This is a reflective scenario problem regarding negotiation. Please DO NOT answer this question if you are just going to give the definition, this needs to link with the scenario problem. Thank you.

Scenario problem:

Crows Ash - Save Out Suburbs!

Crows Ash is a traditional tin-and-timber, low density residential zoned suburb of about 17,000 people, situated next to bushland around 10km out from the CBD. The average weekly wage for Crows Ash is 30% higher than the city average. When rumours started spreading that new townhouse development was being proposed for the combined lots at #50, #52 and #54 on Nathan Street in Crows Ash, it was met with community protest, led by the local councillor Reza Harris.

Current city planning scheme provisions allow for multiple dwellings (townhouses and apartments) to be built on lots of at least 1,800m² in the low density residential zone (LDRZ) that are close to public transport and a business centre. Multiple dwellings townhouses and apartments are an issue in many parts of the city; they are seen by communities as inappropriate in areas that predominantly feature detached dwellings, and as impacting on the established character of the suburbs in which they are built. The tendency for developers to clear lots entirely before construction starts, and the dominance of concrete around buildings to facilitate access for multiple vehicles, townhouses are perceived to be a threat to greenspace.

The general sense from the community is that they want to protect backyards and the spaces between homes instead of turning them into townhouse driveways, assurance that multiple dwelling developments wont change the character of their suburbs in terms of housing type/form, density, scale, layout and design. There is a particular concern where higher density housing us proposed in LDRZ areas that have less access to services, facilities, and public transport.

But the most frequent point people have made, is that they hate, and resent cars parked in their residential streets. A potential solution might be to increase the number of car spaces developers need to include as part of multiple dwellings. Under the current city planning scheme, parking rates are set at a minimum of 1.25 spaces for 2 bedroom townhouses, 1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling and 0.15 spaces per dwelling for visitor parking with at least 50% provided in communal areas, and not in tandem with resident parking. This could be revised to better accommodate parking demand on-site to be 2 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling; 2 spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling; 2.5 spaces per 4 or more bedroom dwelling, with 0.25 spaces per dwelling for visitor parking. These standards are subject to the developments proximity (within 400m) of reliable and frequent public transport.

In response, Councillor Harris is fast tracking an amendment to the citys planning scheme to prevent these forms of townhouses, and to let the council better control these aspects. If this can happen quickly, it may be possible to refuse a development permit for the Nathan Street properties. But if the developer lodges an application before, or within one year of the amendment change, the council may face a court challenge or have to pay compensation if they refuse the application. This would also be the case for many other proposals across city. To avoid paying compensation, they could grandfather the changes so that the Nathan Street proposal goes ahead as is, but stops all development after the initial one year grace period.

Spokesperson for the Crows Ash Townhouse Development Action Group, Kelly Malone believes that standard development processes do a lot of damage to the citys tree canopy, with clearing of trees of private land damaging a high portion of biodiverse species and established trees, like the eucalypts in the properties on Nathan Street that have been known to feed and shelter local koalas. They also create traffic, bring in undesirables to the area, and make the whole place look like a slum.

Chris Lee, head of Councils strategic planning department knows that, although koala habitat protection gives the Crows Ash campaign traction, there are significant community benefits to such forms of development, and much of this community concern is misplaced. As such, planners have been advocating for such townhouse development for decades. A strict amendment as initially proposed could cost the council billions in compensation claims, as well as be counter-productive to overall city liveability and sustainability.

Shannon Hill, the new owner of the Nathan Street properties is seriously concerned about these changes and their impacts on the planned development. The current proposal will not only make the development impossible, but also scupper plans for future development in the city. Hill is hoping to transform Crows Ash and other low density suburbs throughout the city by adding enough people to support a new cafe, inject a bit of vibrancy into stale old suburbs and make it easier for people who cant afford a detached house to live in suburbs that are attractive, and closer to the CBD.

A final series of stakeholder workshops are now being held to determine the nature of the future planning scheme amendment, as well as what the council will do about planned and approved developments of this nature that have yet to be constructed. The stakeholders will now meet to discuss these aspects and attempt to agree on a proposed approach. Up for discussion, is whether the council should outright ban the townhouses and buy up existing development rights or, if townhouses are permitted, determine the amount of on-site carparking required, what to do about established trees, and how townhouses can better integrate into the neighbourhood character. If no agreement is made, the amendment will go through as is, banning all townhouses in the LDRZ and requiring council to compensate owners/developers. A new agreement will require the councillor plus at least one other stakeholder to agree on the new approach.

Question:

Undertake pre-preparation by thinking about the likely positions of all parties

Think about their most likely approach to the negotiation and how strongly they may, or may not, be motivated to get an agreement

Prepare an initial plan for the negotiation for each party