Long Pocket Concerned Residents Group
October 9, 1999.
Officer-In-Charge
Public Works Committee
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Sir/Mme,
We wish to
make this submission regarding the CSIRO/University of Queensland
(UQ) Joint Building Project, St Lucia, Qld. This project is
referred to locally as the proposed Institute for
Molecular Biosciences (IMB). Its satellite
laboratory, the Natural Sciences Precinct (NSP) is proposed for
the neighbouring suburb of Indooroopilly. Members of our group
intend to accept your invitation to attend the meeting at UQ on
27 October 1999, to discuss these matters further.
We formed our
committee at a public meeting in April this year, because
citizens were concerned about and opposed to the proposed
inappropriate placement of these large commercial GMO
laboratories within our residential areas, in Brisbane. We have
since then become aware of the Biosafety issues involved, as well
as other concerns about excessive traffic volumes, overcrowding
of residential areas, the risks to the environment of this type
of research, as well as other concerns.
… We would dispute that $50
million of taxpayers¹ money should be spent on the IMB.
… It has now been 26
years since Boyer and Cohen managed to recombine toad
and bacterial DNA.
… It has been 18 years
since the CSIRO originally began lobbying successive Federal and
State and governments for funding, on the basis that
"Australia is missing out on the Biotechnology dollar".
How long must we wait before the home-grown Biotechnology
dollar is to arrive in Australia? Another 18 years?
… We have seen little evidence
that Biotechnology in Australia has delivered on its wild
promises to " save babies" and to "feed
the world".
… We are doubtful that the
Biotechnology and the IMB will be "the Goose that
laid the golden egg". The better analogy is
that of the Turkey, who, and having eaten three golden eggs, is
now old, terminally ill and constipated, but still demands a $50
million funeral.
… Biotechnology in Australia is
not "cutting edge". It is in fact an old science,
which is now out-of-step with community demands
and expectations. Stocks in Biotechnology companies have
been plummeting around the world for the last 12 months, as the
community has become aware of and rejected genetically modified
agricultural products, throughout the world.
… Australia has over 190
Biotechnology companies. A recent conference in Germany
determined these were the worst performing
Biotechnology companies in the world, with an average
annual profit of less than 1%. Deutsche Bank in Germany has been
advising its clients throughout the world to divest themselves of
Biotechnology investments, because of the poor
long-term prospects for the future, and lack of
acceptance by the general community.
… If Biotechnology in Australia
is truly viable in the open commercial market, then why does the
CSIRO need to build laboratories for the use of these well-funded
multinational chemical companies ? Surely these
companies can afford to build their own laboratories, if the
prospects of profitability are truly there.
… We believe that spending
$50 million on the IMB is a mistake, as this form of
scientific research has had its day. The scientists
involved have misread the social and political community in which
they live.
… They need to read the
newspapers, and listen to the people in the community they live
with. They would hear that the public do not want
genetically modified agricultural products, and they do not want
laboratories with high-risk to community in their residential
areas.
1. LOCATION
… The IBM and NSP are being
built in heavily populated areas of St.Lucia and Indooroopilly.
The IMB will be seven stories high and will create privacy
problems for the low rise detached housing on Carmody Rd and Dell
Rd and many other areas in St.Lucia
… The IMB is to be built in the
circumferential green buffer zone around UQ, which should remain
as open space. On the UQ campus, there are many suitable
sites for such a large building e.g. sports fields and large
undeveloped car parking areas, old rundown buildings that could
be redeveloped.
… Moving the IMB to other open
space in the UQ would allow for co-location of IMB and NSP on the
one site, with a reasonable green buffer zone surrounding.
… Best practice, however should
involve building the IMB and NSP together on the same greenfield
sites, as are available at Pinjarra Hills (UQ) and Samford
(CSIRO). These campuses already contain significant scientific
infrastructure, have better roads, and plenty of room to expand.
2. SIZE
… The Draft City Plan requires
that the IMB be consistent in size, form and bulk with
neighbouring residential housing. This would limit the IMB
to 3 story detached laboratories, with areas of open space
between. The building as planned is far too large, and is
even inconsistent with the size and bulk of all other buildings
within the UQ campus.
… Shadows cast by the building
at certain times of the year and at certain times of the day will
inconvenience local residents. We understand that shadow
drawings have not been executed.
… Reflected traffic noise from
front wall of the IMB will create problems for residents across
the road.
3.
BUILDING SAFETY
… Planning of the IMB has been
completed and funding has been arranged, before Environmental
Impact Studies, Assessment of Impact studies, Traffic Studies and
Risk Management Reports have been completed and publicised.
… Such glaring omissions of
normal building practices bring into question the integrity of
the builders of the IMB and the NSP.
… We believe the IMB (and the
NSP) should be subject to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA),
and should not be fast-tracked to avoid complying with his Act,
because it is being built on University land.
… Considering the size of the
IMB, and its obvious impact on surrounding areas, it would seem
tremendously important that its plans are consistent with
building codes for the rest of the State and the rest of
Brisbane. To ignore these building codes would be extremely
irresponsible of UQ and CSIRO.
… The builders of the IMB have
not taken up the opportunity to obtain free consultation with the
Brisbane City Council's Assessment of Planning Objectives team,
who could have advised on a more environmentally friendly
approach to building. Such an assessment has been sought
with respect planning of the NSP, by the same builders of the
IMB.
4.
TRAFFIC
… No traffic studies have been
performed, although construction is about to commence. No
building of this size would be allowed to be built under the
Draft City Plan or Integrated Planning Act 1997(IPA) without
extensive traffic studies being performed by independent
consultants.
… The UQ Campus has
approximately 30,000 students visiting each day, and surely
traffic volumes will be affected by the 750 staff to be employed
at the IMB.
