Page 5299 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Yesterday, I was asked by Ms Hunter whether the government has formal criteria that it uses to determine whether a tree poses a trip hazard and how any trip hazard is weighed against the other benefits that may be provided by the tree. I can advise Ms Hunter, through you, Mr Speaker, that, for capital works precinct upgrade projects such as the Ainslie shops upgrade, the process used to determine whether a tree poses a level of risk that justifies removal is undertaken on a case-by-case basis, applying a risk-benefit and cost analysis.
The risk assessment considers the likelihood of an incident occurring and the possible injury or damage that may result. In the example of the Ainslie shops, the risk of injury was considered to be high, as the tree was located on pavement in a high-pedestrian traffic area. With the planned relocation of the pharmacy, the volume of pedestrian traffic, particularly of older and disabled people, was likely to increase, thereby further raising the risk of injury.
The cost analysis weighs up the cost of managing the problem via maintenance work such as regular uplift and re-laying of paving and the cutting back of roots against the cost of removal and replanting with a less root-invasive species with appropriate root barrier treatments.
Gungahlin Drive extension—bridge collapse
MR CORBELL: Yesterday in question time, I was asked by Mr Coe about a number of matters relating to the collapse of the bridge on the Barton Highway on 14 August. He asked, regarding the government’s response: what reports and advice are outstanding regarding the cause of the collapse, when will reconstruction take place and what legal advice had been sought, from whom had it been sought and what is the cost of this advice to taxpayers? I can advise Mr Coe that the WorkSafe ACT report is still to be finalised. The reconstruction of the bridge has recommenced and work will be completed by the end of March 2011. No legal advice has been sought. It was not considered necessary at this stage, pending the completion of the review by WorkSafe ACT.
In relation to the same bridge, Mr Hanson yesterday asked me: were the plans for the span of stage 2 over the Barton Highway the same as the span of stage 1 which was constructed a few years ago and what documents from stage 1 were given to contractors on stage 2? The answer to the first of his questions is yes; the plans for the span of stage 2 over the Barton Highway were the same as those for the span of stage 1. In relation to his second question, yes, a copy of the as-constructed drawings from stage 1 was provided to the contractors on stage 2.
Housing—OwnPlace
MS GALLAGHER: I apologise around OwnPlace. I have not been able to get the comprehensive answer I was seeking during that time, so I will provide it out of session to Ms Hunter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video