Resolving Draft One Final

4227ENV Resolving Environmental
Issues
Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus

Scott Mainey
Simon Morrison
Brad Stewart
Kari-Ann West s2759193
DATE: 28
th
February 2014

4227ENV Resolving Environmental Issues Conflict Analysis Report: Phase 1
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................1
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables .........................................................................................................................................................2
List of Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................................2
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................3
2.0 Conflict and Process .................................................................................................................................3
3.0 Stakeholder Analysis .................................................................................................................................3
4.0 Information Analysis ........................................................................................................................................0
4.1 Proposal and Impacts ..................................................................................................................................0
4.1.1 Impact on heritage significance ............................................................................................................1
4.1.2 Impact on flora ......................................................................................................................................1
4.1.3 Loss of open green space ....................................................................................................................1
4.1.4 Impacts on the surrounding area ..........................................................................................................1
4.1.5 Concerns of the Brisbane City Council .................................................................................................1
4.1.6 Observations of proposal process ........................................................................................................1
4.2 Scientific/Technical Issues ..........................................................................................................................1
4.2.1 Vegetation and Habitat Management ...................................................................................................1
4.2.2 Visual Amenity ......................................................................................................................................2
4.2.3 Traffic ....................................................................................................................................................2
4.2.4 Noise and Air ........................................................................................................................................2
4.2.5 Observations .........................................................................................................................................2
4.3 Cultural, Social and Community Values ......................................................................................................3
4.3.1 Observations .........................................................................................................................................3
4.4 Legal/Regulatory Issues ..............................................................................................................................3
4.4.1 Brisbane City Plan 2000 .......................................................................................................................4
4.4.2 Yeronga Memorial Park Conservation and Management Plan ............................................................6
4.4.3 Significant points of conflict ..................................................................................................................7
4.4.4 Observations .........................................................................................................................................7
5.0 Synthesis and Recommendations...................................................................................................................7
5.1 Pattern of Agreement and Disagreement ....................................................................................................7
5.2 Recommendations for design of alternative process ..................................................................................9
6.0 References ................................................................................................................................................... 10

List of Figures

Figure 1: Proposed Development Site ..................................................................................................................0

List of Tables

Table 1: Stakeholder Analysis ...............................................................................................................................3
Table 2: Relevant Legislation/Planning Instrument (DSDIP, 2014). .....................................................................3
Table 3: Strategic Plan references and disagreements .......................................................................................4
Table 4: The Brisbane City Plan 2000, references and disagreements ...............................................................6

List of Abbreviations

BCC Brisbane City Council
CBD Central Business District
CMP Conservation Management Plan
FYP Friends of Yeronga Park
MCU Material Change of Use
OPW Operational Works
QBCA Queensland Blind Cricket Association
QPEC Queensland Planning and Environment
QRU Queensland Rugby Union
Rd Road
SDRUC South District Rugby Union Club Inc.
YMPCMP Yeronga Memorial Park Conservation and Management Plan

1.0 Introduction
Yeronga Park is in Brisbane and holds high social, economic and environmental values (Brisbane City Council
(BCC), 2004). Yeronga Park also holds significant cultural heritage values and is regarded highly within the
community (BCC, 2004).
This report analyses the environmental conflict and dispute of a proposed development planned for Yeronga
Park. This report presents data on the conflict and process, a stakeholder analysis and information analysis,
including information of the proposal and impacts, scientific and technical issues, cultural, social and
community values, and the legal and regulatory issues. The report also provides a synthesis and
recommendations for an alternative design process.
2.0 Conflict and Process
Yeronga Park is involved in a public interest dispute over current and proposed land uses of the multi-purpose
sporting fields (Brouwer, 2007). The dispute is a result of a development approval on a site that holds
significant social and community values as well as valuable cultural heritage ties (Brouwer, 2007).
The process used in this conflict was a formal court approach through the Planning and Environment Court.
This approach was a consequence of poor conflict management, and resulted in a decision not agreed by all
parties involved. The conflict became intractable, as both parties were dedicated to achieving their individual
outcomes (Burgess and Burgess, 2003), inevitably leading to a drastic method of resolution, the Planning and
Environment Court.
3.0 Stakeholder Analysis
There are various stakeholders with vested interests in the proposal of a second rugby union field. Primary
stakeholders include Southern Districts Rugby Union Club (SDRUC) and Queensland Blind Cricket
Association (QBCA) in conjunction the BCC who assess and pass judgement on the development application.
Table 1: Stakeholder Analysis
Who Position Needs Fears Power Relationship
Souths
Rugby Union
Club
Current
lease with
Brisbane
City Council
Located
within
Yeronga
Park
Proposal for
a 2
nd
Rugby
Field
Continuation
of
competitive
Rugby
Improved
facilities
Increased
Profit
Relocation
away from
Yeronga
Park
Losing
competitive
status
Medium
degree of
power
Lodger of
development
Current
lease
Cooperative
relationship
with Blind
Cricket
Direct
Relationship
with BCC

