An advocacy group has accused the ANU of not completing its due diligence when it came to considering other options for the remediation of the historic buildings that house four community childcare centres. Photo: Parent Community of UPCCC.
ANU community childcare advocates have demanded their centres’ licences be extended by a minimum of six months, accusing the university of not doing its due diligence.
It comes after an October 2023 report from GML Heritage found remediation works needed for the buildings occupied by UPCCC, Heritage Childcare Centre, Cubby House on Campus and Acton Early Childhood Centre would effectively need to be demolished in order for the necessary repair works to occur.
The old buildings were extensively damaged in the 2020 hailstorm, and any repairs would trigger requirements to bring the buildings up to accessibility and childcare standards.
The report suggested less extensive repairs and changes could be achieved if the buildings were used for a purpose other than childcare centres, such as offices.
A statement from the Parent Community of UPCCC said they didn’t believe due diligence had been achieved with this report.
“[We’re] alarmed that ANU did not seek a second opinion upon receipt of this report … in particular because GML Heritage was engaged by Construction Control, who is the building company contracted by ANU to build their new reported $8 million ‘purpose-built’ childcare facilities,” it read.
“We believe the relationship between GML Heritage and Construction Control requires scrutiny and likely represents a conflict of interest.”
The ANU has engaged both Construction Control and GML Heritage to assist with hail remediation works across the entire campus.
The advocacy group said this relationship meant neither company could be considered independent.
It also accused the ANU of only releasing the report due to political pressure, that the released report is actually a summary rather than the full document, and questioned why the report didn’t include any scope of works or estimated costs to convert the existing buildings into office spaces.
“Given the report by GML Heritage does not identify any immediate dangers with the existing four buildings, and the [operators] have continued to provide childcare services from these buildings for almost four years since hail damage occurred in 2020, why is there now an urgency from ANU to close the centres within six months?” it asked in the statement.
“It also remains unclear how remediating the buildings for office space would make adults less susceptible to lead paint dust and bonded asbestos than children.”
The group has claimed it’s heard from other independent heritage experts who have suggested a more “conservative remediation approach” could be taken to both protect staff and children and allow the buildings to be repaired while still being used as childcare centres.
The ANU has hit back, with a spokesperson outlining that the buildings contain “potentially unsafe materials” (including lead paint and asbestos), and pointed to the closure of the UPCCC for several weeks earlier this year after lead was found in the carpet.
“Although they are currently safe, maintaining the existing buildings is costly and unsustainable,” they said.
“The presence of historic lead-based paint poses an unacceptable risk of flaking, which poses particular health and safety risks for children.
“Heritage regulations restrict necessary improvements, and further repairs are not feasible due to past damage and existing building conditions that are in breach of the University’s need to preserve heritage value.”
They rejected claims that GML Heritage wasn’t an independent or expert body that could conduct an analysis of what remediations were necessary.
“A heritage consultant reports against the regulatory requirements under the EPBC Act, and a managing contractor or ANU has no influence on what is reported. The heritage consultant has a professional and statutory obligation to report accurately,” they said.
“ANU is satisfied with the advice it has received and the robust expertise on which it is based.”
Separately, the Parent Community of UPCCC continued to express its concerns over the two new facilities being built to essentially replace the four centres.
One has already been constructed in the carpark on Lennox Street and has received in-principle approval from the Children’s Education and Care Assurance (CECA) body for six months.
“A survey of parents across the four centres found 66 per cent are not willing to send their child to a centre located in a demountable structure,” the group stated.
An online petition already has more than 5200 signatures and 130 testimonials calling for the four centres to remain where they are.
Render of the planned childcare centre on Lawson Crescent. Photo: ANU.
In response to this criticism, the ANU spokesperson pointed out that ‘purpose-built’ meant that the facilities were compliant with childcare and accessibility standards.
“The architect ANU is working with to deliver the new facilities is renowned throughout the ACT for designing higher-end childcare facilities and has a very well-established reputation in the industry,” they said.
“The University will support the establishment of high-end landscaped amenities around the new childcare facilities, consistent with the quality it maintains across the broader campus.”
It’s understood this would include the completed Lennox Street complex to make sure it has the surrounding amenities the chosen operator wants.
The deadline for the four centres to submit their proposals to operate in the new centres expires this weekend.
Loading ...
