Bod Consultants Final

Conflict Analysis Report: Yeronga
Memorial Park
BOD Consultants
Sam Monaghan
Aaron Jamieson
Byron Davis
William Vanry
Brendan Ferris
................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy
Page 1
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 3

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... 3
1.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE CONFLICT AND PROCESS ........................................................... 4

3.0 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... 6
3.1 ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 POWER IMBALANCES ................................................................................................................................ 7
4.0 INFORMATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 9
4.1 THE PROPOSAL AND IMPACTS ................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.1 Retaining walls...................................................................................................................................10
4.1.2 Levelling and excavation ...............................................................................................................10
4.1.3 Lighting..................................................................................................................................................11
4.1.4 Car parking and traffic ...................................................................................................................11
4.1.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................11
4.2 SCIENTIFIC ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 12
4.2.1 Traffic .....................................................................................................................................................12
4.2.2 Biophysical ...........................................................................................................................................12
4.2.3 Amenity and structures ..................................................................................................................13
4.3 CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY VALUES .................................................................................. 14
4.3.1 Heritage background ......................................................................................................................14
4.3.1 Parties differing values...................................................................................................................14
4.3.2 Proposed use ........................................................................................................................................15
4.3.3 Observations ........................................................................................................................................16
4.4 LEGAL AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS ............................................................................................... 16
4.4.1 The Brisbane City Plan 2000 ........................................................................................................16
4.4.2 Development codes ...........................................................................................................................19
4.4.3 Stephens District Local Area Plan .............................................................................................20
5.0 DEFINING ISSUES .....................................................................................................................22
5.1 PATTERNS OF AGREEMENT................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 AGENDA ITEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 24
5.3 KEY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION DOCUMENTS ............................................................................. 25
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN OF ALTERNATE PROCESS .................................25
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................28
APPENDIX ..........................................................................................................................................32
Page 2
List of Tables
TABLE 1. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 8
TABLE 2. BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2000 STRATEGIC INTENT AND POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT (BCC
2000; SCOTT 2007; HOWARD 2007)................................................................................................ 17
TABLE 3. BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2000 DEVELOPMENT CODES AND POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT (BCC
2000; SCOTT 2007; HOWARD 2007)................................................................................................ 20
TABLE 4. STEPHENS DISTRICT LAP PLANNING INTENT AND THE POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT (BCC
2000; SCOTT 2007; HOWARD 2007)................................................................................................ 21
TABLE 5. MATRIX OF STAKEHOLDER INTEREST. ........................................................................................... 23
TABLE 6. ADR PROCESS CONTINUUM (MOORE AND PRISCOLI 1989). .................................................... 26
TABLE 7. ADR PROBLEM SOLVING TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................... 26
TABLE 8. ECR PROBLEM SOLVING TECHNIQUE ........................................................................................... 27
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. YERONGA MEMORIAL PARK (GOOGLE 2015). ............................................................................. 5
FIGURE 2. CONFLICT SPIRAL (CARPENTER AND KENNEDY 1988). ............................................................. 5
FIGURE 3. SITE MAP (WILSON AND PARTNERS 2006) ................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 4. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS (WILSON AND PARTNERS 2006) ........................................... 10
FIGURE 5. PROPOSED EARTH WORKS (WILSON AND PARTNERS 2006).................................................. 11
FIGURE 6. THE CENOTAPH AT YERONGA PARK (BRISBANE TIMES 2012).............................................. 14
FIGURE 7. THE MEMORIAL GATES AND STATE HERITAGE LISTED FIG (BRISBANE TIMES 2012A).... 15
List of Abbreviations
ADR
ECR
BCC
DEO
FYP
LAP
QBCA
SDRUC
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
DESIRED ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOME
FRIENDS OF YERONGA PARK
LOCAL AREA PLAN
QUEENSLAND BLIND CRICKET ASSOCIATION
SOUTHS DISTRICT RUGBY UNION CLUB
Page 3
1.0 Introduction
BOD Consultancy has been hired by the Queensland Government to consider
alternatives for resolution of conflicts in regards to the proposed additional
rugby union and cricket fields at Yeronga Memorial Park. This conflict analysis
report is the first phase of the resolution process which will focus on outlining
the conflict at hand and also provide important information regarding relevant
stakeholders, scientific issues, legal issues and community values. Analysing the
context of the conflict and the values and interests of each party is imperative to
formulate an effective dispute resolution process (National Alternative Dispute
Resolution Advisory Council 2011). This will ensure a wise agreement that
resolves the conflict fairly and meets the interests of each party and the wider
community in the long term (Fisher et al 1991). Therefore this report will
ultimately provide the foundation for designing and implementing an effective
and efficient alternative dispute resolution process.
2.0 Background of the Conflict and Process

Southern Districts Rugby Union Club (SDRUC) and the Queensland Blind Cricket
Association (QBCA) have jointly applied to lease Yeronga Memorial Park from
the Brisbane City Council (BCC). The application was lodged to upgrade an
existing rugby union training and cricket field to that of competition standards.
Yeronga Memorial Park is located 10 minutes south of Brisbanes city centre and
was declared as a reserve for public park and recreation grounds in 1882, and
later a memorial park from 1917 (Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection (DEHP) 2013). Within the park the structures, trees and recreational
facilities illustrate historical events that affected Brisbane and the rest of
Queensland. These include the World War I and World War II memorial along
Honour Avenue, formation of the QBCA and the development of bowls and
croquet since the 1920s (DEHP 2013). The configuration of Yeronga Memorial
Park is shown below in Figure 1.
Page 4
Figure 1. Yeronga Memorial Park (Google 2015).
The conflict arises from the land use and access of