Queensland
Blind Cricket
Association
Current
lease with
Brisbane
City Council
Located
within
Yeronga
Park

Maintenance
Costs
covered
Improved
cricket
ground

Increasing
operational
costs
Losing the
support of
SDRUC
Medium
Degree of
Power
Joint
lodgement of
development
Cooperative
relationship
with SDRUC
Direct
relationship
with BCC

Brisbane City
Council
Lease out
existing
facilities to
SDRUC and
QBCA
Interests of
the greater
public

Remain
transparent
Considering
all parties
views
Community
needs at
Prejudice
towards both
sides.
High degree
of power
Decision
making entity
Direct
relationship
with SDRUC
and QBCA
Representing
and
considerate of
all
stakeholders.

Friends of
Yeronga
Representin
g those
against the
development
proposal
Against the
proposal

Memorial
Use
Environment
al Use
Get their
rebuttal
heard
Development
is approved
Loss of
amenity and
use
Destruction
of habitat

Low Degree
of Power
Potential to
form a large
group
against the
development
Relationship
with the greater
public and the
community

Returned and
Services
League
Queensland
Representati
on war
veterans
Against the
proposal
Remembran
ce of war
veterans
Preservation
of Honour
Avenue and
Memorial
aspect of the
park

The
destruction
and harm of
memorial
aspects of
the park

Medium
degree of
power
Great
support from
within the
RSL and
outside the
RSL

Share similar
interests with
FYP

Yeronga
State School
No current
position

Remain
operational
Continue
functioning
as is

Encroachme
nt on school
property
Indirect
effects as a
result of the
proposed
field

Medium
amount of
power
Strong say in
who uses
their field and
facilities
Relationships
not known

Stakeholders who are impacted by the development proposal including those who are in physical engagement
with the park, such as the community group Friends of Yeronga (FYP). FYP is opposed to the development
proposed for Yeronga Park. FYP has conflicting interests with SDRUC and QBCA. FYP lack power in the
decision making process although have considerable power through raising awareness and gaining support
from others. FYP have a strong relationship with the community and a relationship with the BCC.
SDRUC and QBCA are both in support of the proposed development. SDRUC would gain access and use of a
second field, whereas QBCA will be remunerated with maintenance to their facilities by SDRUC.
BCC has to consider all stakeholders interests when making a final decision and application of possible
conditions, therefore BCC is the powerful entity in the decision making process.
Stakeholders not included in Table 1, due to their degree of interest in the proposal including the:
Bridge Club
Croquet Club
Yeronga Guides and Scouts
Yeronga Park Tennis Club
While the above stakeholders have interest in the development, their presence in the decision process is not
considered significant to warrant inclusion into a resolution process. Most stakeholders may be affected from
issues such as parking and the increased amount of visitors but are not included in any of the significant
cultural and heritage issues that the proposal includes.
4.0 Information Analysis
4.1 Proposal and Impacts
The proposal involves the development of an additional sporting field within Yeronga Park. The submission
was made by SDRUC and QBCA. The fields will be utilised by both clubs for training and competitive fixtures,
significant in facilitating growth of the SDRUC. The application was approved by BCC, leading to opposition
from community groups concerned with maintaining the parks values.
The existing land in the park is currently comprised of a small informal oval, which in its current form is used
by the SDRUC for informal training purposes and also by the QBCA junior teams for Sunday fixtures. The
development was designed to minimise the impacts on the surrounding area, construction will require the
removal/relocation of native trees, the trimming of historical significant figs, and cut and fill earthworks.

