Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4654 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The arguments in the backgrounder, about the churn factor, have been used to minimise the effects on the waiting list of demolishing Currong. My motion, by calling for a hold at least until 212 additional properties are available, rejects this claim. While there may be churn, it still represents a place, a home for a time. Reducing the stock by 212 will reduce the number of people who can even have access to a high-churn residence. Whilst some people with special needs often are not able to live in a large multi-unit property, nor cope with high-density environments, there are a range of other people who could be housed there.

The third part of my motion asks the government to specifically consider particular reports. This of course is not an exclusive list, but I have identified those reports in particular because they are the reports where the government was asking what can be done to keep Currong. A more recent report, in June 2001, asked, "What are the options for a five-year life extension for Currong?"Not surprisingly, that was an expensive option and I haven't included it in this list because the question asked of the consultants is different; it is the wrong question for this purpose.

While my motion asks for a temporary hold, it is in the context of reconsidering the decision. The government's backgrounder on Currong argues that the cost of refurbishing would be between $18 and $20 million and that this is too high a cost. The reports all acknowledge the amount of work needed as listed in the backgrounder, but their conclusion is that overall the properties are structurally sound.

Around 1999 Totalcare undertook major rehabilitation of the below-ground sewer and stormwater drainage systems for a contract value of $274,000, which is expected "to ensure flow capacity is capable of being maintained for a minimum of 80 to 100 years".

Reports on refurbishment, redevelopment options and costs include the September 1998 Currong Flats Braddon phase 1 report prepared by Collins Caddaye and Humphries, architects; along with John Rainieri and Associates, consulting engineers; Northrop Engineers; J Easthope and Associates; and Wilde and Woollard. This report, in 1998 dollars of course, estimates that the first phase of work over five years to upgrade all the flats in the complex would cost $7.1 million.

In what appears to be October 1998, Collins Caddaye and Humphries, architects, prepared a feasibility study on the conversion of block C to APUs. In February 1999 Cox Humphries Moss were engaged to prepare the Supplementary report-conversion of Currong flats to older person's units. This report prepared options from a basic upgrade to a full, up-to-current standards refurbishment. And of course this work also included the fire safety and lift work and replacement of the existing lightweight façade with a new glazed system.

The supplementary report compared the costs of the refurb options with the equivalent demolition and rebuild project. The estimated costs were:

for the deluxe model, including four by two-bedroom units and 68 by one-bedroom units, refurbish, $5.516 million; demolish, $9.715 million;

for the upgrade to current APUs, 74 by one-bed units, refurb $5.624 million; demolish, $9.855 million;

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .