IS RISKING BOTH PEOPLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE AN ETHICAL OPTION?

Two recently released comprehensive reports provide strong evidence that the relocation proposal is seriously flawed.

The reports are:

(i) The North and South Esk Rivers Flood Modelling and Mapping Updates - Volume 1: Technical Report and Volume 2: Flood Mapping – by BMT Consultants, commissioned by the City of Launceston and released in January 2019.

(ii) An Evaluative Review (ER) of the UTas Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment – commissioned by the Northern Tasmanian Network Partners & Associates, authored by Mr Chris Penna, and released in March 2019.

·  The BMT Reports are based on the latest flood (2016), sea level rise and climate change data. The reports warn that Launceston’s much trumpeted reconstructed flood levees are no longer capable of protecting Invermay and the City from their designed 0.5% (1:200 year) flood event which would well overtop the levees and subject Invermay to flood waters 2m to 5m deep at Hazard Class 5 level: ie Unsafe for vehicles and people. All buildings vulnerable to structural damage. Some less robust buildings subject to failure.

· Civic duty should compel the City of Launceston (CoL) to provide Invermay/City residents and businesses with the full implications of the BMT Reports.

· The CoL and UTas have both disregarded a range of relevant, expert environmental reports that highlight the inadvisability and dangers of Inveresk development projects that will house large numbers of people. 

·   Key aspects of these reports and others of relevance, are described in the Evaluative Review, and are available from the website below.

·  The key messages in these reports were conveniently not included in the original 2016 UTas marketing document upon which funding commitments of $200m were made by Federal and State governments and upon which the CoL gifted Inveresk and Willis St land parcels to UTas without public consultation.

·   The Evaluative Review finds that no substantial, evidenced, environmental, economic or social cases have been publicly made by UTas or the CoL to validate the Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment.

· There is no information/data for a comparative analysis of Inveresk vs Newnham redevelopment to support the contention that the existing Newnham campus is unviable, outdated and losing students.

· The promised intents of UTas to both maintain and develop its existing Launceston based tertiary education offerings and to create and promote a range of 2-year industry related associate degree course are strongly supported by the Evaluative Review.

· UTas has acknowledged that the original proposal cost has increased markedly and the projected number of additional students has decreased significantly. Thus the Government funding and the CoL land gifts were provided under quite inaccurate assumptions. 

·  As the project sought more than $100m of Federal money, it should have been subject to much earlier stages of assessment by Infrastructure Australia (IA) - this did not occur despite awareness of this need.

·  The final Business Case was only submitted to IA on 31 Jan 2019. – after a prolonged, difficult process that was forced to `retrospectively create the logic’ for the UTas campus move to Inveresk.

·  The Evaluative Review shows that a lack of due process and due diligence has been a consistent, notable part of the entire project since its inception.

· The Launceston Community has not been well informed about this important public issue.

·   It has also been intimidated into accepting the UTas relocation proposal, or face the threat from UTas that it would withdraw or reduce its local University presence.

·  It also appears that IA, a so-called, independent body, is under political pressure to approve the `Northern Transformation Program’, as funding has already been handed over to the State.

·  The reconstructed levees have never been fully signed-off after professional inspection. Both the concrete levees and the complete system are still awaiting such formal approval as required.

·  The risk of seismic action has not been considered.

·   Parking and traffic congestion issues have not been adequately addressed.

The Evaluative Review, the BMT reports, and a range of other relevant reports/communications are available at: https://northerntasmaniannetworkpartners.blogspot.com/

For further information: Northern Network Partners & Associates, authored by Mr Chris Penna, P.O. Box 513, Launceston Tasmania 7250