Yeronga Memorial Park as a public natural resource
and the differing values between SDRUC/QBCA
partnership and the Friends of Yeronga Park (FYP).
Both parties have conflicting opinions on what
impact the proposed development will have on local
amenity and heritage values, the equitable use of the
park and the interpretation of the relevant state and
local legislation. However, the perceived moral
differences concerning the preservation of Yeronga
Memorial Parks cultural heritage and the resource
distributional issues are what give this conflict its
intractability (Burgess & Burgess 2003). According to
the conflict spiral from Carpenter and Kennedys
Managing Public Disputes (1988), the problem
Figure 2. Conflict Spiral (Carpenter

and Kennedy 1988).
Page 5
emerged when the proposal was developed which resulted in sides forming as a
result of the above values and positions then hardened based on group
formation and organisation. The stage when communication stopped and
resources are committed is when the conflict went through the formal process of
Planning and Environment Court.
3.0 Stakeholder Analysis

Identifying all relevant stakeholders is important when attempting to resolve
environmental disputes (Tytler et al. 2001). Involving stakeholders early in the
environmental dispute process can expose the main context of the parties
involved, revealing the true nature of the problem (Harding 1998). Public
participation is seen as an important social function necessary to addressing
major environmental problems, especially where these involve social and moral
values (Tytler et al. 2001; Voinov & Bouquet 2010).
3.1 Ability to participate

The ability for the public to participate in the decision making process is quite
limited as council only has to take submissions into consideration and these
holding no real weight in the decision process (Emerson et al. 2003). Arnsteins
(1969) Ladder of Participation describes the different types of participation
based on hierarchy and the ability of each level to participate and identifies nonparticipation; tokenism and citizen control. This puts into context the parties
with and without power. This is important to identify what prevents parties from
participating, what ability they have to access information prior and during the
decision making stage as well as how they are able to be involved in the overall
outcome.
The ability for the public (FYP and Ruth Woods) to participate in the decision
making process is limited due to the lack of involvement throughout the
development process. After the proposal was submitted, several community
meetings were held with the public to inform them of the decision and the
longevity of the Park. This directly compromised a number of the stakeholders
ability to participate. The lack information and expert opinion shared prior to
Page 6
these meetings jeopardised these relationships, as the ability to share

information from key stakeholders (e.g. BCC, SDRU, QBCA) was lost. This created
mistrust, which hardened the position of the respondents against the
proponents.
3.2 Power imbalances

The dispute that arose at Yeronga Memorial Park involved participants ranging
from the local community and sporting clubs up to the BCC and the Local
Member Simon Finn. Mayers (1987) sources of power (appendix 1) list
illustrates the types of power present during conflict resolution. These groups
had varying degrees of power which had a significant impact on the initial
submission and approval. Identifying power and having an awareness of the way
power can impact negotiation is crucial to resolving conflicts.
To ensure all stakeholders involved in the Yeronga Memorial Park dispute are
represented, each party has been identified in Table 1. The Table distinguishes
the types of power held by each stakeholder, with BCC identified as the strongest
regarding procedural and sanction power. SDRUC and QBCA both share
association power with FYP, however FYP also hold moral power, which
becomes an important asset during the decision making process.
The
relationships between stakeholders along with the identified powers can have a
positive or negative effect with the ability for each of the partys to participate.
This will guarantee all views and values are represented during the decisionmaking process.
Page 7
Table 1. Stakeholder Analysis.
Stakeholder
Position
Interests
SDRUC
Support
Required by ARU to have 2 Association power

first class fields.
QBCA
Support
Need more playing fields to Association power

host world cup.
BCC
Support
Development is generally Procedural power

in accordance with local Sanction power
and state legislation.
FYP
Oppose
Ruth Woods
(local resident)
Oppose
Power
The development will

destroy
amenity
and
landscape
values
and
significance of the park as
a memorial.
The development will
negatively impact the
heritage and landscape
significance of the park.
Moral power
Association power
Provided conditions of
approval in regards to
memorial figs, memorial
avenues and size of playing
field.
Partially financing the
proposal as a way of
accommodating
local
sporting organisations.
Proposed development is
adjacent to school grounds.
Formal authority
Personal power
Moral power
QLD Heritage
Council
Support
Simon Finn
(Yeronga Local
Member)
Support
Yeronga
Primary and
Secondary
School
Support
Stephens
Croquet Club
Support
Proposed development is Association power

within close proximity to
croquet fields.
Brisbane Bridge
Centre
Support
Proposed development is Association power

within close proximity to
club house.
Ability to Participate
Access to information
Access to experts
Access to process
Access to experts
Access to process
Authority to make
decisions
Access to the process
Access to legislation
Restriction to
information
Restriction to the
process
Access to consultation
Restriction to
information
Restriction to the
process
Access to the process
Access to decision
making
Formal authority
Resource power
Access to resources
Association power
Restricted to
information
Restriction to the
process
Restricted to
information
Restriction to the
process
Restricted to
information
Restriction to the
process
Page 8
Relationships were strained between FYP and BCC during the second public
meeting which was designed to gain stakeholder comment on the Parks future
use. This conflict arose due to FYP believing their concerns were not being taken
seriously and SDRUCs new lease area would be declared a sporting precinct.
During this second meeting the relationship between BCC and SDRUC was very
positive as their communication was open and flowing. The dispute now is to be
decided upon by the Planning and Environment Court system, an expensive and
often lengthy process that rarely results in a mutually acceptable solution for
involved parties (Emerson et al. 2003).
4.0 Information Analysis