Figure 1: Proposed Development Site

4.1.1 Impact on heritage significance
Yeronga park heritage significance is due to the memorial figs that were planted in honour of the fallen
soldiers WWI. The proposed development will require trimming the canopy on a number of figs that are within
the fields (Thomas 2006),
4.1.2 Impact on flora
The proposed development, according to Souths Rugby Club Vegetation Management Report (Chenoweth,
2005), requires the removal and replacement of four protected Tallowwoods. It is argued that any
management of the existing significant figs is to be undertaken only in order to preserve the health of the trees
(Brouwer, 2007).
4.1.3 Loss of open green space
The existing open green space, although currently used by both the QBCA and SDRUC, can also be used by
the local community for leisure activities. If the proposal is completed the area will be heavily utilised by both
clubs, resulting in a net loss of accessible open green space in the park. This loss is a significant issue due to
the gradual decline of open space since the park was first established (BCC, 2003).
4.1.4 Impacts on the surrounding area
During the construction and operation phases of the development there will be an increase in the amount of
traffic in and around the park. This increase can negatively impact the safety and accessibility of local
residents to utilise the park but also the natural environment. The majority of these impacts will occur during
the operation phase due to an increase of traffic to the site during sporting fixtures and training (Viney, 2007).
4.1.5 Concerns of the Brisbane City Council
The concerns of the BCC were to ensure that the proposal was consistent with the current planning legislation
of the Yeronga Park area. It was found that the proposal was acceptable by council and many other
independent experts that submitted reports in favour of the development. Due to the approval by Council, BCC
became a defendant of the development and therefore bore the same concerns as SDRUC and QBCA.
Additionally, the nature of council acting in representation of the community places concerns with the local
community who oppose the development.
4.1.6 Observations of proposal process
The effectiveness of conflict resolution processes for the proposal can be seen as poorly managed.
Communication between the two parties was inefficient resulting in distrust of the development approval. The
lack of consideration of the surrounding communities concerns for preservation of heritage in the park and
alternative proposals were a large factor. The result of the poor conflict resolution led to the involvement of the
Planning and Environment Court for judgement, resulting in costly legal fees.
4.2 Scientific/Technical Issues
There are various scientific and technical issues to consider, however only the main points of importance have
been included below.
4.2.1 Vegetation and Habitat Management
Vegetation and habitat management is a considerable issue of the rugby park proposal. The proposal is likely
to cause adverse effects to a number of the established trees in the park. Six fig trees of significance are
located close by the proposed development, in such a way that the orientation has been adjusted to ensure
the removal of any of the memorial figs is not required.
The main issue surrounds the pruning and management of nearby trees. An arborists report by Thomas
(2006), details the procedure in maintaining vegetation close by the proposed development. As referred to in
the arborists report (Thomas 2006), the removal of limbs will not detrimentally affect the long term health of the
fig tree. Without the pruning of the fig tree and other trees, overhanging trees will be in the field of play, posing
safety risks as well as disruption to rugby union games. Growth of the fig trees in future years will require

pruning in order for the field and structures around the proposed field not be damaged. However as described
later in the report, disagreement is based on cultural issues of the pruning of trees as described later.
A vegetation management plan was prepared by Chenoweth (2005), to reduce the effects of the proposal. It
outlined effective ways in protecting and managing existing vegetation as well as habitats including the
relocation of animals which may inhabit the tress (Chenoweth 2006, p.6). The report successfully identified the
trees encroaching on the proposed field and the minimum length that the trees trunk must be from the edge of
the playing field.
Mulching of trees is important in the successful longevity of the trees (Thomas, 2006). Trees located close to
the playing field may find it hard to receive such treatment and conflict as to whether this is of significance is to
be debated among both parties.
4.2.2 Visual Amenity
The visual amenity of the park as a result of the proposal will change. New built structures and vegetation will
change the layout potentially change the feel of the park. Parties involved will have different concerns
surrounding the amenity of the site. As discussed by Brouwer (2007, p. 16), the proposed walls are intrusive
on the existing landscape of the park. Railings and lights to be constructed will also detract from the visual
amenity as discussed by Brouwer (2007, p. 17). These are vital components in the development of the
proposal.
4.2.3 Traffic
Traffic is an issue which has been poorly dealt with in the development application stage. The proposed
football field will increase trip generation to and from the site. With the completion of development, traffic within
the park and the residential streets are expected during the rugby fixtures. Current informal parking around the
existing fields has resulted in areas of localised erosion, impacting the visual amenity of the park.
The need for additional parking has opened the possibility of utilising Honour Avenue. As suggested by
Brouwer (2007, p. 17), as the lease by SDRUC extents along Honour Avenue, if vehicular access were to be
accessible, parking between the trees or next to the proposed sports field would cause damage to trees and
grounds.
This is an issue of considerable importance which may have further implications of not addressed by the
proponent. This creates further implications between the proponents and Friends of Yeronga.
4.2.4 Noise and Air
The proposed development has the potential to displace and disturb the solitude of the park. An increase in
visitors for intensive formal sports processes has the potential to raise the levels and turn the park from a quiet
privacy oriented park to a noisier/busier park. Increased visitors to the park will result in increased car
numbers and increased frequency for the rugby games; this will evidently increase park numbers and disturb
the peace and quiet balance of the park.
Increased noise can upset the balance and habitat of the parks natural features. It may result in decreased
bird and animal species visiting or taking habitation in the park.
The development and removal and pruning of trees will not cause any significant implications for the air quality
of the area. The planting of further trees has the ability to increase the air quality. This issue is not likely to be
of considerable importance to parties involved in the proposal.
4.2.5 Observations
The dispute between parties can occur on a number of issues categorised under scientific and technical
issues. The information obtained was largely insufficient and information shared was not to standard and
biased towards the proponent. Significant information was not considered or detailed early on. An example of
this is seen in the root structure and impact from the retaining walls and the development has on the root

