10th October, 1999
The Hon Judy Moylan MP
The Chair
Public Works Committee
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Ms Moylan,
We wish to make a written submission on the proposed CSIRO /
University of Queensland Joint Building Project at the St Lucia
Campus, on which the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Works will be holding a public hearing in the Senate Room of the
Brian Wilson Chancellery Building of the University, on
Wednesday, 27 October, 1999.
We have separately made a submission to the CSIRO as was invited
by Mr Trevor Moody, the Assistant General Manager of CSIRO
Corporate Property based upon the "Summary Scope of
Work", dated July 1999, circularised to local government
members, and referred to community organisations for comment.
The local community are unequivocally opposed to the
inappropriate location of large (and potentially commercial) GMO
research stations within the residential environs of Brisbane.
Specifically, the residents have been vigourously campaigning
against the Natural Sciences Precinct (NSP), to be built on the
site of existing smaller laboratory facilities, currently owned
by the CSIRO and the Qld State Government, in conjunction with
the University of Queensland, and the UQ / CSIRO Joint Building
Project (IMB) proposed on the site of the Cunningham Laboratories
by the St Lucia Campus. This gigantic research complex, about to
be built adjoining the UQ is some 153m long, seven stories high,
and directly across the road from an established Residential A
area at St.Lucia, in the inner western suburbs of Brisbane!!
The CSIRO / University of Queensland Joint Building Project
proposed for the University of Queensland St Lucia Campus, on
land previously occupied by the CSIRO laboratories in Carmody
Road, and the adjoining university land, raises the following
items of concern:
After persistent inquiries through the State Government¹s
Queensland Bioindustries Office, of the Department of State
Development, community members representing local community
organisations, were accorded a briefing on the proposal by the
proponents of the proposed Centre of Excellence for Biotechnology
in Queensland, namely the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Paul
Greenfield, with Professor John Mattick the Director of the
Institute for Molecular Biology, and Dr Ian Taylor the Deputy
Director of the IMB. Mr Bell, of the Queensland Bioindustries
Office later arranged a further viewing of the plans and a scale
model of the proposed Institute for Molecular Biology and CSIRO
laboratories at St Lucia.
Local community organisations, namely, the St Lucia Residents'
Association, the Ironsides Residents' Association, the Long
Pocket Concerned Residents Group, and the Residents Against
Intensive Development (RAID) are opposed to the Natural Sciences
Precinct at Long Pocket, and the CSIRO / University of Queensland
Joint Building Project including the Institute for Molecular
Biology, within our residential suburbs. Our local government Cr
Judy Magub has called for cessation of development of research
laboratories in residential areas, and the Lord Mayor of
Brisbane, Cr Jim Soorley, has assured local residents of his
intention to strongly resist inappropriate development outside
the intent of the City of Brisbane Draft Plan. Additionally, our
members at both the local and state level, Cr June O'Connell and
the Honorable Denver Beanland MLA, have come out against the
siting of the Natural Sciences Precinct on the amalgamated
riverside land bounded by residential properties at Long Pocket,
and are actively campaigning against this proposal. Our federal
member, Hon John Moore, has been busy fighting a war, but wishes
to be kept informed of developments.
The Queensland Bioindustries Office, presented a so-called Public
Forum on GM, on the 15th of last month, in which spokespersons
for Biotechnology Australia, GMAC and ANZFA outlined current
initiatives in biotechnology and particularly the regulatory
enforcement regimen. The Public Forum did not appear to be in the
form of the Consensus Conference for which the St Lucia
Residents' Association had called, but rather of the style of a
"public education" program which the industry seems to
think is needed to win the "hearts and minds" of the
people, the vast majority of whom have rejected GM foods, at
least.
However, getting back to the matter at hand, we list our views on
the proposed CSIRO / University of Queensland Joint Building
Project known as the Institute for Molecular Biology, at St
Lucia:
a) We do not question the quality of the design produced by the
award winning architect. Rather, the brief given the architect
for such an over development of the site, and for separating the
facility from its field testing at the proposed NSP. Is it
relevant and indeed wise to site such a large research structure
of 36,000m2 in this constrained location, with little capacity to
expand and evolve in what we are told is a fast emerging third
wave in the industrial revolution.
b) The community believe that a cap must be put on the campus
population at St Lucia, and rigidly enforced, or the academic
bureaucracy will only continue to grow and thereby smother the
surrounding residential suburbs. The development is of vast
proportions and is likely to lead to a further increase in the St
Lucia campus population, which is now variously put at between
33,000 and 35,000 people. We would like the proposal for a cap in
the St Lucia campus population to be incorporated within the
development strategy of the University of Queensland.
c) The University Administration disputes that the campus
population will rise because of this new Joint Development
Project with the Commonwealth CSIRO, saying that there is a
reorganisation which will result in only a small increase of a
few hundred. The complex will house approximately 750 research
staff. So much for its justification of providing ³jobs, jobs,
jobs², as we are repeatedly assured by Queensland Premier, Peter
Beattie.