4.1 The proposal and impacts
SDRUC together with the QBCA have proposed to upgrade and extend the
existing sporting oval located at Yeronga Memorial Park. The upgraded oval will
be suitable to host first class rugby union matches in the winter months, and
used by the QBCA during the summer. Figure 3 below details the upgrades that
the SDRUC and the QBCA wish to complete.
Figure 3. Site Map (Wilson and Partners 2006).
Page 9
The BCC raised several concerns with the proposed development. The main
points of concern that were raised by Council was the creation of the retaining
wall and associated safety fences, changes to ground level, the protection of the
memorial trees located along Honour Avenue, the impacts that construction
works may have on vegetation, and finally the operational impacts, including
lighting, car parking and additional traffic.
4.1.1 Retaining walls
Figure 4 illustrates the retaining walls that are to be constructed on the SouthWest corner and to the East of the site (Howard 2007). The Eastern retaining
wall will comprise of a three-step design with the cut ranging from 0.99m to
3.75m, with accompanying landscaping (Howard 2007). The South-West
retaining wall will be a maximum height of 0.89m (Howard 2007).
Figure 4. Proposed retaining walls (Wilson and Partners 2006).
4.1.2 Levelling and excavation

The dimensions of the existing field are currently 80m x 65m, with a slope from
the East to West (Howard 2007). Excavation work will need to be carried out in
order to level the site; the bank on the Eastern edge of the ground is also
required to be levelled in order to adhere to competition standards (Figure 5)
(Howard 2007).
Page 10
Figure 5. Proposed earth works (Wilson and Partners 2006).
4.1.3 Lighting
SDRUC and the QBCA have requested to upgrade two existing light poles, as well
as install an additional two on the subject site. Three of the structures will be
20m in height, with the North-Eastern pole slightly larger at 22m (Howard
2007). The lighting will be in accordance in with the Light Nuisance Code to
ensure that the lighting will not have any adverse impacts on any persons,
activity or fauna (Brisbane City Council 2000).
4.1.4 Car parking and traffic
No additional car parks have been proposed with the development of the new
field (Howard 2007). Currently 66 car parking spaces are provided adjacent to
the SDRUC field (Howard 2007). It has been noted that peak vehicle generation
will intensify as result of the purposed, however daily vehicle generation will
remain largely the same.
4.1.5 Vegetation
The field has been positioned to remain clear of the Memorial Fig trees planted
along Honour Avenue. However the proposal involves the pruning of a section of
Page 11
one of the fig trees, as well as the pruning of two Tallowwood trees (Brouwer
2007). In addition, between one and four Tallowwoods on the Eastern
embankment are required to be removed (Brouwer 2007; Thomas 2006). The
proposal states that the pruning of the Memorial Fig tree will not cause any
detrimental effects. However the BCC has requested a $100 000 bond from the
developer to ensure tree health is not compromised (BCC 2007).
4.2 Scientific issues

4.2.1 Traffic
One of the major technical issues surrounding the development at Yeronga
Memorial Park is the potential increase in traffic flow; hereby an expansion of
the previous formal parking is required (Daly & Daly 2006). The increase in
traffic flow and further strain on surrounding streets in particular Villa Street,
are the main concerns for local residents (Daly & Daly 2006). Overflow parking
from training nights and competition days impacts surrounding resident, in
particular during hours.
The traffic report prepared by Viney Traffic Engineering (2007) opposes the
FYPs claims of an increase in traffic causing overflow. However the report stated
an increase in traffic will only occur during Sundays as a result of an additional
day of competition (Viney 2007). The traffic report found Yeronga State High
School, Yeronga State Primary School and Yeronga TAFE are the main
contributors to congestion and lack of parking during peak-hour times.
4.2.2 Biophysical
There are various points of disagreement relating to the changes in the
biophysical aspects of the Yeronga Memorial Park proposal. This includes the
removal of mature trees located on the Northern perimeter of the site and the
pruning of existing Fig canopies. The proposed changes are seen by the
community as a significant alteration to the aesthetic and biophysical
environment of the site, in particular the removal of Tallowoods and Eucalypts
on the Eastern boundary. Concerns were also raised from the community about
Page 12
the proposed pruning plans, as this could negatively impact tree health resulting
in the loss of vegetation (Daly & Daly 2006).
An arborist paper commissioned by the client and prepared by Thomas (2006)
explored the modifications that would be needed if the proposal were to go
ahead. It was found that the development would encroach upon the Heritage
Listed Figs on the Northern boundary, with the pruning of canopy to occur
(Thomas, 2006). Six significant trees have been identified by Thomas report
(2006) as trees that will require particular attention during development. One of
the identified trees will be removed due to poor health. A Vegetation
Management Plan was submitted by Chenoweth (2007) to accompany and
support the proposed development for approval.
4.2.3 Amenity and structures

