| 1999 |
(No. 2)
|
1999
_______________
PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA
_______________
PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC WORKS
DON COLLEGE MULTI PURPOSE FACILITY
______________
Brought up by Mr Green and Ordered by the House of Assembly to be printed
______________
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
The Committee has the honour to report to the House of Assembly in accordance
with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1914 on the proposal
to construct a Multi Purpose Facility at the Don College.
PROPOSAL
The need for the Multi-Purpose Facility has been evident since the college
was first established and is supported by a number of studies.
During 1991 to 1993 the Department commissioned Eric Richardson to undertake
a detailed survey of spaces and facilities in colleges throughout the State.
The May 1993 report for Don College prepared by Eric Richardson notes:
"Physical Education Teaching
In 1992 and 1993 there was a requirement for a Human Performance
Laboratory and a Gymnasium/Sports Hall facility. No such facility exists
at Don, and the lack is seen as significant in view of the 26 to 28 teaching
hours per week requiring such facilities. …It is suggested that the current
identified demand in this area is understated and would increase with the
provision of such facilities. …Don has the second lowest percentage subject
enrolments in Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER) area…"
At present Physical education is limited to one terrapin building and
the outside courts.
The unknown demand due to the lack of a facility is also supported by
a recent comparison of enrolment patterns across a number of colleges comparing
the 1992 enrolment patterns with 1998 patterns. The Don College is the
only facility where enrolments have remained static as a percentage of
total College enrolments. This suggests that the lack of a suitable facility
at the college is substantially restricting the educational opportunities
available to the College community.
The lack of an adequate drama/dance facility was also noted in the 1993
Richardson Report:
"…. Like the situation in HPER, the lack of an appropriate facility
for Dance is preventing teaching in this subject area, and thus the real
demand is understated. …while the area of the existing Drama space is greater
than the projected requirements, the quality and suitability is poor. Speech
and drama currently uses rooms which have been converted from other uses
(locker rooms)…In particular, the irregular floor plan, the changes of
levels, the small column spacing and the low ceiling height all contribute
to the difficulties of the space."
In 1995 the Department of Education commissioned Ian Predl and Associates
to "…develop (an) independent assessment of the current and projected
enrolments at the Don College to the year 2005 and to assess the adequacy
of existing facilities to meet the need of the estimated student population."
The report recommended that planning be based on an enrolment of 960
students for the planning period, however 1998 enrolments exceeded 1,000
and are expected to rise further. The enrolments for 1999 are 1,100 full
time equivalent students (FTE) and are expected to remain at that level
with possibly a slight increase over the coming four years. Predicting
College numbers has become more difficult due to the Youth Allowance Scheme.
The Prebl and Associates report recommended the development of a multi-purpose
facility as a priority and also noted its broader functions as a student
meeting/assembly area, for drama productions and for teaching recreation
and leisure programs. The report noted that
"…The College is completely lacking in facilities which would allow
the College community to join together for activities involving all, or
a major section, of that college."
In 1994-95 the then Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation commissioned
Hepper Marriott and Associates to work with the North West Municipalities
to develop the "Indoor Recreation Facility Plan for North West Tasmania
Municipal Region". The report established that there is a substantial provision
of indoor recreation areas in the general area which the college has been
using wherever possible. The problems have been the movement and supervision
of students off site, the lack of flexibility and difficulty of integrating
physical education activities into the general college timetable, and the
lack of sizeable space on the college campus for all the other functions
that occur in college gymnasiums. For these reasons the proposal has been
focused on a general purpose facility which is a closer reflection of the
real educational need.
The Multi Purpose Facility will provide:
In addition, disabled access to the library, student amenities and a
full range of teaching spaces will be provided along with some minor adjustments
in the remainder of the campus associated with the above.
