Chapter 3 Issues and Conclusions
Amendment to the Statement of Evidence
3.1
At the commencement of the hearing Defence proposed the following
amendment to paragraph 51 of its main submission:
The development of the passive augmentation also requires the
relocation of the existing Leichhardt Gate. The proposed location for the new
gate is within the boundaries of RAAF Base Amberley. However the proposed
southern access road requires the purchase of a small portion of land in order
to maintain safe road design for the intersection of Behms Road and Old
Toowoomba Road.[1]
Background
3.2
This current project is the third stage in the redevelopment of RAAF
Base Amberley. Stage 1 was the subject of a Committee report to Parliament in
1998 that addressed the requirement for a general upgrade of the facilities
that needed to be undertaken in order to enhance operational, training,
aircraft maintenance, logistics support and aircraft maintenance facilities,
improvements and upgrading of engineering services, and the demolition of
redundant facilities.[2]
3.3
Stage 2 was the subject of Committee inquiry in 2005 that focussed
primarily on the development of facilities associated with the introduction of
new Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft, and other related
infrastructure works as well as considering works that built on the earlier Stage
1 proposal.[3]
Project Overview
3.4
In its introductory statement to the Committee at the public hearing,
Defence stated that the department’s long term planning provides for:
…the growth of RAAF Base Amberley through the introduction of
a number of aircraft capabilities such as the C17 heavy lift aircraft and the
recently announced FA-18 Super Hornet. In addition to air capabilities, RAAF
Base Amberley will accommodate army units such as the 9th Force
Support Battalion, whose facilities have been developed under the RAAF Base
Amberley Redevelopment Stage 2 project.[4]
3.5
According to Defence, the current project is required for the following
reasons:
n to provide new and
refurbished facilities;
n to establish a more
logical and coherent distribution of land use;
n to overcome
functional and OH&S deficiencies; and,
n to allow for
clearance of future flight line real estate to support future capabilities.[5]
Trainee Accommodation
3.6
The Committee, in noting that the existing trainee accommodation is sited
in proximity to the flight line and affected by high levels of aircraft noise, was
interested in why this accommodation, now to be demolished, was located on this
site, and when it was initially built.[6]
3.7
Defence informed the Committee that the current trainee living in
accommodation was built in the early 1960s when RAAF Base Amberley was smaller
with reduced operational activity, and the types of aircraft operating from the
base different to those of today. Based on the operating environment of
Amberley at that time the siting of trainee accommodation was probably the
correct choice.
3.8
Defence went on to say that those buildings, now over 30 years old - and
in some instances over 40 years old – were now unviable, and the redevelopment proposed
under Stage 3 afforded the opportunity to replace facilities that had passed
their economic life and were too costly to retain, and to relocate replacement
buildings to more appropriate areas of the base.[7]
3.9
The Project Director for the redevelopment of Amberley informed the
Committee that trainee accommodation would be relocated to the living and
domestic precinct of the base consistent with the long-term planning
arrangements for Amberley.[8]
3.10
Subsequent to the hearing, Defence informed the Committee that RAAF Base
Amberley does not currently have any Level 3 living-in accommodation, and that
this will be provided under the current project arrangements. A total of 160
Level 3 accommodation rooms will be built distributed across five accommodation
blocks of 32 rooms each to a maximum of 4,909 square metres.[9]
Fuel Storage Facilities
3.11
The Committee noted that under the scope of works for Stage 3 of Amberley
redevelopment, the demolition of the existing fuel store was proposed. Defence
was asked to provide an overview of the reason the facility is to be demolished,
and whether the site would need to be remediated.[10]
3.12
Defence explained that there were two fuel farms on the base. Fuel Farm
1, the facility to be removed, was constructed over 40 years ago to
specifications exigent at the time but which would not comply with current
standards for this type of facility. While Fuel Farm 1 was located on a site
which at the time was appropriate, with the increase in operational activity at
Amberley the siting of the facility is now unsuitable for fuel storage. As
result of the combination of a sub-standard storage depot in an inappropriate
location, the facility was decommissioned in 2006.[11]
3.13
Fuel Farm 2 is of more recent construction and is located some distance
from the flight line and compliant with current standards. This facility will
be retained and reused, and its capacity supplemented with additional fuel
storage that will be built adjacent to it.[12]
3.14
Defence informed the Committee that following the demolition and removal
of Fuel Farm 1, the site would be cleared of soil contamination. This will
entail the excavation of the soil surrounding the site to allow the natural
bacteria to break down hydrocarbon contamination. Under the description of
‘land farming’ this permits the treatment of contaminated soil on site.[13]
Treatment of the soil through bacteria has the advantage of allowing the base
environment management system to track and monitor any contaminated soil that
may need to be removed and relocated elsewhere on base.[14]
Recommendation 1 |
|
The Committee recommends that in the event that there is
contamination found to be present on the site of Fuel Farm 1, Defence take
all appropriate action to quarantine the site or proceed with
decontamination, putting into place appropriate safeguards for such works,
and advise the Committee of the action taken.
