Journals:
Goldberg, S. B., Sander, F. E., Rogers, N. H., & Cole, S. R. (2014). Dispute resolution:
Negotiation, mediation and other processes. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Ionescu, M. I. (2015). Alternative dispute resolution. Lex et Scientia, 22(2), 89.
Cases:
Chesol Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2007] QPEC 001.
Grant Vs Cairns City Council [2003].