COSTING
The budget allocation is as follows:
| Construction Budget |
$1,351,000
|
| All fees, charges and other provisions |
$172,000
|
| Loose Furniture and Equipment |
$135,000
|
| Art Works |
$13,000
|
| Project Total |
$1,671,000
|
The proposed works are estimated to cost the following:
| Multi-Purpose Facility |
$1,128,500
|
| Access ramps and links |
$107,600
|
| Modification of vacated space |
$20,000
|
| External Works including landscaping |
$65,600
|
| Contingency |
$29,300
|
|
Total
|
EVIDENCE
The Committee commenced its inquiry on Friday, 5 March 1999. The Committee
inspected the site for the proposed Multi-Purpose Facility. Following the
inspection, the Committee commenced hearing evidence at the College. The
following witnesses gave evidence at the hearing:
Benefits of the proposed facility
The Principal of the College, Mr John Lee-Archer, placed the proposed
development within an historical context. Mr Lee-Archer described the transition
of the College from one which was
originally about 300 students who were bound for university, to a comprehensive
college with well over 1 000 students some of whom undertake purely academic
courses and others vocationally oriented education. Mr Lee-Archer
submitted further –
What was very evident to me
when I came here, though, was that there were facilities which we did not
have, and historical records show that very clearly, that the place was
designed as a three-phase building and only one was ever built, and since
the mid-70s there have been successive inquiries and so on into the needs
of kids. The needs of kids of course have changed over that time, and I
guess for the purpose of this inquiry we really need to be looking at what
the needs of kids are today and over the next ten years…"
The sorts of things that are
going to be different as a result of this are, as I said, we will have
a space. We will have a space where kids can perform. Performance is a
very important thing for anybody. When you develop a skill or you have
a particular thing that you have learnt, it is nice to be able to share
it with people. We have an extensive music program but we have nowhere
for kids to perform. …Spaces for celebrating achievement in general, displaying
materials, whether it be art work - and we have a few spots you can put
that - whether it be just performance of various kinds. Spaces for entertaining
visitors, in terms of speakers. Drama groups that tour the country and
are looking for places to come. We cannot accommodate them here with any
adequacy at all. Any reason for a gathering of more than 30 people probably
is very difficult. That is what it will contribute to this particular community.
In terms of recreation, the
needs are obvious and I do not think I need to dwell on that. We do have
the lowest participation rate in the recreation subjects, although I see
the biggest need here is not so much in the subject area but again in the
general recreation area for kids. This alienation that I was talking about
often arises through kids having nothing to do, and again while you can
sit out on the lawn when it is nice, in general we need to provide activities
and so on for kids, and this space will enable us to do that, and in that
sense enhance what we have."
Mr Eric Richardson, Director and Architect, Glenn Smith Associates outlined
to the Committee the strategic position of the College in terms of facilities
–
At the moment the buildings shown in blue are the existing ones,
plus these terrapins down here; approach from the carparks is this direction
towards the front. As you have seen, there is no real sense of (inaudible)
identity there. There is a strong band of buildings which block your way
and another band behind with a nice courtyard.
Provision of a multipurpose facility is clearly seen as the highest
priority with the campus and it is proposed to locate that significant
piece of building to the north-west of the existing blocks, which provide
a physical continuity of buildings which enable this front space to perhaps
over the years be improved and developed.
So, as shown in our inspection, the site that has been selected for
the multipurpose facility is that site because of its extra overall planning
benefits it provides and its accessibility by a continuity of that normal
circulation route through and around the college, either from the front
or through the route round behind there. It is also adjacent to some of
the outdoor sporting facilities and it is also able to provide a highly
visible address for any visitors who come into the college in that area.
It is also a relatively flat piece of the campus compared to others thus
reducing costs, et cetera.
…The other issues identified in the strategic plan, as proposed under
this project, to try to address include improving access to a range of
facilities that currently are not accessible by people with disabilities
or in wheelchairs. The two original buildings, while being nothing more
than three-storey buildings, are built out of thirteen different levels
and apparently disabled access is very, very limited.
It is proposed to spend some funds, as indicated in the budget at
the back, providing disabled access to a significant proportion of the
college in the existing buildings. This would be by means of local ramps,
walkways, balconies, these sorts of things. It will provide access to all
but two significant levels of the entire campus. The detail of those works
I can respond to in question if you want to, but suffice to say that it
does not provide 100 per cent. The next step would be a lift of such financial
order of cost that it could not be fitted in this source of money.
The multipurpose facilities, as well as providing for this multi-use
space that the principal has spoken at length, also intends to provide
teaching spaces for the speech and drama program, to replace the converted
locker room they are currently in, and to provide a space for teaching
of sciences and the human performances associated with health, physical
education and recreation courses. As you saw, those facilities are very
limited on the campus at the moment."
In terms of recreation space, we know that people have already contacted
us wanting to use it; and in terms of the display space we have had requests
also for people to use it. There is plenty of community interest, and while
primarily we see it as an educational space during the day, most of our
programs do finish by 5 o'clock, and so the community would have access
to it."
Mr LEE-ARCHER - I do not believe so. It is certainly not the case
for any other facilities that we make available. We do not have any special
coverage that the college takes out. I do not know whether the department
does. I really cannot answer that.
Mr WILKINSON - As far as the building requirements for this particular
structure are concerned, I believe it is a class 9B building - which is
a public building - so the regulations that have been put in place for
this building are based on the building being a public building, a meeting
building of a public nature.
Mr McKAY - When you say 'a public nature', does it meet the provisions
of a place of public entertainment? I think Mr Kons would know more about
it. Councils or health departments require provisions related to places
of public entertainment.