|
3.15
However, Defence acknowledged that it had not yet made an assessment of
the level of soil contamination surrounding Fuel Farm 1, but proposes to undertake
a stage 2 contamination study with test pits and bores to ascertain the extent
of any hydrocarbon contamination, followed by appropriate action depending on
the levels of contamination found. Should the extent of contamination be
beyond acceptable levels, soil will be removed from the site to a registered
landfill. Defence further informed the Committee that all decontamination and
remediation work will be supervised by licensed professionals to ensure that it
complies with all Commonwealth and state regulatory practices for the removal
of contaminated soil.[15]
3.16
In response to the Committee’s query as to whether the removal and
disposal of soil would be the subject of audit, Defence confirmed that an audit
process would be undertaken by professional personnel, independent of the
contractor doing the work to ensure compliance with both Commonwealth and state
regulations.[16]
Recommendation 2 |
|
The Committee recommends that Defence provide details of the
level of hydrocarbon contamination found on the site of Fuel Farm 1 following
its demolition, and that it furnish a report on how contamination was ultimately
processed, and whether any contaminated soil was removed from the site,
including details of additional costs incurred associated with disposal.
|
Master Planning and Future Developments
3.17
At paragraph 80 of the Defence Submission, the department states that
each of the project elements will be constructed on sites consistent with RAAF Base
Amberley Zone and Precinct Plan. The Submission goes on to state that:
Relocating non-essential services, such the Maintenance
Equipment and Operations Maintenance Section, living-in accommodation, dental
services and Headquarters Combat Support Group will clear valuable flight-line
space for future development in accordance with the RAAF Base Amberley Zone and
Precinct Plan.
3.18
The Committee sought assurances from Defence that the master planning
phase associated with delivery of the project had been sufficiently rigorous to
provide some assurance of a reasonable project life against a background of the
considerable outlay of Commonwealth money.[17]
3.19
In responding, the department stated that as part of the processes
associated with developing the project, there had been a rigorous zone planning
process undertaken over a period of 18 months to ensure that the proposed works
will address the long term requirements for Amberley. Apart from the base information
systems centre and base command post hub which for cost reasons will remain at
its present location, all other elements of the project will be located to
areas of the base consistent with the master plan. Defence expressed its
confidence that issues associated with life-span of new and refurbished buildings
and long-term planning for the future use of RAAF Base Amberley have been
considered.[18]
Base Infrastructure
Sewerage
3.20
The Committee questioned whether there would be an impact on base
infrastructure following the completion of the proposed development, noting
particularly the possible impact on the local sewerage infrastructure and its
capacity to cope with any additional discharge.[19]
3.21
Defence recalled that as part of the previous development project of
RAAF Base Amberley, considered by the Committee in 2005,[20]
there was:
…an element of funding put aside to provide some interim
remediation of our on-base sewerage farm until the long term plans of the surrounding
community were known with regard to supplementing their waste water and
sewerage treatment plant. We have done a cost-benefit analysis of several
options and we have determined that in the long term it is more cost effective
for both the Commonwealth and the surrounding community for us to join with the
sewer authorities and eventually close the sewerage treatment plant on base and
connect our sewerage system to the new Ipswich Water.[21]
3.22
Ipswich Water in evidence to the inquiry, supported the inclusion of RAAF
Base Amberley in a widely-based water and sewerage infrastructure development
proposed by the Ipswich City Council for the area. While this was a long-term
strategy Ipswich Water was enthusiastic in the proposed sewerage line being
developed that would include Amberley, as well as servicing the whole western
corridor.[22]
3.23
When the new infrastructure would become operable was not addressed,
although Ipswich Water acknowledged that the federal government has ‘earmarked
$400 million’ for the scheme.[23]
Water
3.24
The Committee acknowledged the extent of rainwater capture and reuse from
new buildings, but was interested in the extent to which the base would still
be reliant on the local water infrastructure.
