The Victorian Coroner's Court today launched its inquiry into the circumstances surround the March 28 Swantson Street Grocon Wall collapse. Coroners' Court Judge Ian Gray, assisted by the Victorian Police, acknowledged the public interests in the inquiry and warned of procedural delay arsing from the potential for persecutions that may arise from independent inquiries undertaken by WorkSafe and the Building Commission.
It may take up to two years or more to be concluded depending on the extent of any prosecutions that may be launched.
The Victorian Police are in the process of preparing a report for the Coroner focusing on the history of the site, the design and construction of the collapsed wall and the hoarding that was attached to the wall. The Police report will also cover the regulatory requirements governing the building site and will be supported by expert evidence.
In attendance were representatives of the Building Commission, WorkSafe, Grocon, the City of Melbourne and the families of the victims of the accident. The CFMEU has also sought leave to be represented in the hearing as their members and staff were employed on the construction site and also in attendance immeadiatly after the wall collapase.
The French Embassy also sent an observer but they will have no formal standing in the proceedings
Judge Ian Gray reserved his decision, subject to the tabling of the report from Victoria Police, on whether or not the CFMEU will be granted leave to appear
No date was set for the tabling of the Police report but the court is expected to convene again one month following the Police evidential report copies of which will be provided to all parties.
Given the close association between the developer GroCon and the various government authorities representation by the CFMEU would assist in maintaining public confidence in Coronal review which is independent from Government
Police investigating why wall debris was removed from collapse site
Showing posts with label The Wall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Wall. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Coroners mention hearing of Wall Deaths
Thursday 23 May 2013
Coroners Court of Victoria
Court 1
Jones, A COR 2013 001338
Fiawoo, M COR 2013 001339
Jones, B COR 2013 001368
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
City of Melbourne denies any responsibility for permits to construct a hoarding
In a surprised turn around the City of Melbourne has come out and denied that it has any responsibility to issue permits for hoardings on private property.
Previously the City of Melbourne had stated:
The City of Melbourne has a permit application for hoardings which comes with a fee for service. They have published a full list of permits required and a hoarding, fence and advertising sign is on the list which is also included in the
City of Melbourne Local Law 2009.
Part 7 BUILDING STANDARDS Compliance with Code
Part 13 PERMITS When is a permit required under this Local Law?
What the response from the City of Melbourne (published below) failed to mention or make clear was that under the local law a hoarding (Both on public land and on private land) must comply with the City of Melbourne Construction Management Plan and the relevant design standards related to height and wind loading The code of practice, (1.4) which is referenced in the City of Melbourne Local Law, stipulates a maximum height of 2.4m and ability to withstand wind loads to AS1170.2 standards
Under the the Code of Practice
With all the word games and "intricate interconnect overlap and complexities" that surround this issue there is a clear need for the City of Melbourne to undertake an independent review of the legislative provisions governing public safety on building sites and the City Council.
This should be done as a matter of urgency and without delay or waiting pending the outcome of the Coroner's report or other investigations that are currently underway in relation to the March 28 Swanston Street Wall Collapse. It will have to be done eventually,. The sooner they start the better
Council response dated: Tuesday, 7 May 2013 12:08
I refer to the Future Melbourne Committee Meeting of 15 April 2013 – Question without Notice in relation to 555-591 Swanston Street and 2-76 Bouverie Street, Carlton and provide the following response.
Question:
“Did the City of Melbourne issue a permit for the construction of the new hoarding on the CUB Swanston Square project site? The height being significantly taller than the 2.4m maximum permitted height pursuant to the City of Melbourne Construction Management Plan Guidelines.
Has the City of Melbourne inspected the site since the new hoarding was constructed? If not, why not?”
No permit has been issued for the construction of a hoarding.
The temporary fence/hoarding is located on private property. In this instance a permit is not required under the Activities Local Law 2009.
The structure is also exempt from a building permit under the Building Regulations 2006
(Sch. 8).
The structure satisfies Element 1, Item 1.5 of the City of Melbourne Construction Management Plan Guidelines as:
1. It is a solid barrier
2. The barrier prevents viewing; and
3. The barrier should restrict unauthorised entry
It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure the structure is designed, installed and maintained in accordance with engineering principles and must satisfy any relevant standards.
City of Melbourne officers attended the site shortly after the barrier was erected.
T: 03 9658 8400 | M: 0429 502 043 | F: 03 9658 9891
|www.melbourne.vic.gov.au | |www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/whatson
Previously the City of Melbourne had stated:
We can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall.Developers, builders and owners along with lawyers will have a field day with this one. Anarchy reigns in Melbourne's Streets I wonder what the Coroner and the Work Safety inquiries will make of this one.
There are four relevant legislative frameworks – Planning, Building, Occupational Health and Safety and Local Laws. There are intricacies in the way in which these interconnect and overlap. These complexities are likely to be considered by the investigating authorities.
A CMP (Construction Management Plan) does not replace the need for Planning, Building or Local Laws approval for specific works. These must be sought separately.
The City of Melbourne has a permit application for hoardings which comes with a fee for service. They have published a full list of permits required and a hoarding, fence and advertising sign is on the list which is also included in the
City of Melbourne Local Law 2009.
Part 7 BUILDING STANDARDS Compliance with Code
Part 13 PERMITS When is a permit required under this Local Law?
What the response from the City of Melbourne (published below) failed to mention or make clear was that under the local law a hoarding (Both on public land and on private land) must comply with the City of Melbourne Construction Management Plan and the relevant design standards related to height and wind loading The code of practice, (1.4) which is referenced in the City of Melbourne Local Law, stipulates a maximum height of 2.4m and ability to withstand wind loads to AS1170.2 standards
Under the the Code of Practice
Item 2. Definitions ... "Hoarding" means "a high temporary fence or structure enclosing a demolition site or a building site during building works, to restrict access and provide side protection to the public"
Item 4. Hoardings
4.1 ... Hoarding screens must be constructed of closely boarded timber or plywood between 1.8m to 2.4m in height to secure a building site and form a barrier against noise, dust and debris.
... Hoardings are to be designed to withstand wind loads to AS 1170.2 with counterweights as necessary to prevent overturning. In addition hoardings adjoining excavations are to be designed to withstand a lateral line load of 0.75 kN/m applied at a height of 1 metre from the base and suitably guarded by barriers to prevent vehicular impact.
With all the word games and "intricate interconnect overlap and complexities" that surround this issue there is a clear need for the City of Melbourne to undertake an independent review of the legislative provisions governing public safety on building sites and the City Council.
