Mediation ADR
Successful Mediation of a Submitter Appeal
______________________________________________________
DATE:16 May, 2002
LOCATION: A rural part of a South East Queensland
Local Government Area
MEDIATORS: John Haydon and Dr Jianbo Kuang
OUTCOMES: Successful Mediation of a Submitter Appeal
______________________________________________________
Issue
Eight local residents filed a Submitter Appeal to the Planning and Environment Court with respect to a proposed expansion of an existing Place of Assembly. There were three parties to the appeal Appeal (the Submitters, the Local Government and the Applicants).
The parties agreed to appoint HGH Consulting Pty Ltd as the Mediators on special terms and conditions. The joint Mediators were John Haydon and Dr Jianbo Kuang. A special fee was negotiated.
Schedule 1 to the Mediation Agreement included basic documents made available to the Mediators. Additional documents were made available by the parties.
Pre Mediation
The Appellants were encouraged to provide a written position statement and that was made available to the other two parties. The Applicants provided a written response which was also circulated to the other parties. This exchange of information occurred prior to the day of the mediation. It was a valuable exchange and assisted the mediation process.
A site inspection was conducted by the Mediators the day before the mediation. Separate pre mediation sessions were held with each of the parties before the mediation commenced.
HGH Consulting Pty Ltd made available the LEADR Video, “Sous Chef or Sue Chef?” (25 minutes approximately) to the parties. Of those participants who saw the video, 100% said that it was helpful. All Respondents to the HGH Consulting Pty Ltd survey found that the pre mediation processes were helpful.
The Mediation
The one day mediation was undertaken locally in the RSL Hall.
We started with a joint session followed by separate private sessions with each of the parties. We then resumed for another joint session during which it became necessary to speak with one party separately. One Mediator undertook that task whilst the other Mediator facilitated the continuing discussions with the other two parties.
The appeal was resolved by an agreement which led to a Consent Order in the Planning and Environment Court varying some of the conditions of approval. A separate agreement between the Submitters and the Applicants dealing with some future issues was entered into. The Council adopted the position that it was necessary for it to be a party to that separate agreement. The separate agreement did not impact on the current approval nor did it interfere with the integrity of the Planning Scheme.
Survey Results
The participants were requested to participate in a survey as part of the ongoing research being undertaken by HGH Consulting Pty Ltd. This was a condition in the Mediation Agreement.
All of the Respondents to the survey found the whole mediation process efficient with 42% finding that it was very efficient.
All of the Respondents agreed that the mediation:-
(a) Saved time compared with going to Court;
(b) Saved money compared to going to Court;
(c) Clarified and narrowed the issues in dispute; and
(d) Allowed the participants to discuss the matters that they felt important.
All would recommend mediation to others.
At the mediation:-
(a) 92% of the Respondents felt at ease;
(b) 75% did not fell under pressure;
(c) 92% felt able to comprehensively express their views and were well prepared;
(d) 92% did not feel rushed; and
(e) 92% were not confused about the process.
All of the Respondents said that the Mediators treated the parties fairly and explained the process and the Mediators' role clearly. Whilst 17% did not know, 75% said that the mediation was less intimidatory than a Court hearing. Only 8% thought that the mediation was not procedurally informal.
75% of the Respondents thought that their concerns were listened to by the other parties and the other 25% were not sure.
The Local Government Representatives had delegated authority to finalise the appeal Appeal at the mediation. This Council did not have any procedural guidelines or policy with respect to mediation.
One of the Appellants wrote after the mediation and said as follows:-
We are basically satisfied with the result and wish to offer our thanks to the manner in which you conducted proceedings. At all times you maintained order and control. You kept momentum of decisions going in a forward direction. Above all we felt you were impartial and gave consideration to both sides of the argument.
As you were aware, our side of proceedings felt that our viewpoints were being ignored and at least some of those viewpoints received an airing.
In closing we offer you our congratulations on a job well done. We trust we will never require your services again as a mediator, but should the need occur we would happily accept you in such a repeat role.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Facilitation ADR
Assisted Caloundra City Council Planning Summit
______________________________________________________
DATE:15 August 1997
LOCATION: Caloundra, Queensland
FACILITATOR: John Haydon
OUTCOMES: ADR assisted Caloundra City Council Planning Summit
______________________________________________________
Situation:
In 1997 Caloundra City Council decided to have a planning summit to air the views of local stakeholders on the current planning scheme and its ability to meet the needs of the community. They saw the planning summit as an important process in directing Caloundra City's future planning focus.
The outcomes of the Summit were to be considered in Council's corporate and operational planning processes and play an important part in forming the direction for planning over the coming years. This included the Strategic Plan.
The summit intended to provide a forum in which stakeholder groups provided input in the future planning of the city and specific input regarding the recently Gazetted Planning Scheme.
The Summit aimed to examine:
· Is there a Shared Vision for Caloundra?
· What are the essential elements for the future?
· Does the Group have common goals?
John Haydon was engaged as a professional facilitator to ensure that all issues were dealt with objectively between the stakeholders. Lestar Manning assisted John.
Stakeholders involved in the Summit were:
· Caloundra City Council - the summit was a listening exercise for the Councillors (including Mayor Des Dwyer) and the staff (a total of 29 Councillors and staff attended the Summit).
· 65 community members attended the Summit including representatives from Industry, Commerce, Development, Environment environment groups, community groups and the rural community. For eg. representatives from the Sunshine Coast Economic Development Board, Sunshine Coast Environmental Council and the Combined Citizens of Caloundra City Association.
Outcomes:
John Haydon facilitated the all day Summit. Each stakeholder present was given a chance to express their viewpoint and discuss the issues. Having a total of 29 Councillors and council staff there in a listening role really let the participants see that their views were being heard. There was a 95% participation in the Summit by the community members who attended.
At the end of the day, a comprehensive set of issues had been established for the Council to review. Post summit a summary of issues raised and recommended actions was prepared by the Council staff.
"The outcomes of the Summit have been analysed and considered by Council and a number of significant issues are currently being addressed. We will shortly be holding a further meeting of the participants to report on progress and will take the opportunity to also obtain input to our Corporate Planning process.
The success of the day was largely a result of your facilitation of proceedings and the rapport you established with participants. Your input was greatly appreciated."
Dr Robin King Cullen, (the then) Manager Planning Services, Caloundra City Council
Background:
Caloundra City Council wanted to encourage community comment and public debate on major planning issues affecting Caloundra City at an Inaugural Planning Summit.
Invitees were requested to complete a short survey to determine the issues and final format for the day. This was to maximise participation and give everyone an opportunity to be heard.
Method Used:
The method of ADR used for the Summit was Facilitation.
Facilitation and the role of the Facilitator are defined and included in Sourcebook: Federal Agency Use of Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution, 1987:-
Facilitation is a collaborative process used to help a group of individuals or parties with divergent views reach a goal or complete a task to the mutual satisfaction of the participants. The facilitator functions as a neutral process expert and avoids making substantive contributions. The facilitator's task is to help bring the parties to consensus on a number of complex issues.
HOME