3.25
Defence confirmed that it would still need to draw water from Ipswich
Water, but at the same time it was conscious of the need for compliance with
ecological sustainable development initiatives to reduce consumption which
would include:[24]
n all tap ware and
fittings compliant with the Water Efficiency Labelling Standards (WELS) scheme
to provide a minimum of a 3 Star water conservation rating;
n pressure limiting
valves to limit pressure at all appliances;
n provision for
separate internal and external reticulation of cold water to all toilets and
urinal flushing for future connection to non-potable water supply
infrastructure;
n sub-metering of all
major water supplies to each new building; as well as
n rainwater harvesting
from all roof areas complete with storage tanks and pressure pumping to supply
localised landscaping, wash down areas and toilet flushing.[25]
3.26
Defence informed the Committee that it currently draws 420 – 430
megalitres of potable water from Ipswich Water. In responding to the
Committee’s question as to whether this consumption could be reduced, Defence
suggested that as a result of water saving initiatives consistent with the measures
above, it was expecting to reduce water consumption by around 10 per cent and
by a further 10 per cent from the collection of surface water run-off. In
total, this represented a reduction of around 8 – 12 percent of total water
consumption.[26]
3.27
In evidence, Ipswich Water informed the Committee that the proposed
water and sewerage infrastructure project would upgrade the water supply to
RAAF Base Amberley through the development of a pipeline west of Ipswich as part of the Queensland Government’s purified, recycled water scheme. Once that
project was commenced, RAAF Base Amberley could be connected, which according
to the witness would provide:
A very unique opportunity to get a master-planned scheme to
service this whole district.[27]
3.28
Ipswich Water also informed the Committee that it had recently expended
$1 million to improve the water supply to RAAF Base Amberley, although it did
state in the context of water saving initiatives that:
… there is a capacity in our system to supply their proposed
demands based on current consumption rates, so any saving would obviously be of
benefit and probably prolong duplication works for us.[28]
Recommendation 3 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that Defence provide details of
water consumption rates at RAAF Base Amberley following completion of the
current works, and the savings in water consumption that have been achieved. |
Energy
3.29
The Committee sought comment from Defence relating to the delivery of
power to RAAF Base Amberley; particularly whether the proposed redevelopment would
have an impact on the existing power supply to the base, whether there was a
need to upgrade the base substation, and whether Defence could assure the
committee that the new buildings were energy efficient.[29]
3.30
Defence informed the Committee that the existing ‘Energex’ substation
commissioned as part of the Stage 2 redevelopment has a capacity of 33kVh that
in addition to access to the main grid, will supply the base with sufficient
energy resources to meet the demand of the new facilities.[30]
3.31
Defence also stated that the adequacy of available power is achievable
without additional upgrades because the proposed Stage 3 redevelopment will
entail the replacement of existing facilities with minimal growth in the numbers
of personnel that might otherwise increase the demand for energy.[31]
3.32
In terms of the energy efficiency of the new facilities Defence referred
to its Statement of Evidence that stated:
Each new building will be modelled to determine the predicted
energy consumption and design targets will be determined for each building,
depending on the building classification. Energy management is a key aspect in
the design of the new facilities and the initiatives which will be included
are:
n orientating the
buildings to minimise east and west solar gain;
n installing a Building
Management System in each building, linked to the site wide Regional Utilities
Management System where available;
n in-building load
control devices such as motion sensors where practical;
n natural ventilation
and mixed mode systems wherever possible;
n installation of
ceiling fans in selected areas to enhance comfort without the use of air
conditioning;
n separate digital
energy metering for tenanted areas, central services and computer (data)
centres;
n energy efficient
lighting (T5 fluorescent light fittings in office areas) supplemented by energy
efficiency techniques such as occupancy sensing and after-hours automatic
shut-off controls; and
n energy efficient
appliances.[32]
Environmental Issues
3.33
Defence stated in its submission to the inquiry that an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) had been prepared during the development of the project
to determine the extent and nature of any environmental issues relating
specifically to the project.[33] The Committee was
interested in when the EIA had been completed and whether it had been validated
by the Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR).[34]
3.34
Defence confirmed that the DEWR had seen the final draft of the EIA and
that there had been correspondence between the department and Defence prior to
its finalisation in the week before the Committee’s inquiry.[35]
3.35
Continuing the environmental theme, the Committee sought details from
Defence on the removal of a number of trees to make way for the proposed works.[36]
3.36
In responding Defence stated that approximately 40 trees would need to
be removed to enable the works to proceed, although the loss of these would not
impact on the base flora. According to Defence, Stage 2 of the redevelopment of
Amberley expended approximately $1 million on revegetation of the site following
completion of the works, as well as strengthening the Amberley koala corridor.[37]
3.37
The Committee was subsequently informed that as part of the Stage 2
redevelopment a total of 54,000 plantings were provided including grasses,
shrubs and trees, with works scheduled for completion by December 2007.[38]
Heritage Buildings
3.38
In regard to the issue of heritage buildings in the context of buildings
to be demolished, Defence confirmed that those buildings with a heritage
interest would be retained. The most significant of these was the officer’s
mess that had been identified as suitable for adaptive reuse. Another of the heritage
assets to be retained were the Bellman hangers one of which had recently been
converted internally to allow it to be used for warehousing.[39]
3.39
In its submission to the inquiry Defence stated that it had commissioned
a heritage assessment during the initial planning phases associated with the
current proposal, and although concluding that a referral under the Environmental
Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was not required,[40]
the department had corresponded with the Department of Environment and Water
Resources, notifying it of the proposed works at Amberley.
