- Login
- Register
Planning and Development Law differs from the others because it has a social objective attached to it. The planners have to understand the ways in which the land use differs and the influence it may have on the current and future needs of the societies. This further needs an appreciation of the sensitivities of the local communities and calls for additional knowledge in the social capital and environment. Thus, it does not fall within the domain of law alone. However, despite this limitation we would strive for a legally meaningful article on this topic.
About Planning and Development Laws including the different types of them:
Australia at present is governed by a sleuth of laws pertaining to Planning and Development. These laws incorporate key legal principles of sustainable development. They broadly govern (a) climate change, (b) water management, (c) bio-diversity and species conservation and (d) natural resource management.
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) aims at:
The Law governing climate change should conform to International laws and protocols (e.g. Kyoto protocol). The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) Bill that was introduced in the Parliament in 2009 aims at:
The establishment of a cap and trade scheme which would seek to achieve a threshold reduction level in Green Housed Gas (CHG) by 60% below the 2000 levels by 2050, from a very long term perspective and between 5 and 25% in the near future (2020).
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, 2008 (cth) (NGER, Act) regulates the country's Emission Trading Scheme. It seeks to impose mandatory registration and reporting obligations on companies whose greenhouse emissions exceeds a certain thresholds.
The Water Act, 2007 (cth), aims at:
Example of Application of Planning and Development Law:
Planning and Development Law - disputes between developers and local Councils
This is explained at best taking a practical example.[1]
In the Australian system of governance, the six states contain more than 850 local government areas which are controlled by elected councils that are regulated by State Acts of Parliament. The responsibility for administering local amenities rests with statutory authorities established by State Governments. In this regard, it is not uncommon to see disputes enveloping between the developers and local councils in the development of properties under the Planning and Development Law.
In a case of this type, John Vaughan, a property owner took the local Shire Council head-on in a dispute that involved its attempts to prevent him from fixing a council-built sea wall following a heavy storm. The Council's justification for the attempted refusal is that it runs counter to its policy of planned retreat in the face of advancing waves in the fulfillment of its obligations under a council-approved Development Consent. Its contention was that the coastline has constantly been changing and humans should not try to build walls to turn back the waves. This is a part of a policy of 'planned retreat' it was following since 1988. This policy is accompanied by various planning instruments, including the Development Consent referred to above that obligates the council to monitor, maintain, and repair interim protective beach works in front of the property of John Vaughan. A storm that ravaged the property in May, 2009 resulted in the eventual crash of wall. Immediately after the event, John Vaughan took up the matter with the council pointing to their responsibility under the Development Consent to maintain and repair it, but, the Council refused despite the fact that he was prepared to carryout the repairs at his own cost that had led to the escalation of the dispute.
While the matter was being considered by the New South Wales Lands and Environment Court, but, before they could pronounce their judgment, the council had relented and consented to the application of John Vaughan.
The issue at stake here is the consideration of what laws would be relevant to climate change, sustainability of environment etc and at times the governing authorities go overboard in their attempts to enforce all that come along in the name of preserving ecology or promoting climate changes. They fail to distinguish between natural occurrences and man made structures. This is only one case in instance that pertains to planning schemes relating to coastlines of which Australia is richly endowed with.
Waste Management:
The responsibility for Waste Management is vested with respective states and each of them has been legally exploring alternatives for was treatment. This has resulted in the enactment of waste avoidance and resource recovery laws. Thus, for example, the South Australian Container Deposit Legislation seeks to fix responsibilities on the Producers on waste avoidance through regulatory and promontory measures. It enables the consumers in obtaining a refund for recycling containers as glass bottles.
The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act, 2007 empowers Western Australia to approve voluntary product stewardship, agreements and mandatory extended producer responsibility schemes.
In legal terms, it is normal to mention such terms as 'in regard to' or 'toward giving effect to' etc to stress the importance of the legal principles governing any act, but the real challenge is in he implementation of such terms. This is all the more true of Planning and Development Law, where it is difficult to point overtly the positive applications of the principles of sustainable development in many land use and planning decisions. Australia can claim to have achieved modest success in the realm of this legislation especially considering the fact that many of these acts have filtered down from International Laws, Treaties and Agreements.
Property & Finance 