… Road access to the IMB is
inadequate, and consists of the single narrow residential road,
Carmody Rd. Streets in this area are already heavily
congested, and the IMB will worsen this problem, with increased
staff vehicles and large vehicle deliveries via Carmody Rd.
5.
PARKING
… The IMB has parking for only
240 of its 750 occupants. This small number of car parks
provided are reportedly for exclusive use of CSIRO workers, as UQ
does not provide any dedicated parking for its staff.
… We believe it is irresponsible
for UQ to continue to provide inadequate parking. This forces the
staff and students to park in the surrounding residential areas.
… Some of the funding available
for IMB should be set aside for underground car parks,
as is normal practice when such large buildings are constructed
in Brisbane.
… As residents, we are strongly
against the placement of Biohazard Physical Containment (PC)
laboratories (in the case of IMB PC-3 laboratories, involving
live mice and rats in GMO experiments) within our residential
suburbs.
… We have had problems with the
CSIRO Department of Tropical Agriculture at Indooroopilly, who secretly
exterminated all the Possums in eastern Indooroopilly
last year, after they got in and ate from a petrie dish of GMO¹s
in their Indooroopilly laboratory. The public were not
informed. Dr Elisabeth Heij attempted to cover-up this issue
again in the media, in September 1999. We currently have a
formal complaint with GMAC over this incident, and are calling
for community participation in all Institutional Biosafety
Committees (IBC¹s).
… We are alarmed, too, that the
sister building, the NSP will have PC-3 and PC-4
(high-risk to the community) laboratories, when it is
to be built in 2000. Like the IMB, the NSP is to be built
directly in a residential suburban area at Indooroopilly. The
community will not accept that this is safe, necessary or
desirable. We have confirmed the planning of PC-3 and PC-4
laboratories at the NSP by a recent search under The
Freedom of Information Act, after we were denied
access to virtually all planning documents by Mr Frank van
Schagen, CEO of the NSP.
… We believe the public has the
right to know about this type of research being
conducted in physical containment laboratories. We are
concerned that this information concerning high-risk laboratories
has been withheld from the community, by the builders of the IMB
and NSP.
… Genetic manipulated plant and
animal material will be routinely transported from IMB to NSP
through our suburban streets. This is
not
satisfactory regardless of safety protocols, and is another
strong argument for co- location of IMB and NSP on the same
greenfield site.
… As residents of the local
area, we believe we have been treated disrespectfully by UQ and
CSIRO, by a complete lack of public consultation over
the IMB.
… The IMB project was announced
in the press around mid-1999, as a fait accompli, without any
prior warning to the community or its representatives.
… Community consultation only
commenced in September 1999, when a local resident, Mr John
Massey, repeatedly insisted on a meeting with UQ staff to discuss
the IMB. Since then, a couple of meetings have been held.
The level of discussion at these meetings has been such that they
have seemed like undergraduate lectures on the benefits of GMO
research.
… Planning of the IMB is at such
an advanced stage, that it is hard for the community to envisage
that its opinions regarding the IMB could have any effect
whatsoever on its implementation.
… We can only assume that this
is what the UQ and CSIRO have intended all along i.e. they have no
concept of their role as members of the community,
they are indifferent to the self-image they create in the
community, and their level of environmental citizenship is
extremely poor.
… The UQ and CSIRO have
attempted to fast-track the building of IMB,
by withholding important information about the size, the
location, and the nature of its research and associated risks,
from the community. It is only now, as the residents of
St.Lucia and Indooroopilly are becoming aware of the IMB, the
true public consultation can start to take place.
… We are told that construction
is to commence in December. More time is required to allow more
public debate and discussion about IMB and its location, before
building should be allowed to commence.
1. We request a three-year
moratorium on the commencement of building of the IMB,
to allow time for full public discussion and debate. This
should apply to all major buildings on UQ campus.
2. All
buildings on UQ land and CSIRO land should automatically and
compulsorily be legally subject to the Draft City
Plan1999, and the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
There should be no exemptions, particularly for buildings
of these massive dimensions.
4. Best practice
should involve the placement of IMB in a greenfield site, as
exists at Pinjarra Hills and Samford, and co-location
with its satellite laboratory, the NSP on the same site.
5. If the IMB
is to be built at the UQ campus, it should be moved
away from residential areas on Carmody Rd, and placed
on the north and eastern aspects of the campus, where there are
acres of vacant land.
6. The
circumferential green buffer zone around the
UQ should be preserved, and the IMB should not be allowed to
encroach upon this.
7. Parking
should be provided for staff and students attending
the IMB. Overflow parking from UQ should not be allowed to
congest and to lower the amenity of surrounding residential
streets.
8. Advance
planning and funding of the IMB should not be allowed to proceed
without completion and publicising of Environmental
Impact Studies, Assessment of Impact Studies, Traffic Studies and
Risk Management Reports.
9. The height
of buildings in the IMB should be restricted to three stories, to
be consistent with detached residential housing across the road.
10. CSIRO and
UQ staff must henceforth immediately inform the community if our
local possums or fruit bats are contaminated with GMO¹s from the
laboratories, before they are trapped and killed.
11. Members
of the community should be appointed to Institutional
Biosafety Committees of the IMB and NSP, to improve
their accountability, and to improve communication between the
Biosciences and the community.
12. Traffic
studies need to be performed and publicised before the
IMB is built. If these studies were to show that local
district access roads were already carrying in excess of their
allowed 10,000 vehicles per day, then this would be further
argument for not building the IMB at St.Lucia, but rather moving
it to Pinjarra Hills, on the outskirts of Brisbane. We
presume this is why traffic studies have not so far been
performed.
CONCLUSION
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
E-mail: activist@rag.org.au
as a community service.