system. Individual experts from both parties can invariably develop conflicting scientific information. An
example of this is seen in the traffic report which had poor information and data, resulting in information which
favours the development, which raises further conflict.
4.3 Cultural, Social and Community Values
There are a number of stakeholders involved that all have significant differing values and interests in regards
to the proposed development situated in Yeronga Park. The SDRUC and the QBCA both share similar values
in terms of the use of the park as being a sporting zone. FYP have strong values for the park as a memorial
and heritage park providing the community with open space for recreational use. The following issues are the
centre of interest to the significant differences among the parties involved; sport and recreation, history and
heritage, and the cultural and social significance of the park.
FYP argue that the park as such is not suitable for an additional sporting field and should remain as its original
intention since 1882 as a public park and recreational reserve (Brouwer, 2007). They state that recreational
activities include informal sport, historical, cultural and spiritual activities, and that the development site is the
focal point of the site and the only non-leased area of land available and any development will detract these
values and the natural landscape (IPA, 1997). FYP are not willing to allow any disturbance or development to
go ahead in the park (Brouwer, 2007). SDRUC and the QBCA see this development as a necessity to
accommodate growth for their local teams and require the use of the proposed development for training and
competition facilities.
The memorial and heritage aspect of the park is a large contributing factor to the differences in values of
parties, as the proposed development is adjacent to a line of memorial fig trees. At the base of each tree are
memorial plaques bearing the names of local fallen soldiers. The FYP have strong beliefs that the Physical
alterations to the oval would require the boundary of the field to be very close to the base of the trees (Vann,
2007; Daly & Daly, 2006). Survival of the trees and their heritage significance is thus a major concern of the
local community; this was seen as an adverse impact on the very sensitive memorial values of Honour Avenue
and the parks heritage.
The cultural and social significance of the park lies predominately with the local community as there is a strong
and ongoing association with the park and its aesthetic values (Brisbane City Council 2007). According to Daly
& Daly (2006), appealing to the Planning and Environment Court highlights the proposed development will
have detrimental consequences on the uniqueness and historical memorial cultural heritage land form, and the
parks' landscape attributes. However, the issues mentioned have been argued by the respondents on behalf
of the SRB and QBCA that the proposed sports field upgrade will not cause any changes in regards to the
existing landscapes, community facilities and heritage features (Howard, 2006).
4.3.1 Observations
The process of the proposal thus far has been lacking in providing the relevant stakeholders with the required
information regarding the heritage significance of the park, and therefore a fair and informative process for all
stakeholders has not been provided, this is well-known by the BCC and FYP. This therefore does not provide
for equalisation of power and status among stakeholders.
4.4 Legal/Regulatory Issues
Yeronga Park is subject to statutory requirements within a range of legislations and planning instruments
enforced by all levels of government.
Table 2: Relevant Legislation/Planning Instrument (DSDIP, 2014).
RELEVANT LEGISLATION/PLANNING INSTRUMENT
LEVEL OF
GOVERNMENT
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) Federal
Queensland Heritage Act 1992 State
Vegetation Management Act 1999 State