d) Many months ago, the St Lucia Residents' Association sought a
Risk Assessment Analysis for the establishment of the proposed
Centre of Excellence for Biotechnology within our residential
suburbs. We have not had the courtesy of a reply to this request,
which we believe to be a fundamental precautionary principle in
dealing with a technology which has caused such controversy
overseas. There is alarm that escape of genetically modified
organisms and contamination of the natural environment will have
irreversible consequences and a profound effect upon
biodiversity. At the very least, we believe that the safety and
security of the community deserve an Environmental Impact
Statement, before a high tech project of this size and nature is
sanctioned. (Indeed, we are advised that an EIS may have been
prepared, but not publicly released, which is hardly the
transparent, accountable process which we have sought).
e) Inadequate parking provision with less than 300 vehicle spaces
will leave an excess of at least 400 additional car spaces to be
found on campus, and will exacerbate the present problem of on
street parking in the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
Furthermore, there has been no evaluation of the capacity for the
residential streets serving the University to be able to handle
this additional load.
f) Consider the effect of this research complex just across the
road from houses with hitherto Residential A zoning in Carmody
Road, having a 7 storey high facade blocking the preferred
northerly aspect (and view to the city), with a 153 meter wide
expanse of building (that is, one and a half football fields)!
g) A review of the scope of works has revealed that only two of
the laboratories are of the high security CP3 classification (as
opposed to the Natural Sciences Precinct at Long Pocket which
proposes both CP3 and CP4 laboratories, being the very highest
classification for containment of potentially deadly viruses and
organisms). Nevertheless, whilst researchers may be ³relaxed²
about such research in a residential environment, we remain
unconvinced, given that the average life expectancy of a CSIRO
scientist is reputed to be only 54 years, many years below the
national life expectancy. The neighbours are supposedly safe, but
are really only a hepa filter away from disaster!
h) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Paul Greenfield, has
reassured community representatives that although the University
of Queensland is a party to the Natural Sciences Precinct
consortium for Long Pocket, there is very little connection
between the IMB and the NSP. Currently, only 18 students are
located at the Long Pocket site which may, in the years to come
increase to about 45 researchers, we were told. However, there
appears to be much more of a synergy between the CSIRO
laboratories, co-located with the IMB, and the proposed NSP
satellite campus, and we were informed that "field
tests" of experiments originating at the CSIRO laboratories
in St Lucia will be carried out in the high security laboratories
and "glass houses" of the NSP at Long Pocket.
Originally, the intention was to link the two institutions with a
roadway across the St Lucia Golf Course to The Esplanade, to
facilitate the "close collaboration" and
connection between the two institutions. There was even talk of a
river link, or riverside "bike track" where motorised
trolleys could zip between the sites with the expected heavy
traffic. We retain concerns that transferring potentially high
risk organisms and viruses through the circuitous residential
street system of St Lucia, of Ironsides, of Indooroopilly and of
Long Pocket, past numerous schools and already congested
neighbourhoods is irresponsible, or at the very least
ill-advised. Something seems very wrong with the strategic
planning to even propose such a solution.
i) We are advised by the proponents of the Joint Building Project
that they propose to commence construction in December, 1999.
With the Coordinating Committee of the Natural Sciences Precinct
at Long Pocket there was at least an attempt at "community
consultation" with wide advertising of the scheme and the
seeking of public feedback. The community has been less than
satisfied with this supposed consultation process and have
concluded that it is in fact a sham, to merely validate their
intention of proceeding with the proposal, and perhaps to
cynically and patronisingly "educate the public" in the
process. However, to our knowledge, there has been no such
"community consultation" on the Joint Building Project
of the UQ / CSIRO, proposed for the University of Queensland St
Lucia Campus.
In conclusion, we very much appreciate the opportunity of being
able to review the plans and to make submissions upon the
development proposals within our neighbourhoods. However, we
suggest that such a community consultation ought to be built in
to the process "as of right". We urge that in the
development of the Local Area Plan proposal for Toowong /
Indooroopilly, great consideration be given to the interface
between the University of Queensland campus, and the surrounding
suburb. Where there is provision within the City of Brisbane Plan
for advertising and community objection to building proposals, we
would like provision for such input also into the University of
Queensland Masterplan, and a more thorough consideration of
developments such as this, that affect the whole community.
We appreciate that the plans are well advanced, but do hope that
the above serious concerns are able to be effectively addressed,
so that both the project proponents and the public are able to
get the most appropriate facility for biotechnology research
consistent with best town planning practice, and the health and
safety of the community and the surrounding environment.
Yours sincerely
St Lucia Residents' Association
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
E-mail: activist@rag.org.au
as a community service.