Sundry letters re proposed fence barring access to St Lucia public Golf course

Peter Doobes- 29 Sep
Barry Wilson- 3 Oct
John Thompson- 3 Oct
Michael Yeates- 3 Oct
Anon.- 8 Oct
John Hamilton- 12 Oct


John Hamilton
The BCC Explanatory Brochure (18 Sep 2003) on the Fence for St Lucia proposes an alternative route for the proposed fence. This proposal has some TOKEN modifications made to the route. I am proposing that some real modifications could have been made with no impact on the golf course.





-----Original Message-----
From: John Hamilton
Sent: Friday, 26 September 2003 4:43 PM
To: mcv@brisbane.qld.gov.au
Subject: Alternative routes for fence

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached two route modifications for the proposed fence for the St Lucia golf course. I note the amended fence proposal in your document shows some compromise, but is more token then real. The following route changes would show a more realistic compromise and would allow for parties other than golfers to enjoy some of the benefits of the area, with no impact on the golf course or on golf play.

Thanks for your kind consideration of this proposal,

John Hamilton.

Anon.
The Manager City Venues
Brisbane City Council

I am responding to the council flyer I received on the net from a member of our community not from the city council. I am unable to reply to the flyer directly hence this e-mail.

My family and I are opposed to the fence around the St.Lucia golf course.

We have lived on Indooroopilly Road opposite the 14th green for the last 27 years and in that time we and our neighbours have used the golf course in a responsible manner. We thought we had maintained a good relationship with the management of the course as over the years we kept watch over our section of the park and informed the police and management of any abusive use of the area after hours. Interestingly, we have been bypassed in any consultation process with regard to the fencing of the golf course.

Signage of the golf course should be used to warn of periods of golfing use and state "safe" times, a bit like parking limits!!

Responsible action as stated in the flyer is not only covered by building a fence but would also be covered by clear informative signage and a natural "fence"/barrier using plants of differing heights. Flora native to the area would protect and support local fauna rather than building an artificial barrier. The fence is visually polluting, as even council has acknowledged by including planting to lessen this impact. Being on a possible flood plain, also represents an environmental concern.

What were the findings of the environmental impact study with regard to the effect of the fence?

The experts quoted in the flyer were golf course architects whose interest could not really be considered impartial and independent. Council should know from its vast dealings that expert advice, particularly with regard to parkland, should include environmentalists, plant and animal specialists, local community members as well as the golfing industry. There needs to be an attempt at protecting and improving the parkland for use by golfers, local community members and plants and animals that live within and around it. Experts with different skills may resolve the problems in a more lateral manner than the knee jerk reaction suggested so far.

I found the argument regarding the Townsville golfer rather amusing and assumed that it was included as light relief. A fence would have had no effect on that accident, unless council intends to fence each green and fairway ?!

There are acceptable alternatives to fencing the golf course. The most appropriate solution can only be found through consultation with representative experts as stated above. The council has a duty to provide a liveable,safe, environmentally sustainable parkland available for enjoyment by all members of the community and supportive of local fauna and flora.

NO FENCE

Michael Yeates
Thank you to Peter and others involved ....

Thank you all for your interest in this project. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, I am unable to attend tomorrow's 4pm meeting (Saturday) ... see below.

As a resident who walked from state school through the golf course from 1954, I claim some knowledge of the past which is reinforced by my current expertise. Others no doubt have similar or better claims.

First of all, PLEASE do NOT believe, as some people appear to, that "the fence" is a fait accompli...!

Residents in NSW and elsewhere have been told that, despite the known risks, local authorities have no responsibility to fence open drains, lakes, creeks etc (like Sandy Creek...!). Local authorities are arguing that position at the national LGAA level... I agree with the local authorities! The more and the better people are warned, the more those people should assume responsibility, not the local authority.

I understand that this rebuttal relies on (i) due parental care and (ii) people being reliably and accurately informed of the potential risk eg by the landscape, design etc of the water element involved and its location... and then being aware, should be personally responsible.

From a legal point of view then (and NOT being a lawyer and having read the legal view we have all received), the only legal point we need and indeed should concede and welcome and encourage, is the obligation for authorities which I shall describe as the obligation to warn of risks over which the authorities can take no responsibility and risks that effectively cannot be eliminated. I understand this principle to be the foundation of the claim that the LGAA is using. I assume it is similar to the principle that was applied in the case of the surfer who died on the Sunshine Coast and whose family sought damages ... and again, the recent cases involving diving into a canal and another surfing incident in NSW.

So Council MUST erect some signs and a form of identification of the "edge" of the golf course... we have suggested the timber bollards did that quite well, "obviously" but unobtrusively ... and kept out the cars... So install some signs and replace the bollards, in my view on the property alignment (where the black fence posts are) to effectively eliminate parking.

But ... NO FENCE ...!

Then the question is how to sensibly and practically reduce the risk of anyone being hit hard by a golf ball ... given the golfers have a primary requirement NOT to hit the ball unless the course is clear...