Brisbane City Plan 2000 Local
Yeronga Memorial Park Conservation & Management Plan (YMPCMP) Local

For the purpose of the report, the main planning instrument that influences development within Yeronga Park
and environs is the BCC, Brisbane City Plan 2000. This report identifies the relevant references of the
Brisbane City Plan 2000 including the strategic plan, relevant Local Area Plan (LAP), and relevant
development codes and zoning, see sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 below.
4.4.1 Brisbane City Plan 2000
4.4.1.1 Strategic Plan for Brisbane
According to the Brisbane City Plan 2000, the strategic plan for Brisbane aims to set a broad policy of the City
Plan and become a reference point for general development policy. (BCC, 2004) The strategic plan is divided
into three sections;
Vision Brisbane the Liveable City;
Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs) and Strategies for the City; and
Elements of the City (BCC, 2004).
Table 3 below identifies and references the sections of the strategic plan that were subject to disagreement
relating to the proposed development of Yeronga Park. Table 3 below also highlights the main points of
disagreement within the Yeronga Park conflict.
Table 3: Strategic Plan references and disagreements (Information Package, P&E Court, 2014)
DEOs of Strategic Plan Details of Strategic Plan DEOs Conflict Disagreement
Community Life, Health and Safety
3.2.2.2 Cater for a
balanced range of
recreational and sporting
opportunities, natural
environments and attractive
landscapes to meet
community needs through:

b) Park diversityparks and recreation
facilities of different types and scales,
containing different landforms, fauna
communities, vegetation types and features,
and maximising opportunities to protect
cultural, recreational, ecological and aesthetic
values

(c) Facilities and infrastructurehigh quality
park facilities that respect each parks
character and are appropriate for potential
users

Increased diversity to park;

Increase to existing
opportunities and potential to
maximise future opportunities;

Consideration of parks
character and users.

3.2.2.3 Promote cultural
diversity through:
c)History/heritagedevelopment that
respects elements of local history in a way that
informs present and future communities of the
historical value, role or function of that place or
structure

(e) Limiting impactsdevelopment that does
not have a negative impact on the cultural
heritage significance of a place

Consideration of local history;

Impact on parks cultural
heritage significance.
3.2.2.6 Reduce pollution and
its impacts through:
(a) Pollution controldevelopment that
incorporates appropriate air, water, noise and
light pollution and other environmental control
measures

(f) Bufferingbuffering uses sensitive to
noise, light and/or air pollution from activities
that generate these pollutants at unacceptable
levels

Impact on park pollution
including air, water, noise and
light pollution;
Consideration of buffers.
3.3.2.2 Require development (c) Enhancing characterdevelopment that Impact on parks character and

to enhance the amenity,
environmental and cultural
contexts of its locality
through:
is sympathetic to the character of surrounding
areas
(h) Sense of place development that
creates a feeling of belonging in places with a
distinct character.

sense of place.
4.2.2 The residential
neighbourhoods are
elements of the city:
They contain the elements that help make
Brisbane so liveable; the residential areas and
relating amenities and facilities such as
convenience shopping, local parkland,
schools, churches, hotels and clubs.

Impact on surrounding
residential areas.
4.2.2.1 Meeting realistic
expectations of future
amenity
People should be able to choose their
residential location with realistic expectations
for the future amenity of the area. The planned
strategic directions in this regard are to;

- Prevent intrusion of development that
could seriously detract from
residential amenities,

- Allow development that complies with
the Plan.

Impact to future amenity of
area;

Consistency with planned
strategic direction;

Consistency with the Plan.
Heritage
4.7.1 The challenge Brisbane contains a wide range of places of
cultural heritage significance.
These heritage places make an important
contribution to the citys character and culture.
Once lost they cannot be recovered.
Among these heritage places are:

- buildings, monuments and other
structures both singularly and in
groups

- topographic features, landscapes,
sites, parks, gardens, significant
amenity areas, forests, wetlands and
other habitats.

Impact on parks cultural
4.7.2.1 Heritage Register To conserve places of significance and
manage the impacts of developments on these
places, the significance of places listed in the
Heritage Register will be considered when
assessing an impact assessable development
application. Development that adversely
affects these places is not considered
appropriate.