This should be done as a matter of urgency and without delay or waiting pending the outcome of the Coroner's report or other investigations that are currently underway in relation to the March 28 Swanston Street Wall Collapse. It will have to be done eventually,. The sooner they start the better
Council response dated: Tuesday, 7 May 2013 12:08
I refer to the Future Melbourne Committee Meeting of 15 April 2013 – Question without Notice in relation to 555-591 Swanston Street and 2-76 Bouverie Street, Carlton and provide the following response.
Question:
“Did the City of Melbourne issue a permit for the construction of the new hoarding on the CUB Swanston Square project site? The height being significantly taller than the 2.4m maximum permitted height pursuant to the City of Melbourne Construction Management Plan Guidelines.
Has the City of Melbourne inspected the site since the new hoarding was constructed? If not, why not?”
Response:
No permit has been issued for the construction of a hoarding.
The temporary fence/hoarding is located on private property. In this instance a permit is not required under the Activities Local Law 2009.
The structure is also exempt from a building permit under the Building Regulations 2006
(Sch. 8).
The structure satisfies Element 1, Item 1.5 of the City of Melbourne Construction Management Plan Guidelines as:
1. It is a solid barrier
2. The barrier prevents viewing; and
3. The barrier should restrict unauthorised entry
It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure the structure is designed, installed and maintained in accordance with engineering principles and must satisfy any relevant standards.
City of Melbourne officers attended the site shortly after the barrier was erected.
Angela
Meinke | Manager Planning and Building | City Planning and
Infrastructure
City of Melbourne | Council House 2, 240 Little Collins Street Melbourne 3000 |
GPO Box 1603 Melbourne 3001T: 03 9658 8400 | M: 0429 502 043 | F: 03 9658 9891
|www.melbourne.vic.gov.au | |www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/whatson
Monday, May 06, 2013
ABC Error in Reporting on Council's Press Release on Wall Collapse
The ABC, following a complaint in relation to an article on the Wall
collapse in Swanston Street, reported that the City of Melbourne was not
required to issue a permit for the hoarding. The ABC reporter was wrong.
ABC's response to the complaint
ABC's response to the complaint
ABC News acknowledges the reporter misinterpreted the press release issued by the City of Melbourne and consequently inadvertently misrepresented the council’s position.
News advise that the release came after several days of phone calls by the reporter to the City of Melbourne asking about whether or not a council permit was required and, if so, whether one was issued. She was told by council officers that the situation regarding permits was confused as there were a number of different authorities involved. The confusion was compounded by the press release, which was not received until late in the day. On reading the release she came to the conclusion that it was indicating that the council did not need to issue a permit.
ABC News apologises for the error. The story has been corrected and an editor’s note attached.
The City of Melbourne Press release did not state that the Council "did not need to issue a
permit" to the contrary it stated that
We can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall.
There are four relevant legislative frameworks – Planning, Building, Occupational Health and Safety and Local Laws. There are intricacies in the way in which these interconnect and overlap. These complexities are likely to be considered by the investigating authorities.
A CMP (Construction Management Plan) does not replace the need for Planning, Building or Local Laws approval for specific works. These must be sought separately.The City of Melbourne's responsibility of the subject of a number of inquiries including the Coroner, Work Safety and the Building Commission. The Council has refused to undertake an independent inquiry into its responsibility on the administration of public safety, it's Local laws and liability
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
March for Public Safety: Melbourne Community in Solidarity with Workers
Some 8,000 to 10,000 Trade Unionists and members of the public marched in solidarity for public and workplace safety.The Union rally follows on from four deaths associated with GroCon buildings sites in Melbourne. One Worker who fell from a construction site crane and three innocent pedestrians who were killed when a hoarding and brick wall collapsed on March 28.
Whilst the main focus was on GroCon and the State Government Work Safety questions are being asked as to the City of Melbourne's responsibility and why it failed to issued a permit or inspect the Swanston Street building site?The City of Melbourne needs to undertake an internal review of its role in the tragic events and its statutory obligations.
- Is GroCon being given favourable consideration and are they exempt from local laws and prosecution?
- Has the City of Melbourne been negligent or are they turning a blind eye in a gentleman's agreement?
The media are also asking questions but the Council has gone underground refusing to answer, hoping to weather the storm and escape attention from three government inquiries. Worksafe, the Buildling Industry and a Coronal inquiry.There is a need for a fourth Statutory compliance and review which must look closely at the role of the City of Melbourne in overseeing Construction site public safety.
The City of Melbourne has a whole department of Engineers and exactly what do they do other then Engineer congestion, attend seminars and drink coffee? If they are not providing oversight, inspection and enforcing the rules why are they employed? Why are rate payers paying their wages?The Union movement plans further rallies should the government inquires seek to scape goat or fail to hold to account those responsible. This includes the City of Melbourne and the State Government
Monday, April 29, 2013
CFMEU: Tuesday March for Safety
The CFMEU (Construction Forestry Mining Employees Union) and Victoria's Trade Unions will be marching next Tuesday April 30 in support of Safety on Melbourne's Building sites. The march begins at Trades Hall in Victoria Street, and will proceed to the Swanston Street site of last month's tragedy for a minute's silence as a sign of respect.outside the GroCon CUB building site on Swanston Street.
The City of Melbourne still has not provided information why it had not issued a permit or inspected the building site hoarding which collapsed on March 28.killing three innocent pedestrians.
Councillor Stephen Mayne, Chairman of the Council's Finance and Governance portfolio, was unable to answer questions from the public last week if the City of Melbourne had issued a permit for the new hoarding or if it had inspected the site and if not why not?The City of Melbourne continues to shift blame and avoid accountability for for its own failings. Public Safety is the prime directive and obligation of the City Council. Stephen Mayne describing public concerns about safety on the GroCon site as "Grandstanding"
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Negligence or Corruption a question on Twitters mind
Questions remain unanswered following last months fatal wall collapse with the City of Melbourne ducking for cover and in lock down mode avoiding responsibility.
According to a City of Melbourne spokesperson a permit is required for the construction of a hoarding on a building site. The City of Melbourne in its statement published on April 9 stated that a permit was not issued for a hoarding on the GroCon Swanston Street building site that collapsed on March 28 killing three pedestrians.
When asked on April 16 if the Council had issued a permit for the NEW hoarding on thee GroCon Swanston Street site and if the Council Officers had inspected the site and if not why not? Councillor Stephen Mayne, Chairman of the Council's Governance portfolio was unable to answer and took the question on notice.
A week has passed and still the City of Melbourne has not been able to respond to this important and yet simple question.
Questions are being asked if the Council is guilty of contributory negligence for the death of three innocent people by failing to fulfill its statutory obligations and/or if Council staff had received inducements to turn a blind eye to the requirement to issue a permit for the construction of a hoarding? Both the new and old hoardings were taller then the maximum height of 2.4m listed in the Council's Construction Management Plan guidelines.