The potential changes of amenity and structure of the park include the
construction of additional lighting structures, implementation of retaining walls
and building a small fence. Significant issues have been identified over the
proposed modifications, including: noise, lighting and the change in orientation
of the field (Chenoweth 2007; Brouwer 2007; Daly & Daly 2006). These issues
were examined in the two court ordered landscape and environment reports as
well as the arborists report originally submitted with the development
application.
The concerns raised by FYP (Daly & Daly 2006) include the loss of amenity due
to the increase in lighting and the construction of new lighting fixtures within the
park. The point of disagreement is with the amenity being lost for surrounding
residents with the extended training and playing hours at the rugby field with as
well as the construction within the park of the lighting fixtures further reducing
the landscape and use. The issue of lighting was refuted by the commissioned
report from Chenoweth (2007) because the sites use will not change, the area
will not be fenced and only approximately ten games per year will be played per
year. Therefore the lighting will occur as it has previously both on training and
competition days.
Page 13
4.3 Cultural, social and community values

4.3.1 Heritage background
The Yeronga Memorial Park was established in 1882 as a public park for
recreational and sporting activities (DEHP 2013). In 1917 the Park was
recognised as a significant site and designated as a memorial park. The Park was
then included on the Queensland Heritage Register in 2005 as it is contains
World War I and II monuments; these include Honour Avenue, Memorial Gates,
the United States Memorial, Cenotaph (Figure 6) and memorial tree plantings
(Heritage Planning Consultants 2007).
Figure 6. The cenotaph at Yeronga Park (Brisbane Times 2012).
4.3.1 Parties differing values

The stakeholder analysis section of this report identified the parties interests
within the Yeronga Memorial Park dispute. These differing interests have led to
the conflicts regarding the Parks future use. FYP has expressed concerns that the
proposal would result in a reduction of the Parks cultural heritage value. The
trimming the Honour War Memorial State Heritage Listed Figs (Figure 7) lining
Honour Avenue, combined with the removal of Heritage Listed Tallowoods
(predating 1888) pose the biggest threat to the overall degradation of the Parks
cultural heritage value (Daly & Daly 2006). In addition each of the Heritage
Listed Figs contains a plaque as a commemorative symbol for unreturned
Australian soldiers from the local area.
Page 14
Figure 7. The Memorial Gates and State Heritage listed fig (Brisbane Times 2012a).
4.3.2 Proposed use

SDRUC state the proposed development conforms to the original use of the Park
and with the Parks heritage values. A number of sporting clubs have made use of
the Park since its establishment in 1882 including: bridge, swimming, tennis,
croquet, blind cricket and rugby. SDRUC believe their proposal is in accordance
with the Parks original intended use (Heritage Planning Consultants 2007).
Alternatively Brouwer (2007) states the earthworks required to develop the site
into a level playing surface is not consistent with the Parks cultural and
aesthetic attributes. The removal of Heritage Listed Tallowoods, trimming of
Heritage Listed Figs, introduction of retaining walls and light posts will incur
negative impacts to the heritage value of the Park (Brouwer 2007). However
Heritage Planning Consultants (2007) declare the removal and trimming of
heritage listed trees will be minimal and replanting will occur during site
development.
Page 15
4.3.3 Observations
The differences of professional opinion are clear when reviewing Brouwer
(2007) and Chenoweth (2007) regarding the potential impact on the Parks
heritage and cultural values. Adler et al. (2000) states parties involved in
environmental conflict often have unequal technical and scientific information.
Chenoweth, an environmental and landscape architecture firm, and Catherine
Brouwer a landscape architect conducted environmental assessment reports for
stakeholders to use as evidence for their arguments. Brouwer (2007) concluded
that the proposal would diminish the heritage values within the Park, whereas
Chenoweth (2007) dismissed any potential impact to heritage values. An
impartial third party professional should be utilised to gain an unbiased expert
opinion on the matter at hand (Adler et al. 2000).
4.4 Legal and regulatory provisions

The Brisbane City Plan 2000 and the Local Area Plan (LAP) for Stephens District
are the main regulatory provisions applicable to this dispute. The Brisbane City
Plan 2000 is the overarching statutory instrument used to assess development
and includes strategic intent, development codes and LAPs in which BCC use to
regulate city wide development. However the Stephens District LAP takes
precedence over the Brisbane City Plan 2000 when direct land use conflict arises
between the two documents.
4.4.1 The Brisbane City Plan 2000
The Brisbane strategic plan is a reference point for general development policy.
Within the strategic plan are the Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs)
which set a broad policy at a city wide level. They form the basis from which all
other provisions of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 flow (BCC 2000). The DEOs that
were subject to disagreement between the parties are outlined below in Table 2.
Page 16
Table 2. Brisbane City Plan 2000 strategic intent and points of disagreement (BCC 2000; Scott 2007;
Howard 2007).
DEO/Strategic Intent
Relevant DEO/Strategic
Intent Details
Community Life, Health and Safety
3.2.2.2 Ensure a continuous
supply and cater for a
balanced range of community
facilities;
cultural,
recreational and sporting
opportunities;
natural
environments and attractive
landscapes;
to
meet
community needs through:
3.2.2.3 Promote the optimum

location
of
community
services
and
facilities,
including emergency services
and educational facilities to
meet
community
needs
through:
Points of Disagreement
(a) Parks and facilities: A wide That