Clearly a 1800 fence is of no value ...!

I have suggested that we, the local community, should "design" and implement a tree planting scheme and carry it out as a community project ... with Council ... very common in other parts of Brisbane. Why not here? We can "involve" the golf course management as decisions such as maintenance, access and mowing etc are important. We could help with maintenance as do other bushland groups?

I suspect those living opposite the golf course would like to preserve some of their views so the location and types of trees is important, but in the broader context, the course is not only for their viewing, it has many other values. These need to be considered also.

I have suggested therefore that the waterways and edges should be subject to a series of community projects working with Council expert officers and following the various waterways and bushcare models. It is imperative that Council treats this asset as a major ecological and environmental site and part of a complex that includes UQ, and from UQ, the river edge all the way to the Indooroopilly bridges, and beyond, and includes Long Pocket and the golf courses as well as the area up Sandy Creek through Robertson and Lex Ord Parks and the Indooroopilly State High School, St Peters and the soccer ground. The golf course is right in the middle, a vital link if ever there was one.

Therefore, given Council's ownership of the golf course, it is EXTREMELY surprising that, according to Council advice I understand was given to Cr Prentice, there has been no ecological or environmental study or audit carried out for the property.

In other words, despite the rhetoric of concern for things green and wet, here is Council ignoring its own rhetoric....!

Clearly NO MORE work should be carried out in the golf course (and that includes "the fence", bush clearing etc) until a full and public ecological audit has been carried out. Council simply does not know how many plant species, birds or whatever live or use the course.

Who enjoys the distant wailing of the curlews or the crack of the whipbirds? How many bird species have been recorded in the golf course?

However we, the community, know that the tortoises have all but disappeared due to Council's mis-management of Sandy Creek as a drain and its management of the golf course only to meet the needs of golfers...!

So no more broad-area and indiscriminate spraying with poisons in the creeks and bush margins, no more removal of the edge grasslands, no more cutting of the reedbeds, no more filling and (illegal?) dumping in the dry gullies, no more removal of trees, no more piling of green waste and weeds, etc.

It IS time for a change ... time for Council to take responsibility for the bigger picture issues, not just concern about building "the fence" ....!

I have prepared two sets of photos which are sent separately to this as some people may have computers that will not receive large emails.

The first set of photos shows how Council is treating this area using examples from Sandy Creek ... spray the weeds and everything else, allow it to rot, then allow it to wash to Moreton Bay ... no different to putting the lawn clippings down the drain ... yet Council does not want us to do the latter and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on "educational campaigns" and advertising and specialised expert officers in Council whose job includes seeing "we" do the right thing ... but not Council?

I have not included photos of Councils waste dumps yet Council officers are very critical (and rightly) of people who dump their lawn clippings and weeds etc in bushland, no matter what the quality. Why does Council do what it asks the community not to do? There are also very good pictures of the weed infested areas and the bush margins being eroded etc.

More importantly, the danger in drawing attention to these "illegal" or undesirable practices lies in those responsible rushing out and creating even more vandalism by trying to hide or remove the evidence. Fortunately, enough people have seen the various sites, on walks or through the many photos people have taken, so any change by Council will be obvious....!

The second set of photos shows a recent planting and watercourse treatment at Bowman Park Bardon. Where once there was a drain and bare ground, there is now a delightful chain of small waterholes, with rocky intrusions and stepping stones, and dense bush planting under some original tall trees. There are many, many other examples in Brisbane and in the southwestern suburbs ... so why not something like that here ... both in the course and along the edges of the golf course and along Sandy Creek ... instead of continuing, incremental destruction of the "natural" elements?

However, as noted above, the planting design and layout for the golf course edges will need to maintain some views to and through the golf course .. both at ground level for people walking or cycling or driving along the road as well as for people living opposite on both Indooroopilly Road and on Hillside Terrace.

The answer is not the current "offer" from Council ... we have to build "the fence" ... but we'll add in 500 plants ...! Beware of "Trojan Horses"...!

If the intention is to minimise the risk of people and property being hit hard by a golf ball, the solution is a community designed project working with Council just like the many other projects throughout Brisbane ... a "signature" project we can all be proud of...!


And finally, it should be very clear that this is a park where golf is played between the hours of, for example, 7-6 on weekdays and 6-6 on weekends and public holidays ... not much different in principle to a school 40km/h speed limit zone. Interesting that the school zones are delineated by signs yet Council has no signs around the golf course ... and as I have reported elsewhere, increasingly, other authorities have decided that identifying the specific risk is far more legally sound and successful in practice than trying to build fences...!

It should also not be forgotten, that the edges (and indeed the central "natural islands") have been progressively stripped of natural vegetation, tree logs etc have been removed, areas have been filled and grassed and mown ... ALL by Council ...! It is this process that has encouraged not only people walking but people in cars and trucks to drive into the golf course... Council has actually designed the golf course to ENCOURAGE people to walk and drive into the areas of increased risk ... yet not even provided warning signs.