It is a simple question and deserves an answer.
Council itself, and Councillor Mayne in particular, are now being compromised by the Council's failing to reply. Avoiding the question will not make it go away and only serves to undermine public confidence in the City Council's Administration.
The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, may also be tainted by the Council's lack of response with allegations being made that Councillor Doyle is actively seeking to block twitter discussion and review of his administration.
According to a City of Melbourne spokesperson a permit is required for the construction of a hoarding on a building site. The City of Melbourne in its statement published on April 9 stated that a permit was not issued for a hoarding on the GroCon Swanston Street building site that collapsed on March 28 killing three pedestrians.
When asked on April 16 if the Council had issued a permit for the NEW hoarding on thee GroCon Swanston Street site and if the Council Officers had inspected the site and if not why not? Councillor Stephen Mayne, Chairman of the Council's Governance portfolio was unable to answer and took the question on notice.
A week has passed and still the City of Melbourne has not been able to respond to this important and yet simple question.
Questions are being asked if the Council is guilty of contributory negligence for the death of three innocent people by failing to fulfill its statutory obligations and/or if Council staff had received inducements to turn a blind eye to the requirement to issue a permit for the construction of a hoarding? Both the new and old hoardings were taller then the maximum height of 2.4m listed in the Council's Construction Management Plan guidelines.
It is a simple question and deserves an answer.
Council itself, and Councillor Mayne in particular, are now being compromised by the Council's failing to reply. Avoiding the question will not make it go away and only serves to undermine public confidence in the City Council's Administration.
The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, may also be tainted by the Council's lack of response with allegations being made that Councillor Doyle is actively seeking to block twitter discussion and review of his administration.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Melbourne's Death Wall Rebuilt Even Higher
It is unclear if developer GroCon has obtained a permit for the new construction as required under the City of Melbourne Local Laws or if Gorcon has special permission to bypass building controls within Melbourne or if the City of Melbourne has once again turned a blind eye to building site safety.Yesterday, funerals were held for two of the victims of the March 28 Swanston Street wall collapse. The monument to those that died left standing,
The nearby pedestrian sign, that is about to collapse in an unstable state left for over a week by the City of Melbourne. A reminder of the City's "commitment" to pedestrian road safety
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Wall: ABC 7:30 report confirms what most of melbourne are asking
The ABC 7:30 report today highlights much of what we have been asking: Who is responsible for overseeing public safety in Melbourne building sites?
Three innocent victims walking down Melbourne's premier street were killed in an accident that should not have happened. A masonry wall and building site hoarding that had no permit or permission for its construction, collapsed in a 76 to 105km/Hr gust of wind.
The new hoarding was erected just over 12 months ago.
The wall should have withstood the applied wind loading. Problem was it was attached to a plywood hoarding that was three metres high, 300 mm taller then the maximum height permitted by the City of Melbourne guidelines and local laws allowed.
The City Council ultimately is responsible for overseeing public safety and they failed in their duty of care and fulfillment of its statutory duty.
The City Council in a carefully crafted statement earlier this week stated that it did not issue a permit for the hoarding. It also failed to inspect the site. Had it done so three innocent people may be alive today.
The Melbourne City Council, with a department full of Engineers, turned a blind eye and failed to fulfill its statutory duty.
Confidence in the administration of the City Council is at an all time low.
Melbourne City Councilor, Steven Mayne, Chairman of the Council Governance portfolio dismissed community concerns about public safety and the need for an independent review of the City Council's role and responsibility.
Cr Mayne claimed that residents concerns were just grandstanding.
Three innocent victims walking down Melbourne's premier street were killed in an accident that should not have happened. A masonry wall and building site hoarding that had no permit or permission for its construction, collapsed in a 76 to 105km/Hr gust of wind.The new hoarding was erected just over 12 months ago.
The wall should have withstood the applied wind loading. Problem was it was attached to a plywood hoarding that was three metres high, 300 mm taller then the maximum height permitted by the City of Melbourne guidelines and local laws allowed.
The City Council ultimately is responsible for overseeing public safety and they failed in their duty of care and fulfillment of its statutory duty.The City Council in a carefully crafted statement earlier this week stated that it did not issue a permit for the hoarding. It also failed to inspect the site. Had it done so three innocent people may be alive today.
The Melbourne City Council, with a department full of Engineers, turned a blind eye and failed to fulfill its statutory duty.
Confidence in the administration of the City Council is at an all time low.
Melbourne City Councilor, Steven Mayne, Chairman of the Council Governance portfolio dismissed community concerns about public safety and the need for an independent review of the City Council's role and responsibility. Cr Mayne claimed that residents concerns were just grandstanding.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
ABC News makes claims not supported by CoM statement
ABC OnLine News service article titled:
The Council's statement said:
...
Other media outlets did not repeat the unsupported ABC News claim.
The question if a permit for the construction of the hoarding attached to the wall that collapsed is still the subject of review and debate. Council local laws and Construction site Management guidelines require a permit for the construction of hoardings.
Statement published by the City of Melbourne
The City of Melbourne continues to assist the Coroner, WorkSafe and the Building Commission as they investigate the Swanston Street wall collapse.
While assisting those inquiries remains our priority, we can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall.
There are four relevant legislative frameworks – Planning, Building, Occupational Health and Safety and Local Laws. There are intricacies in the way in which these interconnect and overlap. These complexities are likely to be considered by the investigating authorities.
In general terms, the City of Melbourne oversees the interface between building sites and public space.
With regard to the wall collapse in Swanston Street, it should be noted that the wall was on private property.
The Swanston Street CUB site is a Comprehensive Development Zone. As a result of this designation, the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for the issuing of planning permits relating to the site.
The Minister has issued a planning permit for the development of Swanston Square (building 5) and the Maltstore building. That permit required the developer to file a Construction Management Plan (CMP) with the Minister as the Responsible Authority. The Minister’s permit required that the CMP be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne’s CMP guidelines.
The purpose of the CMP is to set out how a site will be managed to minimise impact on the surrounding area. The CMP was reviewed by the City of Melbourne and was found to meet the requirements of the guidelines. The CMP covers Stage 1 of the development of the CUB site which is south of the area where the wall collapsed.
A CMP does not replace the need for Planning, Building or Local Laws approval for specific works. These must be sought separately.
The City of Melbourne does not intend to make any further comment at this time.
Structure on collapsed wall did not have council permit
Is misleading. The article goes on and states:The Melbourne City Council says a structure on a brick wall that collapsed in Carlton last month killing three people did not require council approval.The statement published by the City of Melbourne does not claim or comment on the question if a permit or council approval was required.