the
proposed
range and equitable distribution
development
would
of high quality, useable parks
diversify the parks use.
and recreation facilities.
(b) Park diversity: Parks 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
infrastructure: High quality
park facilities that respect each
parks character and are
appropriate for potential users.
(a)
Significant
places:
Appropriately
identifying,
conserving and managing places
of cultural heritage significance
in cooperation
with the owners, relevant
indigenous and non indigenous
groups,
community
organisations and government
agencies.
(c) History and heritage:
Development 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.
That the facilities respect

each others character and
are appropriate for all
users.
The development would

not affect the cultural and
historical significance of
the park.
The open area of the park
will not be changed
significantly.
The changes to surface
level will not have a
significant negative impact
on the park.
Page 17
(e)
Limiting
impacts:
Development that does not have
a negative impact on the
cultural heritage significance of
a place.
3.2.2.6 Reduce pollution and (a) Pollution control:
There will be minimal
its impacts through:
Development that incorporates
acoustic
and
lighting
appropriate air, water, noise
interference
with
and light pollution and other
surrounding properties.
environmental control
measures.
(f) Buffering: Differing uses
sensitive to noise, light and/or
air pollution from activities that
generate these pollutants at
unacceptable levels.
Land Use and Built Environment
3.3.2.2 Require development
to enhance the amenity,
environmental and cultural
contexts of its locality
through:
(c)
Enhancing
character: The
proposal
is
Development
that
is
sympathetic
to
the
sympathetic to the character of
character
of
the
surrounding areas.
surrounding land uses and
will have a minimal
(h)
Sense
of
place:
impact.
Development that creates a
feeling of belonging and places
with a distinct character.
Residential Neighbourhoods
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 Plans strategic directions
in this regard are to:
Intensive sporting use is

Prevent
intrusion
of
catered for by the City
development
that
could
Plan.
seriously
detract
from
residential amenity.
Impacts on visual amenity
will be minimal.
Allow
development
that
complies with the Plan.
There will be minimal
traffic effects.
Ensure
new
residential
development contributes to The impacts on future
pleasant living environments
amenity.
and is designed to integrate
with, rather than be segregated
from, existing development in
the area.
Page 18
Avoid through
traffic
residential locations.
Heritage
4.7.2.2 Places of cultural
heritage significance-Places
and precincts that have
cultural heritage significance
for any group/s of people will
be conserved
by:
in
Listing the places and precincts The development will not

in the Heritage Register so that
detract from the heritage
their attributes are identified
and cultural values of the
and known.
park.
Supporting the use of these The site is a memorial
places and precincts for
park not a war memorial
purposes that retain their
park.
significance.
The majority of buildings
Ensuring that development does
within the site do not have
not detract from their cultural
heritage
or
cultural
heritage significance.
significance.
This conservation will be
carried out in accordance with
the principles of the Australian
ICOMOS
Charter
for
the
Conservation of Burra Charter
Places of Cultural Significance
1998.
4.4.2 Development codes

The development codes within the Brisbane City Plan 2000 derive from the
policies which are outlined in the DEOs. The development codes give guidance
on specific aspects of development that apply to different areas and types of
development (BCC 2000). The proposed development at Yeronga Memorial Park
has triggered nine different codes within the City Plan; with this report focussing
on the codes that resulted in points of disagreement (Table 3).
Page 19
Table 3. Brisbane City Plan 2000 development codes and points of disagreement (BCC 2000; Scott
2007; Howard 2007).
Development Code
Heritage Place Code
Any impacts on the heritage values of the
park will be minimal.
Cultural heritage value of the place will not be
distorted or obscured.
Outdoor Sport and Recreation

Code
The scale, design and character of the proposal

will be compatible with, and not adversely
impact on, the existing and likely future
amenity of the surrounding area.
The nature and type of noise generated is
acceptable.
Loss of amenity for public use of the
reserve as a park and recreation site.
Light Nuisance Code
The lighting will comply with the relevant

Australian Standards and will not result in a
nuisance to nearby residents or other users
of the park.
Transport, Access, Parking and

Servicing Code
The proposal does not comply with the

formal parking requirements which states
that there is 50 more car spaces needed for
the extra field.
The 66 car spaces currently available along
with other car parking areas within
Yeronga Park should be sufficient.
4.4.3 Stephens District Local Area Plan

Yeronga Memorial Park is located within the Stephens District LAP. The LAP has
additional local planning requirements and contains specific development
principles, and if in conflict will prevail over the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (BCC
2000). The Yeronga Memorial Park proposal has triggered a development
principle and precinct intent objectives within the Stephens District LAP as
illustrated in Table 4 below.
Page 20
Table 4. Stephens District LAP planning intent and the points of disagreement (BCC 2000; Scott
2007; Howard 2007).
Principle/Intent
Development Principles
2.4 Existing parks such as Yeronga and
Leyshon Parks are to remain important
multi-purpose use and conservation areas.
The proposal will allow Yeronga