3.40
Subsequent to the inquiry Defence provided a copy of a letter from DEWR which
in the context of recording heritage buildings, the department observed:
… while the demolition of two heritage listed buildings is
unlikely to diminish the heritage values of the site overall, the demolition of
small numbers of heritage listed buildings over successive stages of
redevelopment has the potential to have a significant cumulative impact.
Planning for future redevelopment should take this into account.[41]
Land Acquisition
3.41
Defence notes in its Submission to the inquiry that:
The relocation of the Amberley State Primary School is
required to implement the Passive Defence Augmentation. Defence plans to
acquire the land and existing buildings following the relocation of the
school. The land has been zoned future development in the RAAF Base Amberley
Zone and Precinct Plan. The acquisition of the land is not part of this
proposal.[42]
3.42
To compensate the local community for the loss of the school, the
federal government announced that it would be providing funding up to $26.8
million as a contribution towards a replacement school for the Amberley
community. The new school will provide places for 330 students and out of
school care for 60 students. Its location will be the subject of advice to the
Australian Government from the Queensland Government.[43]
3.43
In amending its Statement of Evidence to the inquiry Defence indicated
that it proposed to purchase additional land at the intersection of Old
Toowoomba road and Behms Road in order to permit road works to cater for
increased traffic flows.[44]
3.44
Defence subsequently informed the Committee that while the negotiations
for the acquisition of the land have not been completed, an estimate based on
the cost of acquiring the land (1.66 hectares) and the costs associated with
the reconfiguration of the intersection had been included in the estimated cost
of the proposed works.[45]
Recommendation 4 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that Defence provide the final cost
to the Commonwealth for the acquisition of land that will enable the
reconfiguration of the intersection of the Old Toowoomba Road and Behms Road
when the purchase is finalised. |
Community Impact
3.45
The impact of the proposed developments at RAAF Base Amberley was
touched on in its reference in the Statement of Evidence to the relocation of
the Amberley State Primary School. However it was apparent to the Committee
that there were a number of issues of concern to the local community that may
not have been adequately addressed.
3.46
The Committee received informal representations from the community of
Willowbank, Amberley and surrounding areas relating to:
n the community
kindergarten;
n the Amberley toy
library;
n the Amberley play
group; and
n the Amberley Post
Office.
3.47
While the interest group associated with these facilities was not
represented at the inquiry, it was apparent from the concerns expressed that
these facilities, currently on Commonwealth land, would be lost to the local
community when the land was resumed under the current project. Of particular
concern was when some of the facilities were first established – for example
the kindergarten was established in 1953 - and was available to both the local
community as well as families located on base. According to the community
interest group, closure of the kindergarten would be detrimental to the
children of local families.
3.48
The Committee was informed by Defence, again informally, that ongoing
community discussions were underway that were aimed at briefing the local
community on the project. This forum would continue in order to assure the
local community that its interests were being considered. According to Defence
the matter of community access to the Post Office had been resolved and that
once the planning for the new school was begun, other facilities, including the
kindergarten may well be incorporated. However, a decision along these lines
was one to be taken by the Queensland Department of Education Training and the
Arts.
Project Cost
3.49
The estimated out-turn cost of this project is $331.5 million (excluding
GST). This cost estimate includes the construction costs, management and
design fees, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and an escalation
allowance.
Recommendation 5 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the proposed RAAF Base
Amberley Redevelopment Stage 3 proceed at an estimated cost of $331.5
million. |
Hon Judi Moylan MP
Chair
13 September 2007