Impact to parks cultural
4.7.2.2 Places of cultural
heritage significance
Places that have cultural heritage significance
for any group/s of people will be conserved by:

- Listing the places in the Heritage
Register so that their attributes are
identified and known;

- Supporting the use of these places for
purposes that retain their significance;
and

- Ensuring that development does not
detract from their cultural heritage
significance.

Impact to parks cultural

4.4.1.2 LAP, codes and zones
The Brisbane City Plan 2000 identifies Yeronga Park as being located within the Stephens District LAP.
According to the Stephens District LAP, Yeronga Park is situated within a Sport and Recreation land use area
(BCC, 2004).
Table 4 below identifies and references the sections of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 that were subject to
disagreement relating to the proposed development of Yeronga Park.
Table 4: The Brisbane City Plan 2000, references and disagreements (Information Package - P&E Court, 2014)
DEOs, LAP, Land Use, Codes of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 Conflict Disagreement
Stephens Precinct Local Plan
3.12 Any organized sport and recreation areas of Yeronga Park
should be contained to existing leased areas and preferably only
serve local and district sporting needs. Club facilities are to have
minimal impacts on surrounding residential areas.

Need for additional leased areas;
Impacts on surrounding residential
areas.
3.13 Large scale activities that serve a regional function may be
allowed in Goodwin Park and Leyshon Park Smaller scale
activities serving a local or district function will be allowed in Fehlberg
Park.
Consideration of the parks function and
scale of proposed activities
Outdoor Sport and Recreation Area
P1 The proposal must provide an overall community benefit.
Acceptable solutions are:

- Public access is not restricted by fencing.

Consistency with the Plans acceptable
solutions
P4 The proposal and its scale, design and character must not
adversely impact on and must be compatible with this existing and
likely future amenity of the surrounding area

Impact on existing and potential
amenity and surrounding area.
3.3.2.1 Sport and Recreation Areas accommodate a wide range of
organised sporting, recreational, community and cultural activities at
local, district and Citywide levels whether they are on publicly or
privately owned land/facilities.
Consideration of parks existing
activities.
3.3.2.2 Adverse impact on adjacent sensitive uses and on
surrounding areas by development and activities are minimised.

Impact on adjacent sensitive uses and
surrounding areas.
3.3.2.3 Adverse impacts on biodiversity values are minimised
where Sport and Recreation Areas include natural habitats such as
bushlands, waterways and wetlands or act as buffers between natural
and developed areas.

Impacts on biodiversity values such as
natural habitats, bushlands, and natural
buffers.
Relevant Development Codes
- Biodiversity Code
- Community Use Code
- Filling and Excavation Code
- Heritage Place Code
- Landscaping Code
- Light Nuisance Code
- Outdoor Sport and Recreation Code

- Park Code
- Park Planning and Design Code
- Services, Works and Infrastructure Code
- Storm Water Management Code
- Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing
Code
4.4.2 Yeronga Memorial Park Conservation and Management Plan
The Yeronga Memorial Park Conservation and Management Plan (YMPCMP) is a non-statutory planning
instrument created by the BCC (BCC, 2004). As the YMPCMP was published by the BCC, it is believed to
reflect the view of the BCC with regard to the history and management of the park (BCC, 2004).
In accordance with the Burra Charter, Yeronga Park was added to the State Heritage Listing under the
Queensland Heritage Act 1992 as it was considered a place of cultural heritage significance (Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), 2009). According to the Brisbane City Plan (2000), Places of

cultural heritage significance are considered important to past, present and future generations and are places
that we wish to keep. (BCC, 2004)
4.4.3 Significant points of conflict
Consistency of proposed development to relevant legislative requirements, including the conservation
of existing cultural heritage values and significant ecological values within Yeronga Park.
Impact of proposed development to existing character of Yeronga Park and impact to adjacent
sensitive uses including the memorial figs and surrounding residential areas.
4.4.4 Observations
Interpretation of the relevant planning instruments by both parties proved to be a significant factor of the
dispute. The lack of understanding of the relevant planning instruments by the parties identified a limitation of
the dispute and constraint to potential resolution. As mentioned above, the poor conflict resolution of this case
led to the involvement of the Planning and Environment Court for judgement, wherein the court reviewed the
statutory legislation and established the decision using only the merits of the case, without consideration of
other significant factors including cultural and heritage values as well as community (Brown & Mariot 1993,
Fisher et al. 1991).
5.0 Synthesis and Recommendations
5.1 Pattern of Agreement and Disagreement
The stakeholders below have been identified as having a significant interest in the development proposal
situated in Yeronga Park. Once these stakeholders have been identified it was necessary to highlight their
individual interests and positions and to then identify any conflicts of interests or possible coalitions that they
may have in the table below. It was evident from looking at the table that the FYP are strongly against the
development proposal and feel that the consequences will be devastating. The SDRUC and QBCA have a
strong coalition of interests and feel that any impacts will not be of significance to the parks visual amenity,
cultural and social aspects, and or the landscape and structures within the park. This pattern of disagreement
from table below shows each stakeholders positions on the issues.