Park to continue to be a vital
community
sporting
and
recreation area.
The proposal will allow both
SDRUFC and the QBCA to play on
high standard sports facilities.
The subject site will remain a
publicly accessible open space
area when not in use for rugby or
cricket.
Precinct Intent
3.12 - Any organised 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.
The subject site has been used by

the SDRUFC and the QBCA since
the 1970s and the proposal seeks
to formalise the occupancy of the
subject site.
The intent only states that leases
should be contained to existing
leased areas. It does not state that
such activities must be contained to
existing leased areas, and as such
there is discretion to allow
additional leases to be approved.
The proposal will have minimal
impact on the amenity of residential
houses adjoining the northern
boundary of the park as previously
mentioned in terms of noise,
lighting and traffic impacts.
The key points of disagreement that have been identified are:
The impact on the heritage and cultural values of the park
The scale, design and character of the development and its impacts on
surrounding amenity
The benefits the proposal would have as a sporting facility
The equitable use of park and its access as public open space
Page 21
The points of disagreement originate from the opposing interests of the parties
due to their conflicting moral values, as well as the differing interpretation of the
regulations. This in turn forced the conflict to an adversarial court process where
a wise agreement meets the legitimate interests of each party that cannot be
adequately met (Fisher et al. 1991). As the court process exclusively deals with
statutory matters, conflict participants with a lack of understanding of the
process or legislation are at a disadvantage from the onset. Parties involved in a
value based dispute tend to be less inclined to seek win/win resolution outcomes
and view compromise as unacceptable. Therefore value based conflicts require a
specifically tailored resolution method in order to reach an agreement if both
parties are to be appeased (Illes et al. 2014).
5.0 Defining Issues

5.1 Patterns of agreement
The identified stakeholders and the significant issues relating to the
environmental dispute are listed in Table 5. Patterns of agreement and
disagreement for the stakeholders involved have been highlighted, identifying
parties who may act together during the decision making process. Coalitions of
interest will be identified as well as neutral parties; potentially reducing the
amount of stakeholders involved and acknowledging representatives for those
coalitions.
Page 22
Table 5. Matrix of stakeholder interest.
Brisbane
Bridge
Centre
Stephens
Croquet
Club
State
Schools
Simon
Finn
QLD
Heritage
Council
Ruth
Woods
FYP
QBCA
SDRUC
BCCC
Stakeholders
Defining Issues
Development proposal
Damage and removal of
significant trees (operational
works)
Change in land use (sporting
vs. recreation)
Disturbance of vegetation
and natural environment
Loss of amenity residents
(lighting, parking)
Loss of visual amenity of
Yeronga Park (structures)
Overflow of parking and
traffic increase
Expert information
Loss of heritage Value
(pruning of Memorial figs)
Involvement in consultation
process
Level of Agreement
Agreement with Issue
Disagreement with Issue
Neutral Interest
The matrix (Table 5) displays a pattern between the stakeholders based on

agreements and disagreements with the ability for coalitions of interest to be
formed. Clearly defined positions are evident between the proponents (SDRUC,
QBCA) and the respondents (FYP, Ruth Woods). When stakeholders gather,
representatives will be selected on their behalf; this is important as it allows all
vested interests to be represented professionally throughout the decision
making phase (Allen 1998).
Page 23
5.2 Agenda items

Lack of open communication, access to information as well as cultural and moral
values were identified as integral factors in the dispute. Differing views on future
land use and biophysical aspects of Yeronga Memorial Park have added to the
escalation of the conflict, as illustrated in the conflict spiral (Figure 2).
The lack of open communication and the access to information was found to be
integral in the escalation of the conflict. Cultural heritage issues and moral values
were also defining attributes. Agenda items have been formulates based on these
issues and will be integral moving forward throughout the alternative resolution
process.
Agenda:
1. Relationships
Open communication
Inclusion in decision-making process
2. Cultural Heritage
Trimming and removal of State Heritage listed trees
Degradation of Memorial Walk
Loss of moral and cultural value
3. Land Use (design proposal)
Public access
Recreational use
Field dimensions
Car parking
4. Biophysical
Maintaining health of fig trees
Tree removal
Intrusive structures (retaining wall, lighting)
Page 24
5.3 Key research and information documents

Conflicts over the interpretation of information are inevitable among most
environmental conflict resolution processes. In order for a wise, informed
agreement, all parties require access to the scientific and technical information
of the proposed development (Adler et al. 2000).
The key research and
information documents that all parties require in the next phase of the process
are:
The development proposal and supporting documents

Arborists Report: Proposed Multi Use Sports Field, Yeronga Park
(Thomas 2006)
Heritage report 03: Statement of evidence Planning and
Environment Court (Scott 2007)
Statutory documents
Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Queensland Government 1997)
Brisbane City Plan 2000 (BCC 2000)
Stephens District Local Plan (BCC 2000)
Concurrence agency legislation and documents such as the Heritage

Register
6.0 Recommendations for Design of Alternate Process

Environmental disputes differ in varying capacities therefore it is essential to
mould the process around the dispute and not implement a standardised dispute
resolution process.
FYP do not want the matter to go to mediation, as
negotiation will result in the project going ahead subject to conditions. On the
other hand, the traditional Planning and Environment Courts process can be a
lengthy and expensive process, often resulting in a win-lose scenario (Emerson
et al. 2003). The traditional court process does not take into account moral
values and restricts the parties from open communication and access to
information (Bingham 1986).
BOD Consultants recommend a collaborative
approach drawing principles from two forms of dispute resolution;

Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR) and Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR).
Page 25
The ADR process continuum identified in Table 6 begins with the three decisionmaking mediation methods, followed by level of assistance provided by third
parties which provide problem solving techniques. BOD recommends
incorporating aspects of the ADR Process Continuum; these aspects have been
highlighted in the Table 6 and further explained in Table 7.
Table 6. ADR process continuum (Moore and Priscoli 1989).
Cooperative
Decision Making
Parties Are
Unassisted
Third Party Assistance With Negotiations Or