Mr RICHARDSON - That is a separate level of permit. Mike is referring
to designing the building so that it meets the building standards for a
building accessed by the public. For an event licence, whether it be a
liquor licence or what have you, that is a different level of authority
entirely and I would have thought that depends very much upon what is being
run.
Mr McKAY - We were talking here about the community having access
to it and utilising this space. So you are saying it is not a problem then
if you have 1 000 people in this particular facility and it is a public
event? There are no problems with that?
Mr RICHARDSON - We know the building will comply in terms of access
and egress, fire protection, ventilation, things like that. If it is of
a specific nature that other authorities require input, like consumption
of liquor for instance or something like that, that is up to the users
who are either hiring it out or hiring it in.
Mr McKAY - Yes, I just want to know that the principal or the
school management will not find themselves in a situation where, if they
wanted to utilise it for a theatre or a school production, sell tickets
to come along to that production, that they will meet the place of public
entertainment and will not be in a position where they will find themselves
with a problem.
Mr RICHARDSON - The Building Code of Australia requires us to
meet standards which fulfil those requirements, and they are issues to
do with performance of escaping, emergencies and fire and those sorts of
things, and by fulfilling that requirement I am sure we are meeting most
of those sorts of functional requirements.
The Committee heard Mr Michael Wilkinson, Director and Architect, Glenn
Smith Associates in relation to the details of the plan and specifications
of the proposed facility.
Toilet facilities
The proposal as submitted, provided for two identical toilet facilities.
The Committee questioned the witnesses in relation to such provision. Mr
Richardson submitted-
Mr BURBURY - It is my understanding - and Eric and Mike will correct
me - but I am pretty sure that disabled access can double as a staff toilet
to meet that provision? Generating a bit more space for you to work with.
Mr WILKINSON - No, the staff toilets included and all the toilets
there are included in the number calculations that we have done to date.
Mr BURBURY - You cannot drop one off necessarily?
Mr WILKINSON - No.
Mr BURBURY - But if the disabled toilet can act as a staff toilet
as well -
Mr RICHARDSON - I hear what you are saying, Les, and you are trying
to find some more room so we have room to put the urinal in which is cool.
Mr BURBURY - Yes.
Mr RICHARDSON - If we can do that, that will be the mechanism
but I think probably what the committee needs to hear is that we will -
you want us to provide and we will provide urinals."
The Committee heard the Manager of Birchall’s Bookshop, Mrs Bernadette
Reece in relation to the role of the bookshop and the effect of the project
on its operations. Mrs Reece submitted-
The Committee questioned the witnesses as follows-
The other issue is in the human performance area, into the sports
store you only have a very small door as well to actually get large or
may be if you needed to put large equipment or something through a standard
door.
Mr WILKINSON - For the number of people who will be drama space,
a metre-wide door there into the drama space would probably be okay, but
we could well consider putting double doors in. It would be particularly
helpful in relation to moving pieces of equipment in and out -
Mr McKAY - Yes.
Mr WILKINSON - So consider that done.
Mr WILKINSON - That is from the human performance laboratory to
the multipurpose, you are saying?
Mr KONS - Yes.
Mr WILKINSON - It is probably not intended as a thoroughfare through
there, although it could be used as such. The initial intention is for
a sports store and the doors are offset so that you have some acoustic
separation and you do not have sound travelling in a straight line through
those doors.
Mr RICHARDSON - It may also be - detailed planning has not gone
out but they have been set out to suit the function and set out of equipment,
et cetera, in those rooms, but I think if we can take that on board consistent
with those internal function requirements we will try to achieve it.
CHAIRMAN - Well, that one you would try to achieve the double
doors into the drama, can we take it that you will change that?
Mr WILKINSON - Yes."
The concerns raised by the Committee during the hearing in relation
to the provision of urinals and the installation of double doors from the
foyer into the ‘Drama Room’ were addressed with undertakings from the architects
to amend the plans to provide for the same. The Committee notes the further
undertakings to consider re-aligning the doors of the ‘Sports Store’ to
provide for lineal movement between the ‘Human Performance’ area and the
‘Multi-purpose Facility’, and to direct any savings achieved from the project
to the provision of covered walkways between the buildings.
The Committee is supportive of the view that that the issue of disabled
access in the College be considered of the highest priority in ongoing
works, as up to thirteen levels need to be negotiated at the College.
The evidence presented to the Committee clearly demonstrated the need
for the provision of a Multi-purpose Facility of this nature for the Don
College. Educational outcomes for the students of the College will be greatly
enhanced, and the community of the northwest coast generally, will benefit
from the construction of the facility.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the project, in accordance with
the plans and specifications, at an estimated total cost of $1,670,000.
| Parliament House
Hobart 25 March 1999 |
Hon D. G. WING MLC,
Chairman |