The Council's statement said:
...
We can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall.
There are four relevant legislative frameworks – Planning, Building, Occupational Health and Safety and Local Laws. There are intricacies in the way in which these interconnect and overlap. These complexities are likely to be considered by the investigating authorities.
A CMP (Construction Management Plan) does not replace the need for Planning, Building or Local Laws approval for specific works. These must be sought separately.
...The City of Melbourne does not intend to make any further comment at this time.
Other media outlets did not repeat the unsupported ABC News claim.
The question if a permit for the construction of the hoarding attached to the wall that collapsed is still the subject of review and debate. Council local laws and Construction site Management guidelines require a permit for the construction of hoardings.
Statement published by the City of Melbourne
Statement regarding Swanston Street development permits
Tuesday, 9 April 2013The City of Melbourne continues to assist the Coroner, WorkSafe and the Building Commission as they investigate the Swanston Street wall collapse.
While assisting those inquiries remains our priority, we can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall.
There are four relevant legislative frameworks – Planning, Building, Occupational Health and Safety and Local Laws. There are intricacies in the way in which these interconnect and overlap. These complexities are likely to be considered by the investigating authorities.
In general terms, the City of Melbourne oversees the interface between building sites and public space.
With regard to the wall collapse in Swanston Street, it should be noted that the wall was on private property.
The Swanston Street CUB site is a Comprehensive Development Zone. As a result of this designation, the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for the issuing of planning permits relating to the site.
The Minister has issued a planning permit for the development of Swanston Square (building 5) and the Maltstore building. That permit required the developer to file a Construction Management Plan (CMP) with the Minister as the Responsible Authority. The Minister’s permit required that the CMP be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne’s CMP guidelines.
The purpose of the CMP is to set out how a site will be managed to minimise impact on the surrounding area. The CMP was reviewed by the City of Melbourne and was found to meet the requirements of the guidelines. The CMP covers Stage 1 of the development of the CUB site which is south of the area where the wall collapsed.
A CMP does not replace the need for Planning, Building or Local Laws approval for specific works. These must be sought separately.
The City of Melbourne does not intend to make any further comment at this time.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
When is a hoarding not a hoarding
The Melbourne's City Council's denial and side shifting gets shiftier every day.
Not only did the City Council declare the minutes of its meetings to be a true and accurate record of its meeting, when they were not, the City Council today issued a statement that the "Structure" attached to the brick wall that collapsed killing three innocent victims was neither an advertising sign or a hoarding and that no permit had been issued for the structure attached to the collapsed wall or the site inspected.
Not only did the City Council fail to ensure that the required permits were issued and that the building and building works on on the site complied with the public safety standards, it also failed to inspect the site for compliance with Melbourne's local laws.
The question must be asked was the Council negligent in fulling its statutory duty and prime responsibility to ensure and protect public safety?
The Council, as claimed in its statement, has tried to shift the blame and responsibility for the building site management off to the State Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, who issued a planning permit for the site and as such the City Council was not responsible for the construction site approvals. The planning permit is different to the building and construction permit.
The City Council still has a statutory obligation to ensure that building sites are constructed according to standards and that public safety is maintained. The responsibility for compliance and enforcement still remains with the City of Melbourne.
A team of engineers and inspectors and not one inspection had been made since the 3m high Grocon hoarding was constructed over a year ago.
Had the City Council inspected the site it could have identified the breaches in the building code and should have picked up the fact that the hoarding/fence/structure was taller than the permitted hoarding height of between 1.8 to 2.5 metres. Three innocent members of the public may still be alive today.
Of course anyone who dares question the Council's involvement or responsibility for oversight of the building site, which is subject to investigation by the Coroner, Work Safe and the Building Commission, is grandstanding as claimed by Melbourne City Councillor, Stephen Mayne, Chairman of the Council's Governance portfolio and Deputy Chairman of Planning.
7.1 A person must comply with any obligation imposed by the Code. Compliance with the Standards
To achieve this, builders and developers are required to submit a construction management plan that takes into account all relevant aspects of demolition or building work.
The guidelines address a range of issues to be managed onsite, including:
All public domain protection permits such as hoardings, gantries, cranes, etc are issued by the City of Melbourne’s Construction Management Group (Site Services)
A permit is required to be issued prior to the construction of a hoarding or fence within the municipality under the Municipal Local Law. A permit for a hoarding last for one year and is subject for inspection by the City Council.
..
Not only did the City Council declare the minutes of its meetings to be a true and accurate record of its meeting, when they were not, the City Council today issued a statement that the "Structure" attached to the brick wall that collapsed killing three innocent victims was neither an advertising sign or a hoarding and that no permit had been issued for the structure attached to the collapsed wall or the site inspected.
Not only did the City Council fail to ensure that the required permits were issued and that the building and building works on on the site complied with the public safety standards, it also failed to inspect the site for compliance with Melbourne's local laws.
The question must be asked was the Council negligent in fulling its statutory duty and prime responsibility to ensure and protect public safety?
The Council, as claimed in its statement, has tried to shift the blame and responsibility for the building site management off to the State Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, who issued a planning permit for the site and as such the City Council was not responsible for the construction site approvals. The planning permit is different to the building and construction permit.
"There are intricacies in the way in which these (laws) interconnect and overlap," the council said in a statement on Tuesday.
The City Council still has a statutory obligation to ensure that building sites are constructed according to standards and that public safety is maintained. The responsibility for compliance and enforcement still remains with the City of Melbourne.
A team of engineers and inspectors and not one inspection had been made since the 3m high Grocon hoarding was constructed over a year ago.
Had the City Council inspected the site it could have identified the breaches in the building code and should have picked up the fact that the hoarding/fence/structure was taller than the permitted hoarding height of between 1.8 to 2.5 metres. Three innocent members of the public may still be alive today.
Of course anyone who dares question the Council's involvement or responsibility for oversight of the building site, which is subject to investigation by the Coroner, Work Safe and the Building Commission, is grandstanding as claimed by Melbourne City Councillor, Stephen Mayne, Chairman of the Council's Governance portfolio and Deputy Chairman of Planning.
The City of Melbourne Local Laws state
PART 7 - BUILDING STANDARDS
Compliance with Code
7.1 A person must comply with any obligation imposed by the Code. Compliance with the Standards
7.2 A person to whom the Standards apply must comply with any obligation imposed by the Standards
Construction Management Plan guidelines
The City of Melbourne requires developers and builders to carefully manage excavation, demolition and building works within its municipal boundaries.To achieve this, builders and developers are required to submit a construction management plan that takes into account all relevant aspects of demolition or building work.