Problem Solving
Relationship Procedural
Substantive
Building
Assistance
Assistance
Assistance
Conciliation
Counselling/
Therapy
Information
Exchange Meetings
Coaching/
Process
Consultation
Conciliation
Training
Cooperative/
Collaborative
Problem Solving
Negotiation
Team
Building
Informal
Social
Services
Facilitation
Mediation
Mini-Trial
Technical
Advisory
Boards/ Dispute
Panels
Advisory
Mediation
Third Party Decision

Making
Advisory
Binding
NonAssistance
binding
Assistance
Non-Binding Binding
Arbitration
Arbitration
Summary
Jury Trial
Mediation
Arbitration
Dispute
Panels
Fact Finding
Settlement
Conference
Table 7. ADR Problem Solving Techniques.
Problem Solving
Technique
Conciliation
Assistance
Explanation
Neutral third
party assisted
Facilitation
Neutral third
party assisted
Mediation
Neutral third
party assisted
Helps to improve communication between

two or more parties. Aids in increasing trust
and lowering barriers between parties.
(Neumann 2006)
Collaborative approach between parties and a
facilitator. Helps parties work towards their
goals through effective communication.
(Neumann 2006)
Facilitator plays a less active role in assisting
parties reaching a mutually agreeable
resolution. (Wall & Lynn 1993)
Page 26
Environmental conflicts are complex and often consist of scientific uncertainty,

imbalanced powers, multiple issues, multiple stakeholders and unequal
resources. Due to this dispute being an environmental conflict it is recommended
to incorporate characteristics from the ECR process into the hybrid dispute
resolution process. These recommended characteristics are identified in Table 8.
Table 8. ECR Problem Solving Technique.
Problem Solving
Technique
Conflict Assessment
Assistance
Purpose / Achievements
Neutral third
party assisted
Consensus based
processes
Neutral third
party assisted
This step in the process identifies issues

relevant to which parties, the severity of
impacts and the dispute resolution process
that will be used. (This technique has been
employed herein this report). (Cormick 1980)
Facilitator or mediator helps disputing parties
to reach a mutual agreement. Assists with the
flow of information and dialogue between
parties. (Neumann 2006).
The above problem solving techniques derived from both ADR and ECR
processes are recommended as an alternative from the Planning and
Environmental Court process and conventional mediation. This hybrid dispute
resolution process will achieve a result beneficial to all parties involved. This
report will provide a foundation in which an effective and efficient resolution
management process will be designed.
Page 27
References
Adler, P. S., Barrett, R. C., Bean, M., Birkhoff, J. E., Ozawa, C. P. & Rudin, E. B.
2000. Managing Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental
Cases Principles and Practices for Mediators and Facilitators, RESOLVE, Inc.
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Western Justice Center
Foundation (online), Available: <http://www.resolv.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/Environmental_Cases.pdf> (25 Feb. 2015).
Allen, T. 1998, Public participation in resolving environmental disputes and the
problem of representativeness, Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, vol. 9,
no. 4, pp. 297-308.
Arnstein, S. 1969, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of American Institute of
Planners, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 216-224.
Bingham, G. 1986, Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience, The
Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Brisbane City Council 2000, Brisbane City Plan 2000 (online), Available:
<http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/planning-guidelinesand-tools/superseded-brisbane-city-plan-2000/chapter-5> (24 Feb 2015).
Brisbane Times 2012, Cenotaph, Memorial Parks to Remember the Anzacs
(online), Available:
<http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/entertainment/abouttown/memorial-parks-to-remember-the-anzacs-20120424-1xi2o.html>
(25 Feb. 2015).
Brisbane Times 2012a, Memorial park gates and State Heritage listed fig,
Memorial Parks to Remember (online), Available:
<http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/entertainment/abouttown/memorial-parks-to-remember-the-anzacs-20120424-1xi2o.html>
(25 Feb. 2015).
Brouwer, C. 2007. Planning and environment court appeal: Yeronga Park landscape
and heritage values & assessment of impacts report. Fortitude Valley,
Queensland.
Page 28
Burgess, H. & Burgess, G. M. 2003, What are intractable conflicts?, Beyond

Intractability (online), Available:
<http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/meaning-intractability> (21
Feb. 15).
Carpenter, S. & Kennedy, W. 1988. Managing Public Disputes, Jossey Bass, London.
Chenoweth, A. 2007. Yeronga Park Rugby/Cricket Oval: Landscape &
Environmental Assessment, Brisbane, QLD.
Cormick, G. 1980, The Theory and Practice of Environmental Mediation, The
Environmental Professional, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 24-33.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) 2013, Yeronga
Memorial Park (online), Available < https://heritageregister.ehp.qld.gov.au/placeDetail.html?siteId=19584> (25 Feb. 2015).
Emerson, K., OLeary, R., Nabatchi, T. & Stephens, J. 2003, The Promise and
Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, Chapter 1: The
Challenges of Environmental Conflict Resolution, Resources for the Future,
Washington, USA.
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. and Patton, B. 1991. Getting to Yes, 2nd edn, Century,
London.
Google 2015, Google Earth (online), Available: < https://earth.google.com/> (25
Feb. 2015).
Harding, R. 1998, Environmental Decision Making: the roles of scientists, engineers
and the public, The Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.
Howard, S. 2007, Planning-03: Planning and Environment Court Appeal Nos.
BD3444 of 2006, BD3001 of 2006 and BD 3002 of 2006, Information
Package (online), Available:
<https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_gro
up_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%
3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_38975_1%26url%3D> (24 Feb. 2015).
Illes, R., Ellemers, N. & Harinck, F. 2014, Mediating value conflicts, Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 331-354.
Page 29
Moore, C. & Priscoli, J. 1989, The Executive Seminar on Alternative Dispute