A "good" solution to this "legal problem" [which the Council now seeks to use to justify "the fence"] will not require "the fence" ... it will address all the issues and make "the fence" unnecessary ... indeed, it will make "the fence" a symbol of the kind of government that makes decisions ... then consults, thereby failing to take advantage of community expertise and ownership ... the kind of government that results in apologies when people read in the newspaper (state government again!) , or see work being commenced (BCC) or try to force a project by bullying the community to accept the project by giving a choice equivalent to choosing the paint colour or the plants (the Goss government and the M1, and here, BCC).

In one sense, what this "problem" suggests as a solution is nothing more than undoing the vandalism carried out by, in this case Council, and is not much different to a typical bush regeneration project except that it needs to include for the needs of those living along the course and their "right" to some views.

Interestingly, the DPI and CSIRO properties at Long Pocket already are heading in the right direction ... will Council allow the golf course management to join in and become part of an exceptional urban ecological parkland and bushland system...?

Feel free to discuss or print and distribute this ... indeed, feel free to put forward other ideas or variations... the one thing to remember however is that "the fence" is not needed if the design is well executed...!

regards .. good luck ... I think the idea of a meeting in the park is brilliant ... I wish I could be there to enjoy it...!

Michael Yeates [anyone who wants to know more about my background is welcome to Explore ...]

John Thompson
Dear All,

I can't get to the meeting on Sat. so here's my tuppence worth now and if it helps the debate, then great.

Personally, I think that if it IS STANDARD for golf courses in Brisbane to be fenced, then Council have a strong position, namely:

"fencing the golf course is an important step in satisfying Council's duty of care".
(to quote from the Solicitor's advice mentioned in Council's flyer)

Interestingly, of 18 courses (out of about 40) in Brisbane phoned yesterday with the question, "Do you have a high fence running all around the perimeter preventing public access to the property?", 6 said yes and 12 no. So, currently, it IS NOT STANDARD for golf courses in Brisbane to be fenced. Actually, I think they would all like to fenced and would probably view it as a good standard practice if they could afford it. And a Court might take the view, esp. in an action involving an injured child, that the Council should have persisted with a fence regardless of expense and opposition in order to satisfy an implicit standard.

In the flyer, Council states it can't avoid building a fence and that there will also be prohibited public access when golf is being played.
An "ugly" fence is bad enough but prohibited access during daylight hours, 24/7, is INFINITELY WORSE.
It's an absolute loss to the fair number of locals who use the park.

In the end, I feel locals might have to yield to a fence for which the argument is:

"Stop casual access just anywhere on the property to satisfy Council's duty of care because a high perimeter fence is or should be the standard practice to protect the public"

But if enough locals speak up, Council may be obliged to:

"provide open entrances through this fence leading freely to extensive areas and walkways in the park that can be reasonably protected from golfers' balls in order to preserve some amenity for the locals"

John Thompson

Barry Wilson
3 Oct 2003
Hi All

I write about fencing golf courses.

The BCC has for the past 30+ years wanted to build a golf course at Cannon Hill and to that end they called tenders a few years ago. None of the tenders were in compliance with the term of reference of the tender.

Sebsequently the BCC has agreeded that BMD were to be the builders and as such BMD were to lodge their planning application with BCC by mid 2003.

I do not know if this has been lodged BUT:

The proposed golf course in not only situated on an acid sulphate soil but also across a flood plain. How can the flood plain be fenced without increasing the local flooding?

Are the BCC to excempt the propose Minnippi Golf Course from being fenced?

More information:

Barry Wilson
Contact
Peter Doobes

29 Sep 2003

To Brisbane City Council, I used to think that the council was concerned about the people of Brisbane. After reading your flyer on the St Lucia Golf Course fence, I no longer believe this. I think that what you guys are doing is terrible. You are only interested in making money for yourselves and have no regard what-so-ever for the local residents. Your amended fence route is a joke! Have you never considered that there might be other good things about this area apart from just the golf. You guys need your head read. The land was original donated as a public park and MUST remain this way. Your "flyer" proposes gates... well how long is it going to be until you start locking them to keep the public out. I think this is an outrage.

Your "1.8m" fence will be an eye sore. Oh, it will be black, you can't seriously believe that will solve the problem! Why don't you consider replacing the fence with small wooden stumps so that vehicles are kept out, but people can still enjoy the beauty of the area. Your "flyer" contains lies about the height of the fence -- I know that some is 1.8m, but I have measured some of the poles and they go up to 2m at some points. If you insist on this stupidity of a fence, then please, please, please make your fence smaller.

Also you should be fencing the golf area, not the trees and bush land. Consider changing the route further to leave more of the trees outside the fenced area. You can do better that the one sided, bureaucratic stupidity that is presented in your "flyer"

Upset, Peter Doobes
29 Sep 2003