The guidelines address a range of issues to be managed onsite, including:
All public domain protection permits such as hoardings, gantries, cranes, etc are issued by the City of Melbourne’s Construction Management Group (Site Services)
A permit is required to be issued prior to the construction of a hoarding or fence within the municipality under the Municipal Local Law. A permit for a hoarding last for one year and is subject for inspection by the City Council.
Types of construction permits
The City of Melbourne issues many different permits for building and construction activities including:..
Permits for safety and amenity
- Hoardings (4.1- General Requirements)
Hoardings are to be designed to withstand wind loads to AS 1170.2
with counterweights as necessary to prevent overturning. In addition
hoardings adjoining excavations are to be designed to withstand a
lateral line load of 0.75 kN/m applied at a height of 1 metre from the
base and suitably guarded by barriers to prevent vehicular impact.
Hoardings and barricades must be in good condition, free from graffiti
and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. They should be
painted in a uniform colour preferably white
City of Melbourne admits it did not issue a permit for the CUB hoarding that collapsed killing three people
The Melbourne City Council today admitted that it did not issue a permit for the hoarding at the former CUB Swanston Square site that collapsed liking three people.
In its carefully crafted public statement the City of Melbourne said "we can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall" The Council deliberately going out of its way to avoid calling the "structure:" a hoarding. The reason is simple. If it is considered a hoarding then the council is responsible of overseeing its design and construction.
The plywood "structure" that collapsed and was attached to the masonry wall was most defiantly a hoarding and any attempt by the City Council to try and reclassify it will come unstuck.
There was a 22 meter section of 3m hoarding to the left of the collapsed wall that was a lightly supported structure designed to fence off the building site from Swanston Street. This fence can not be seen as anything else but a hoarding and falls within the definition of a hoarding as outlined in the Council local laws and Construction Management guidelines.
The plywood hoarding was attached to the brick wall which collapsed when a gust of wind caused it to topple. There is wide speculation that the hoarding contributed to the walls collapse
The City of Melbourne has a statutory duty and obligation to ensure that all building sites, within the City of Melbourne, are inspected and do not pose a risk to public safety.
The accident which killed three innocent people on Thursday March 28 is currently the subject of an investigation by the Coroner, WorkSafe and the Building Commission.
It is unclear if either investigation will examine the role and responsibility of the City of Melbourne.
The City Council today refused to consider a request for an investigation into the City Council's role and obligation surrounding this accident. Cr Steven Mayne in reply claimed that "calls for an investigation was just grandstanding"
Engaging in pass the baton, failing to acknowledge responsibility or refusing to be held accountable does little to restore confidence in the Council's administration.
In its carefully crafted public statement the City of Melbourne said "we can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall" The Council deliberately going out of its way to avoid calling the "structure:" a hoarding. The reason is simple. If it is considered a hoarding then the council is responsible of overseeing its design and construction.
The plywood "structure" that collapsed and was attached to the masonry wall was most defiantly a hoarding and any attempt by the City Council to try and reclassify it will come unstuck.
There was a 22 meter section of 3m hoarding to the left of the collapsed wall that was a lightly supported structure designed to fence off the building site from Swanston Street. This fence can not be seen as anything else but a hoarding and falls within the definition of a hoarding as outlined in the Council local laws and Construction Management guidelines.
The plywood hoarding was attached to the brick wall which collapsed when a gust of wind caused it to topple. There is wide speculation that the hoarding contributed to the walls collapse
The City of Melbourne has a statutory duty and obligation to ensure that all building sites, within the City of Melbourne, are inspected and do not pose a risk to public safety.
The accident which killed three innocent people on Thursday March 28 is currently the subject of an investigation by the Coroner, WorkSafe and the Building Commission.
It is unclear if either investigation will examine the role and responsibility of the City of Melbourne.
The City Council today refused to consider a request for an investigation into the City Council's role and obligation surrounding this accident. Cr Steven Mayne in reply claimed that "calls for an investigation was just grandstanding"
Engaging in pass the baton, failing to acknowledge responsibility or refusing to be held accountable does little to restore confidence in the Council's administration.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Council under review for not fulfilling its statutory obligations
The City of Melbourne has come under review in a blame game between governments as the focus on the collapse of the Swanston Street brick wall, which killed three people, shifts from a period of mourning to seeking answers as to how this tragedy was allowed to happen.
The Australian Newspaper has began asking questions as to who is responsible for maintaining public safety on building sites?
Mathew Guy, State Minster for Planning, has correctly pointed the finger at the City of Melbourne as they are the authority that is responsible for site management and approval of construction of hoardings and advertising signs within the City
Melbourne City Councillor and Chairman of the Council's Finance and Governance and Deputy Chairman of the Planning Portfolio, Stephen Mayne, refused to answer questions as to if the City of Melbourne had issued a permit for the construction of the wooden hoarding fixed to the masonry wall that collapse a week ago today.
@melbcity comrade, I have no information and felt it would be insensitive to start making public/political statements after 3 tragic deaths.
In an attempt to deflect cristicism Cr Mayne twitted in reply
What questions has Councillor Mayne been asking and what were the answers received in response?
If Councillor Mayne is sincere in his expression of grief then he would best serve those who lost their life in this tragic event by ensuring that all responsible, including the City of Melbourne, are held to account for their actions and failings.
The City of Melbourne must initiate a independent review of it's own involvement, responsibilities and statutory obligations surrounding this tragedy. It must not seek to side step or pass the buck. The public deserve and expect sincere open and transparent governance.
Herald-Sun
CFMEU State secretary John Setka is calling for an independent inquiry to give the public confidence in the findings. “We need an independent inquiry and we can see what they can come up with,” he said.
Under Melbourne City Council rules all hoardings need a permit and must be able to withstand high winds. But the council, WorkSafe and Grocon are refusing to say if the hoarding on the wall in question, which was put in place last year, was signed off as safe by an engineer.
Mr Setka said that he was stunned that no-one would clarify whether the hoarding had received a permit.“Three people are dead and people have a right to know why,” he said.
He said that people needed permits to put up a shed in their backyard, so the hoarding should have come under the same scrutiny. Mr Setka said there were concerns that the wooden hoarding may have compromised the integrity of the wall.
The Melbourne City Council said in a statement it was saddened by Thursday’s incident, but refused to release further details. “With investigations underway, it is important that all the information is gathered and carefully assessed,” the statement said.
“As a result, the City of Melbourne will be focusing its efforts on supporting those inquiries and is not in a position to comment further at this time.”
The Australian Newspaper has began asking questions as to who is responsible for maintaining public safety on building sites?