Issue
Interest/
Position
SDRUC QBCA FYP BCC RSL
1. Approval of the
development will take the
focus of the memorial
aspect of the park away,
into predominately a Sport
and recreation park

Interest

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Position

Disagree

Disagre
e

Agree

Agree

Agree
2. Memorial structures and
their heritage will be
impacted upon by the
development proposal

Interest

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Position

Disagree

Disagre
e

Agree

Disagree

Agree
3. Development will allow
both sporting clubs to
expand and grow
competitively and support
Yeronga sporting activities

Interest

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Position

Agree

Agree

Agree

4. Is the proposal likely to
cause damage or harm to
the established trees in the
park (fig trees)

Interest

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Position

Disagree

Disagre
e

Agree

Disagree

Agree
5. Will development create
noise pollution for the
Yeronga community during
the construction phase and
long term?

Interest

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Position
Disagree

disagree

Agree

Disagree

Agree
6. Will the development
effect the local community
and their relationship with
the park and its heritage
and history

Interest

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Position

Disagree

Disagre
e

Agree

5.2 Recommendations for design of alternative process
There are many issues that are raised in opposition of the development proposal in Yeronga Memorial Park
that could be resolved using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Under this method of mediation it would be
possible to address the observed failures in the developers processes leading up to the planning and
environment court appeal. In this example there is a power imbalance between the parties for and against the
development, which will therefore require assisted mediation in the form of conventional ADR.
The described recommendations will alleviate the tensions found observed in the development process
through providing all relevant stakeholders arguments over the approval, exploring the values held by
opposing parties and, improving trust and communication within the relationship. Opportunities to correct and
improve understanding of scientific and technical issues are able to be resolved, again observed to create
tension between parties due to the conflicting and incomplete information provided. Mediation will align both
parties understanding with legislation and planning instruments as there were conflicts regarding the
interpretation of these policies. We are confident that these recommendations will provide positive outcomes
for all parties and avoid costly legal fees and relationship fallouts.

6.0 References
Brisbane City Council, 2007. Avenues of Honour, Research Report
Brisbane City Council. 2004. Brisbane City Plan 2000, Brisbane, Queensland.
Brisbane City Council. 2011. Yeronga Memorial Park Land and Conservation Management Plan.
Brouwer, C. 2007. Yeronga Memorial Park: Landscape and Heritage Values & Assessment of Impacts Report,
Brisbane.
Brown, H.J., and Marriot, A.L. 1993. ADR Principles and Practice, Sweet and Maxwell, London, pp. 5-8.
Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "What Are Intractable Conflicts?." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy
Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted:
November 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/meaning-intractability>.
Chenoweth, A. 2005. Souths Rugby Club Yeronga Vegetation Management Report, Brisbane
Daly, A. and Daly, P. 2006. Interests expressed by Friends of Yeronga Park, Brisbane.
Howard, S. 2007. Planning & Environment Court Appeal Nos. BD3444 of 2006, BD3001 of 2006 and BD 3002
of 2006, Brisbane.
Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2009. Yeronga Memorial Park (online),
available at: <https://www.dehp.qld.gov.au>, 25th February 2014.
Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014, State Planning Instruments
(online), available at: <http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/statewide-planning/state-planning-instruments-
program.html> 25
th
February 2014.
Thomas, D. 2006. Arborists Report Proposed Multi Use Sports Field, Yeronga Park, Queensland.
Vann, B. 2007. Planning Report Planning and Environment Appeal, Brisbane.
Viney, N. 2007. Viney Traffic Engineering Souths Rugby Union Club and ORS, Project number 359 J4.

Resolving Draft One Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Resolving Draft One Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

4227ENV Resolving Environmental

Вам также может понравиться