Resolution Procedures, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Virginia.
National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) 2011,
Maintaining and enhancing the integrity of ADR processes: from principal
through to practice (online), Available:
<http://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/AlternateDisputeResolution/Docum
ents/NADRAC%20Publications/Maintaining%20and%20enhancing%20th
e%20integrity%20of%20ADR%20processes%20%20From%20principles
%20to%20practice%20through%20people.PDF>
Neumann, R. 2006, Conflict Resolution Study Guide; Topic 9 overview of
processes.
Neumann, R. 2013. Background Information: The Rugby Field in Yeronga Park.
Queensland Government 1997, The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (online),
Available:
<http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=
1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oma.org.au%2F__data%2
Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0015%2F4560%2FIntegrated_planning_Act_1997.
pdf&ei=3HbtVNPnCMLwmAXAuoGgAQ&usg=AFQjCNHZeiXFmToa6y04wa
7N_fFmxLJ6qg&sig2=9UjAdP6RKuKFcnF3shQzWQ&bvm=bv.86956481,d.d
GY> (25 Feb. 2015).
Scott, M. 2007, Heritage report 03: Statement of evidence Planning and
Environment Court, Information Package (online), Available:
Thomas, D. 2006, Arborists Report: Proposed Multi Use Sports Field, Yeronga
Park, Information Package (online), Available:
Page 30
Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. 2001, Public participation in an environmental
dispute: implications for science education, Public Understanding of Science,
vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 343-364.
Voinov, A. & Bousquet, F. 2010, Modeling with stakeholders, Environmental
Modeling & Software. Vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1268-1281.
Wall, J. and Lynn, A. 1993, Mediation: A Current Review Journal of conflict
Resolution, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 160-194.
Page 31
Appendix
Mayers (1987) Sources of Power.
1. Formal authority: The power that derives from a formal position vthin a
structure that confers certain decision-making prerogatives. This is the power of
a judge, an elected official, a CEO, a parent, or a school principal.
2. Expert/information power: The power that is derived from having expertise in
a particular area or information about a particular matter.
3. Associational power (or referent power): The power that is derived from
association with other people with power.
4. Resource power: The control over valued resources (money, materials, labour,
or other goods or services). The negative version of this power is the ability to
deny needed resources or to force others to expend them.
5. Procedural power: The control over the procedures by which decisions are
made, separate from the control over those decisions them- selves (for instance,
the power of a judge in a jury trial).
6. Sanction power: The ability (or perceived ability) to inflict harm or to interfere
with a party's ability to realize his or her interests.
7. Nuisance power: The ability to cause discomfort to a party, falling short of the
ability to apply direct sanctions.
8. Habitual power: The power of the status quo that rests on the premise that it is
normally easier to maintain a particular arrangement or course of action than to
change it
9. Moral power: The power that comes from an appeal to widely held values.
Related to this is the power that results from the conviction that one is right
10. Personal power: The power that derives from a variety of personal attributes
that magnify other sources of power, including self-assurance, the ability to
articulate one's thoughts and understand one's situation, one's determination
and endurance, and so forth.
Page 32

Bod Consultants Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bod Consultants Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict Analysis Report: Yeronga

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE CONFLICT AND PROCESS ........................................................... 4

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

2.0 Background of the Conflict and Process

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

Figure 1. Yeronga Memorial Park (Google 2015).

The conflict arises from the land use and access of

Figure 2. Conflict Spiral (Carpenter

3.0 Stakeholder Analysis

3.1 Ability to participate

these meetings jeopardised these relationships, as the ability to share

3.2 Power imbalances

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

Table 1. Stakeholder Analysis.

Required by ARU to have 2 Association power

Need more playing fields to Association power

Development is generally Procedural power

The development will

Proposed development is Association power

Proposed development is Association power

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

4.0 Information Analysis

Figure 3. Site Map (Wilson and Partners 2006).

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

Figure 4. Proposed retaining walls (Wilson and Partners 2006).

4.1.2 Levelling and excavation

Figure 5. Proposed earth works (Wilson and Partners 2006).

4.2 Scientific issues

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

4.2.3 Amenity and structures

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

4.3 Cultural, social and community values

Figure 6. The cenotaph at Yeronga Park (Brisbane Times 2012).

4.3.1 Parties differing values

4.3.2 Proposed use

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

4.4 Legal and regulatory provisions

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

3.2.2.3 Promote the optimum

(a) Parks and facilities: A wide That

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

That the facilities respect

The development would

Intensive sporting use is

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

Listing the places and precincts The development will not

4.4.2 Development codes

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

Outdoor Sport and Recreation

The scale, design and character of the proposal

Light Nuisance Code

The lighting will comply with the relevant

Transport, Access, Parking and

The proposal does not comply with the

4.4.3 Stephens District Local Area Plan

Conflict Analysis Report: BOD Consultancy

The proposal will allow Yeronga

The subject site has been used by