Mathew Guy, State Minster for Planning, has correctly pointed the finger at the City of Melbourne as they are the authority that is responsible for site management and approval of construction of hoardings and advertising signs within the City
Mr Guy said the City Council was responsible for the approval of all advertising signs in Melbourne, not the government. He had approved a permit for the construction of Grocon's "Portrait" apartment development on the site but not the hoarding.
Melbourne City Council has been unable to locate paperwork relating to any application.
@melbcity comrade, I have no information and felt it would be insensitive to start making public/political statements after 3 tragic deaths.
— Stephen Mayne (@MayneReport) April 4, 2013Cr. Mayne also was unable to indicate if the Council had inspected the site in fulfillment of its statutory and fiduciary duty. Public Safety is the prime directive for any government.
In an attempt to deflect cristicism Cr Mayne twitted in reply
@melbcity of course I'm asking questions internally. You seem to want PUBLIC grandstanding which would be insensitive after 3 tragic deaths.Whilst we share concern for the loss and tragic deaths of three innocent people this does not excuse or exempt the City of Melbourne from providing answers to questions that most Melbournes are asking. "Who was responsible for this accident and what responsibility does the City of Melbourne have in overseeing public safety"? "Why did the Council not fulfill it's statutory duty of care"?
— Stephen Mayne (@MayneReport) April 4, 2013
What questions has Councillor Mayne been asking and what were the answers received in response?
If Councillor Mayne is sincere in his expression of grief then he would best serve those who lost their life in this tragic event by ensuring that all responsible, including the City of Melbourne, are held to account for their actions and failings.
The City of Melbourne must initiate a independent review of it's own involvement, responsibilities and statutory obligations surrounding this tragedy. It must not seek to side step or pass the buck. The public deserve and expect sincere open and transparent governance.
Herald-Sun
CFMEU State secretary John Setka is calling for an independent inquiry to give the public confidence in the findings. “We need an independent inquiry and we can see what they can come up with,” he said.
Under Melbourne City Council rules all hoardings need a permit and must be able to withstand high winds. But the council, WorkSafe and Grocon are refusing to say if the hoarding on the wall in question, which was put in place last year, was signed off as safe by an engineer.
Mr Setka said that he was stunned that no-one would clarify whether the hoarding had received a permit.“Three people are dead and people have a right to know why,” he said.
He said that people needed permits to put up a shed in their backyard, so the hoarding should have come under the same scrutiny. Mr Setka said there were concerns that the wooden hoarding may have compromised the integrity of the wall.
The Melbourne City Council said in a statement it was saddened by Thursday’s incident, but refused to release further details. “With investigations underway, it is important that all the information is gathered and carefully assessed,” the statement said.
“As a result, the City of Melbourne will be focusing its efforts on supporting those inquiries and is not in a position to comment further at this time.”
Cracks were sighted in the wall at the time the hoarding was installed
Images published by the Herald Sun dated December 12, 2012 show that the brick wall in Swanston Street that collapsed from behind the hoarding. These cracks may have added to the series of structural failure contributing to the walls collapse, killing three innocent people.
The exposed plywood panel hoarding as shown on the right of the photo above had broken away when the wall collapsed. They were propped up by steel tubing anchored into the ground by star pickets, similar to support provided to a realestate advertising billboard. Compare this to the hoarding on the western side of the site which has solid bracing anchored by large concrete weights. The wooden hoarding was attached to the brick wall with dyna-bolts. Any movement of the plywood structure under wind load would have placed added rotational pressure on southern edge of the brick wall. The cracks that have been identified would have further compromised the walls integrity
A permit is required under City of Melbourne Local Laws and Building site guidelines to construct a hoarding (Maximum height 2.4m) and the site should have been subject to inspection by Council Engineers. The dead load weight of the hoarding, which was higher then the height permitted, added significant weight to the wall and would have contributed to the walls collapse.
Had the City of Melbourne inspected the site prior to and after the installation of the new hoarding the noticeable design faults would have been identified and the walls collapse could have been avoided.
The Lord Mayor and Council officers have gone underground refusing to comment on the walls collapse for fear of being held partly responsible and liable.
Calls have been made for the City Council to release all documents related to the CUB site and initiate a full internal and independent review of Councils legislative and building guidelines.
The exposed plywood panel hoarding as shown on the right of the photo above had broken away when the wall collapsed. They were propped up by steel tubing anchored into the ground by star pickets, similar to support provided to a realestate advertising billboard. Compare this to the hoarding on the western side of the site which has solid bracing anchored by large concrete weights. The wooden hoarding was attached to the brick wall with dyna-bolts. Any movement of the plywood structure under wind load would have placed added rotational pressure on southern edge of the brick wall. The cracks that have been identified would have further compromised the walls integrity
A permit is required under City of Melbourne Local Laws and Building site guidelines to construct a hoarding (Maximum height 2.4m) and the site should have been subject to inspection by Council Engineers. The dead load weight of the hoarding, which was higher then the height permitted, added significant weight to the wall and would have contributed to the walls collapse.
Had the City of Melbourne inspected the site prior to and after the installation of the new hoarding the noticeable design faults would have been identified and the walls collapse could have been avoided.
The Lord Mayor and Council officers have gone underground refusing to comment on the walls collapse for fear of being held partly responsible and liable.
Calls have been made for the City Council to release all documents related to the CUB site and initiate a full internal and independent review of Councils legislative and building guidelines.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
The Wall: Site Analysis Summary
Trevor Huggard, Civil Engineer and former Lord Mayor of Melbourne, interview in the Age is worth reading to gain some insight into the Swanston Street Wall Collapse and the sites history, but it does not tell the whole story which hopefully will unfold in the fullness of time.Trevor Huggard has a long standing interest in the CUB development site favouring it for the construction of Melbourne's State Museum and the gateway to Melbourne's "Knowledge precinct" unfortunately this was not to be.
The Swantson Street CUB site has been hexed. It has been one controversy after another.
It represents the worst of Melbourne's planning and city development and the Melbourne City Council's greatest failure.
The death of three innocent people last Thursday is just another sad chapter of the sites history.
Site Analysis prior to the Tragedy
Analysis of the Swanston Street CUB site conditions show a number of glaring flaws in its structure, design and layout all which may have combined to cause the collapse of the masonry wall which killed three innocent pedestrians on Thursday Match 28
The building site's hoarding along Swanston Street was reported to be 3 m tall, some 600mm taller than the maximum height of 2.4m for building site hoardings outlined in the City of Melbourne construction guidelines
Google Street View 2009 showing the southern edge of the brick wall before the plywood hoarding board and advertising sign was attached View Larger Map
The southern edge of the masonry wall was unsupported. There was no return or vertical bracing at this location. This was the weakest point and most likely the point of structural failure
The 25 meter plywood hoarding structure to the left of the Southern edge of the brick wall was subject to wind forces and would have acted as a lever against the brick wall's edge causing it to rotate.
