Stickley, A; Christensen, S; Duncan, W D and Buchbach, J (2016) Predictive technology and natural hazards: Risk for Australian planning authorities? International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 8(1), pp. 42-55. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the improvements in technology that enhance community understanding of the frequency and severity of natural hazards also increased the risk of potential liability of planning authorities in negligence. In Australia, the National Strategy imposes a resilience-based approach to disaster management and stresses that responsible land-use planning can reduce or prevent the impact of natural hazards upon communities. Design/methodology/approach This paper analyses how the principles of negligence allocate responsibility for loss suffered by a landowner in a hazard-prone area between the landowner and local government. Findings The analysis in this paper concludes that despite being able to establish a causal link between the loss suffered by a landowner and the approval of a local authority to build in a hazard-prone area, it would be in the rarest of circumstances that a negligence action may be proven. Research limitations/implications The focus of this paper is on planning policies and land development, not on the negligent provision of advice or information by the local authority. Practical implications This paper identifies the issues a landowner may face when seeking compensation from a local authority for loss suffered because of the occurrence of a natural hazard known or predicted to be possible in the area. Originality/value The paper establishes that as risk managers, local authorities must place reliance upon scientific modelling and predictive technology when determining planning processes to fulfil their responsibilities under the National Strategy and to limit any possible liability in negligence.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | planning; negligence; natural hazards; land development; planning authorities; predictive technology |
| Index terms: | Australia, planning process, land, planning policy, compensation, modelling, disaster management, risk manager, natural hazard, negligence, face, local authority, strategy, liability, approval, predictive technology, local government, planning authority, land development, methodology |
| Subjects: | project controls, sociology, administrative law, liability law, environmental hazards, management, research methods, Geography, financial risk, psychology, digital technology, public policy, real estate economics, analytical methods, contractual role, practitioner, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Time Control, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Governance, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here