Peter Hunnam

259 Lambert Road

Indooroopilly

Brisbane, Queensland 4068

The Lord Mayor Tim Quinn

Brisbane City Council

Dear Lord Mayor

As we move into the new year, many residents of St Lucia, Taringa and Indooroopilly are wondering what they can do next to get a sensible decision from your Council about their continued access to and enjoyment of the Sandy Creek valley. They are fearful that you will authorise construction of the proposed boundary fence despite all the arguments that have been raised against it, and the weak case that has been made for building it.

The proposal is to erect a fence 1800mm high along the Indooroopilly Road boundary of St Lucia Golf Course. The indication is that a similar “solution” will be imposed along Hillside Terrace in due course.

I am writing to you on behalf of large numbers of local residents, to make a plea for Council to reject the idea of boundary fencing St Lucia golf course. This letter reviews below the arguments presented in the architects’ report for the proposed fencing and shows that none of the arguments is sound. This is why we are frustrated by the poor quality of the decision. We cannot believe that construction will go ahead, of an ugly, expensive fence that nobody wants and, most significantly, that will not be effective in serving its intended purpose.

We recognise that the BCC needs to be seen to be taking effective steps to protect non-golfers from danger on and around the course. However it is clear that the fencing, if it went ahead, would not be construed as adequate responsible measures by Council. The fencing would be seen plainly as being both ineffective and inappropriate and BCC will be seen to have actually failed in their duty of care.

There are other ways for Council to achieve the objective of reducing risks and liability, which would be far preferable, more effective and less costly; for example, by reinforcing the existing arrangement by which golfers and non-golfers share the course by using different areas and different time periods. Education of users of the public land and reinforcing the responsibility of people for their own actions, as you do on signs at the entrance to all public parks, is surely the most intelligent solution and can be no less effective than the current proposal.

We hope that your Council will be able to work on measures such as these with the local community in 2004, so that the attractive, unfenced park landscape of Sandy Creek valley is conserved, and non-golfers can enjoy continued, safe access to the golf course.

Yours sincerely

Peter Hunnam

12 January 2004

Arguments for the proposed fencing	Rebuttal of the argument
1. To curtail public access to the golf course	1.1 Non-golfers have enjoyed walking around the golf course for more than 70 years. They have a right to continue to do so. Our residents group’s observations confirm that as many walkers as golfers use the area!
	1.2 This pattern of dual use has occurred through the long life of the course – since the mid 1920s. Local residents whose families were involved in the original establishment of the course remember that this was the clear intention at the time.
	1.2 Local residents accept the risk of sharing use of the area with golfers. Surveys carried out by the local residents’ action group show that virtually all non-golfers use the course quite separately from golfers. They use both different routes and parts of the course, and different times. All demonstrate high levels of knowledge of the local area, the game of golf, and safe places and times to use the course
	1.3 The proposed fence along just part of the boundary, with gates, would be futile and would not curtail access. To achieve this purpose, it would be necessary to put “a high security fence around the entire property” as recommended by BCC advisors.
2. To reduce the risk of damage from errant golf shots to people, cars and houses outside the course boundary	2.1 The level of risk is low along 90% of the Indooroopilly Road and Hillside Terrace boundaries: • The Council’s risk assessment report identifies 43 specific danger spots around the whole of the St Lucia course. • Only 6 of these danger spots pose risks to people, cars or houses outside the boundary. • Only 2 of these 6 points affect the Indooroopilly Road boundary. • Only one of these 2 spots (where the 15^th Green has been built close to the course’s SW boundary) is assessed as a moderate-high risk.
	2.2 The Council’s report itself makes it clear that a screen fence is not a useful solution at these very few danger spots. It considers that fencing “at least 2.5 metres in height” would reduce the risk from errant golf shots by only “30 to 50%“ Erecting a fence in spite of this information and creating the illusion of safety to the public will surely increase councils liability.
	2.3 There are preferable alternatives : to re-align and re-locate the 15^th fairway and green away from the south-west corner, and to plant trees and shrubs instead.