The recorded WSW wind speed in Melbourne on Thursday, March 28, was 76Km/Hour.
The location of a three-story high shipping container advertising structure on the right side of site, overlooking the CFMEU offices, would have deflected any wind gust concentrating its forces on the the hoarding board to the left and Southern edge of the brick wall . The increased applied pressure at this point could have caused the wall to rotate and collapse.
The hoarding was bolted to the Brick wall without any structural control joints. (Break points designed to allow each structure to act separately under load), This would have caused the whole wall to topple in a peeling motion. Had there been a structural control joint separation between the left hand side hoarding and the Southern edge of the brick wall the hoarding only would have been effected.
It was a combination of all the above: Height, site layout, physical obstruction, poor design and construction of the hoarding itself and magnified applied pressure that concentrated on the wall at its weakest point.
Any first year architecture or engineering student would be able to identify and determine the faults that contributed to the walls collapse
The media and the City of Melbourne need to talk to Professor Bill Melbourne (That's his real name) from Monash University Engineering Department
A Department of Engineers and City of Melbourne engulfed in a "Cone of Silence"
Six days have past and still no information or comment by the City of Melbourne as to why the Swanston Street wall collapsed.
The City of Melbourne has a whole department of Structural Civil Engineers costing rate payers millions of dollars, surely they could shed some light and informatuion on this tragic event?
The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, has failed to comment as as other City Councillors. All are encased in a "Cone of Silence"
Cr. Stephen Mayne, who is not known to be shy for words, has failed to make any comment on the wall, not even a tweet of condolance or any form of explanation
Green Councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oake are also engulfed in the "Cone of Silence" as are the remaining City Councillors
I would hate to see them in action during a "real crisis".
Meanwhile questions remain unanswered as to if a permit for the hoarding cladding the fatal wall and been issued and whether the design and construction of the plywood hoarding had met Council guidelines and public safety requirements
The City of Melbourne has a whole department of Structural Civil Engineers costing rate payers millions of dollars, surely they could shed some light and informatuion on this tragic event?
The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, has failed to comment as as other City Councillors. All are encased in a "Cone of Silence"
Cr. Stephen Mayne, who is not known to be shy for words, has failed to make any comment on the wall, not even a tweet of condolance or any form of explanation
Green Councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oake are also engulfed in the "Cone of Silence" as are the remaining City Councillors
I would hate to see them in action during a "real crisis".
Meanwhile questions remain unanswered as to if a permit for the hoarding cladding the fatal wall and been issued and whether the design and construction of the plywood hoarding had met Council guidelines and public safety requirements
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Calls for City of Melbourne to commission an independent analysis and review of the CUB site conditions
The City of Melbourne has been called on to commission an independent structural engineers report of the design, construction and layout of the Swanston Street CUB "Swanston Square" development site
Anthony van der Craats, community activist and blogger, said "An independent review should determine the full impact of the site conditions and the design and construction of the fixed plywood hoarding fencing. The site analysis should include a wind tunnel test to ascertain if the placement of the ship containers used as an advertising bill board concentrated wind forces on the hoarding and masonry wall"
The review should also consider the role of the City Council's statutory building planning permit administration so as to ensure that all legal requirements and procedures had been complied with and if need be recommend any changes to local laws to ensure public safety on construction sites.
"There is ongoing concern that the design and construction of the wooden hoarding had facilitated the collapse of the masonry wall which killed three pedestrians in Swanston Street on Thursday".
City of Melbourne guidelines list a maximum height of 2.4m for building site hoardings. Any hoarding and temporary construction should be able to withstand a live wind loads in accordance with design standard AS 1170.2
The hoarding in place on the Swanston Street site was reported to be 3m high and may have been constructed without the necessary permits or Council inspection . The Southern edge of the masonry wall was not adequately supported to withstand lateral forces to prevent its collapse.
The design and height of the wooden hoarding, its faxation to the masonry wall, and the placement of the ship containers could have all worked in conjunction to concentrate wind forces on the wall causing it to collapse.
Wall of Silence
The Council must respond to community concerns,. The media, in attempting to contact Council Officers seeking answers to questions in relation to the sites administration, have been meet with a wall of silence as the council administration goes into lock down amidst concern that the City of Melbourne may be subject to litigation and a compensation claim.
The City of Melbourne has a greater responsibility to the safety and the general public than its professional standing. Being proactive in commissioning an independent report would be the first step to restoring public confidence in the council's administration
If the Melbourne City Council is at fault putting its head in the sand will only make matters worst
Anthony van der Craats, community activist and blogger, said "An independent review should determine the full impact of the site conditions and the design and construction of the fixed plywood hoarding fencing. The site analysis should include a wind tunnel test to ascertain if the placement of the ship containers used as an advertising bill board concentrated wind forces on the hoarding and masonry wall"
The review should also consider the role of the City Council's statutory building planning permit administration so as to ensure that all legal requirements and procedures had been complied with and if need be recommend any changes to local laws to ensure public safety on construction sites.
"There is ongoing concern that the design and construction of the wooden hoarding had facilitated the collapse of the masonry wall which killed three pedestrians in Swanston Street on Thursday".
City of Melbourne guidelines list a maximum height of 2.4m for building site hoardings. Any hoarding and temporary construction should be able to withstand a live wind loads in accordance with design standard AS 1170.2
The hoarding in place on the Swanston Street site was reported to be 3m high and may have been constructed without the necessary permits or Council inspection . The Southern edge of the masonry wall was not adequately supported to withstand lateral forces to prevent its collapse.
The design and height of the wooden hoarding, its faxation to the masonry wall, and the placement of the ship containers could have all worked in conjunction to concentrate wind forces on the wall causing it to collapse.
Wall of Silence
The Council must respond to community concerns,. The media, in attempting to contact Council Officers seeking answers to questions in relation to the sites administration, have been meet with a wall of silence as the council administration goes into lock down amidst concern that the City of Melbourne may be subject to litigation and a compensation claim.
The City of Melbourne has a greater responsibility to the safety and the general public than its professional standing. Being proactive in commissioning an independent report would be the first step to restoring public confidence in the council's administration
If the Melbourne City Council is at fault putting its head in the sand will only make matters worst
CFMEU raises concerns over Swanston Street Wall hoarding
The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) have raised concerns over the design and construction of the Swanston Street former CUB site. The Unions concerns mirror those expressed express in this blog.
Questions are being asked if a planning and development permit had been issued by the City of Melbourne and the site inspected according to the Council's Local laws and guidelines on building and construction site safety. According to the Councils published information a permit is required to construct hoardings which should be renewed every 12 months.
It is believed that the hoarding which was fixed to the masonry wall may have contributed to the walls collapse. The hoarding would have increased the effect of the wind loading in a levering action motion causing the wall to collapse.
The new hoarding, that was constructed in 2012, was taller than the permitted height of construction site hoardings and extended up to 600mm above the height of the lowest part of the masonry wall, well above the 2.4 meter height limit for building site hoardings.
This along with a 25 meter section of plywood hoarding connected to the left of the masonry wall are the prime suspects for the walls collapse which is under review.
Questions are being asked if a planning and development permit had been issued by the City of Melbourne and the site inspected according to the Council's Local laws and guidelines on building and construction site safety. According to the Councils published information a permit is required to construct hoardings which should be renewed every 12 months.
It is believed that the hoarding which was fixed to the masonry wall may have contributed to the walls collapse. The hoarding would have increased the effect of the wind loading in a levering action motion causing the wall to collapse.
The new hoarding, that was constructed in 2012, was taller than the permitted height of construction site hoardings and extended up to 600mm above the height of the lowest part of the masonry wall, well above the 2.4 meter height limit for building site hoardings.
This along with a 25 meter section of plywood hoarding connected to the left of the masonry wall are the prime suspects for the walls collapse which is under review.
Memorial wall established on fated development site
Monday, April 01, 2013
City of Melbourne Building Regulatory Requirements
Below is an extract of the regulatory requirements outlined in various documents by the City of Melbourne (See their web site and links provided) This is not an inclusive list and readers should undertake all necessary research in determining the what provisions may apply or not apply to any project within the city of Melbourne.
This is guide only. Information is subject to change
Link: https://eservices.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ePathway/Production/Web/Applications/ApplicationTypes.aspx
City of Melbourne Main web site: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au
This is guide only. Information is subject to change
Link: https://eservices.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ePathway/Production/Web/Applications/ApplicationTypes.aspx
City of Melbourne Main web site: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au
MELBOURNE CITY COUNCIL
ACTIVITIES LOCAL LAW 2009
Title
1.1 This Local Law is called the “Activities Local Law 2009”.
What are the objectives of this Local Law?
1.2 The objectives of this Local Law are to:
(a) promote a physical and social environment free from hazards to health, in
which the residents of and visitors to the municipality
can enjoy a quality of life that meets the general expectations of the community;
(b) control noise, behaviour, liquor consumption,animals, spruiking, busking,
advertising sign, works and obstructions on roads, street trading, the use of toy vehicles
and other activities;
(c) protect the use of public places and control activities in or near them;
(d) provide for safety in public place
..
Definitions
1.11 The words identified in italics throughout this Local Law are intended to have the
following meaning ...
“
Building
” includes a part of a building and the whole or any part of a structure, temporary building or structure, fence, gate, wall, pavement light, outbuilding, service installation, mast, pole and other appurtenance of a building.
Building works
"includes works, activities, events and practices for or in connection with the construction, alteration, demolition or removal of a building
..
Construction Management Plan
" means a description of the proposed strategy to be implemented in relation to the building works to ensure:
(a) public amenity and safety are maintained;
..
Fencing Vacant Land
2.12 An owner or occupier of vacant land which is wholly or partially unfenced must, as soon as practicable after being directed to do so by the Councilor an Authorised Officer, fence or cause to be fenced all or that portion of the vacant land which was the subject of the Council’s or the Authorised Officer’s direction
PART 7 - BUILDING STANDARDS
Compliance with Code
7.1 A person must comply with any obligation imposed by the Code. Compliance with the Standards
7.2 A person to whom the Standards apply must comply with any obligation imposed by the Standards
Types of construction permits
The City of Melbourne issues many different permits for building and construction activities including:..
Permits for safety and amenity
- Hoardings (4.1- General Requirements)
Hoardings are to be designed to withstand wind loads to AS 1170.2 with counterweights as necessary to prevent overturning. In addition hoardings adjoining excavations are to be designed to withstand a lateral line load of 0.75 kN/m applied at a height of 1 metre from the base and suitably guarded by barriers to prevent vehicular impact.
Hoardings and barricades must be in good condition, free from graffiti and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. They should be painted in a uniform colour preferably white
Construction Management Plan guidelines
The City of Melbourne requires developers and builders to carefully manage excavation, demolition and building works within its municipal boundaries.To achieve this, builders and developers are required to submit a construction management plan that takes into account all relevant aspects of demolition or building work.
The guidelines address a range of issues to be managed onsite, including:
All public domain protection permits such as hoardings, gantries, cranes, etc are issued by the City of Melbourne’s Construction Management Group (Site Services)
...
1.5 Matters for Consideration
Fencing of Site
1.5.1 The site should be secured by a fence, hoarding or other suitable barrier constructed in accordance with Public Safety and Amenity – A Code of Good Practice at Construction Sites.
1.5.2 Ensure hoardings, perimeter fencing or other site barrier systems do not allow climbing or unauthorised entry.
1.5.3 Before and during building work, all excavations must be fenced so they do not pose a danger to life or property to the satisfaction of the relevant building surveyor.
1.5.4 Hoardings, barriers and other perimeter fencing must be suitably lined to limit public viewing to designated viewing areas. This will ensure pedestrian flow is not impeded and adequate site-public interaction is accommodated. Refer to the Public Safety and Amenity – A Code of Good Practice at Construction Sites.
...
1.5.16 Developers and builders must ensure there are no tripping hazards from the hoarding or perimeter fencing on nearby footpaths. Electrical, plumbing and other services extending over footpaths must be covered over, and pedestrian and disability access facilitated by a ramp. Ramps must have a non-slip surface, a handrail, and a minimum gradient of 1:14 unless the existing topography of the street or road requires some variation to this ratio
.. 1.5.32 Hoardings must be designed to reduce the likelihood of unauthorised bill postings and graffiti through the use of wire mesh guards, warning notices and/or public art. Graffiti and other posters or stickers on hoardings and fencing must be removed on at least a weekly basis, or immediately if it is offensive in nature
...
1.6 Applicable legislative references, local laws, etc:
a. Building Act 1993
b. Planning and Environment Act 1987
c. Melbourne Planning Scheme
d. Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
e. Activities Local Law 1999:
i. 6.1 (Permit required for road interference)
ii. 8.1 (Notice to commence building work)
iii. 11.2 (Prohibition for vehicles remaining on street)
iv. 11.3 (Interfering with pedestrian sign)
v. 11.5 (General obstructions)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)