Road Safety: Consultation Vespas into Thin Air

The Victorian Scooters Riders Association (VSRA), An umbrella group representing four largest Victorian Scooter clubs, claim that their concerns on road safety have not been given due consideration. They have also expressed concern that other Motorcycle safety organizations have not been included in the City of Melbourne Road Safety Plan to be considered by the City Council on Tuesday, April 16. The report sets the basis of Council traffic management project funding for the next four years.

Australians are being encouraged to jump on a motorcycle or scooter
as a way of tackling congestion within the country’s major cities.
- Econews.com.au

The City Council claim to have consulted with the Motorcycle Riders Association (MRA) a claim denied by  MRA president,  The MRA is a social club only and do not provide advocacy support on Road Safety issues., They leave this up to the Victorian Motorcycle Council and the Independent Riders' Association.  Neither are listed in the City Council's report

Stephen Bardsley, spokesperson for the VSRA, in his newsletter to member associations has expressed his concern that a number of issues raised with the City Council has been ignored or played down in the report to Council.

The Melbourne City Council will vote on the Plan this coming Tuesday and as far as I can see the final Report is a disgrace, the opinions of Motorcycle and Scooter Riders have been ignored and the final Report is anti Motorcycle and Scooter Riders at the expense of being totally pro Pedestrian and Pedal Cyclists. 

What is of great concern to me is that the Report states that the VSRA were consulted and this could be seen as our endorsement of the Plan - Stephen Bardsley

The Victorian Motorcycle and Scooter Riding Groups are unanimous in opposing the plan

In October  2012 the VSRA commented


The report seems to be preparing all and sundry it should be expected that Motorcycle / Scooter Parking on the pavement will no longer be allowed, this really would be a backward step and a short sighted approach, in particular considering the Report acknowledges and includes statements such as:

 “There is a lack of attention to the needs of motorcyclists in the design of street environments”.

and“There is a general lack of appropriate parking for motorcycles in the CBD”

The report on road safety has not considered a number of issues concerning motorcycles and scooter riders.  They have included bus lane sharing only but as a low priority.  No consideration has been given to issues such as Lane Filtering, Shared use of underutilized bike lanes, improved traffic management to ease congestion. Turn left at anytime with care options or alternative routes for bicycle paths that do not impact on major transit routes. And slippery line road markings. It would appear that motorcycles concerns have been ignored or not taken seriously.  An excuse to be seen to be consulting.

Motorcycle/scooter riders were not consulted when the City Council undertook its consultation process on the City's Bike paths.

VSRA Policy documents

• Hitting the Wrong Target
• Bus Lane Sharing

Media Press Releases (Link)

Road Safety: Engineering Congestion

Melbourne City Council is considering its Road Safety report at next Tuesdays "Future Melbourne" Committee Meeting

The published report, which is used to justify Council expenditure on Melbourne Road Network, has come under strong criticism with community Groups accusing the Council Engineers Department of excluding commuters concerns.

The consultation process has been a sham.  Motorcycle groups in particular have been ignored.  The Council claims it has consulted community groups such as the MRA (Motorcycle Riders Association). We called the President of the MRA and they said  they had not been consulted. The MRA no longer provided advocacy support and had they been contacted they would have referred them to the Victorian Motorcycle Council. (VMC)   the President of the VMC said they had not been consulted either.

The City Council is planning to use this report to justify its budget and expenditure over the next five years.  Millions of dollars are being spent on locking down the City placing the interest of the Bicycle Lobby Group first.

Projects such as the reduction of traffic lanes on princess Bridge, LaTrobe Street, Albert Road Bike Lanes reducing traffic lanes to a single lane.

The effect of the City Council's Traffic plan is to cause more congestion and cost burden on the City's Business sector. City traders are complaining that the cost of service deliveries and taxis in the city area are going up  as courier and service delivery companies try to recoup their costs associated with ever increasing traffic congestion and increased time in delivery engineered by the City of Melbourne. The more congestion the more the Engineers claim they need to throw more money at to solve the problems they and our urban designers have created or made worst.

Of course money and cost is no barrier to our city engineering department.  Instead of utilizing existing staff they have proposed to create a new managerial position to look into road safety. 

They have no one looking after building site public safety issue or inspectors inspecting building hoardings in the City. Surely there this position can be filled without adding more staff?

Swanston Street has been spared detailed analysis in the Traffic Safety Plan as have Trams. Already the City Council has had to revise Swantson Street design plan in an effort in an effort to minimize accidents.

Other issues such as "Turn Left at any time with Care", lane filtering for motorcycles, shared use of underutilized bike lanes, The type of road marking paint used to eliminate slipping etc are all missing from the report, not considered or given low priority.

The use of Z class trams with a angled step in the front of the Tram is knows to wedge passengers feet between the tram and the new super stops. There is no mention of excluding these trans from the City Center.

There are cheaper and better alternatives than that proposed by the City of Melbourne Engineers.

The Council's priority is wrong and we are heading in the wrong direction. The statistics presented by the council are suspect. But what they have shown is that there has been an increase in risks to road safety since 2000.

The more the council locks down the city the more underutilized bike path and road closures the more accidents.

The Council should be exploring developing bike paths in less congested road space not on the major thoroughfare routes.  Morells Bridge and Sandridge Bridge not Princess Bridge. Franklin Street not LaTrobe Street, Cardigan Street as opposed to Lyon/Russel Streets. Spencer Street could accommodate more bicycle traffic leading towards South Melbourne, St Kilda.  There is also better options available in the Docklands precinct and future connections to Fishermans Bend.

The Council must review and reject the "Greens agenda" and listen to all stakeholders and local business concerns.

Public Meeting Melbourne City Council Committee Room, Administration entrance (Cr Little Collins St and Swanston Streets) Tuesday April 16, 5:30PM

Melbourne's Death Wall Rebuilt Even Higher

Melbourne's "Swanston Square" construction hoarding has been rebuilt on the site of the fatal wall collapse.  The new wall is over 3m tall, taller than the maximum height of 2.4m listed in the City of Melbourne Construction Management Guidelines.

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

The Fisherman Doyle rejected

Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle's, land grab deal has come under fire with local representatives rejecting the City of Melbourne's proposed land grab bid to transfer land from Fishermans Bend from the City of Port Philip

State Member for Albert Park Martin Foley, who represents the State seat of Albert Park and the Fisherman's Bend precinct, has criticised the deal calling on the State Government and Planning Minister to commit to "inclusive and effective consultation".

The City of Melbourne can not even manage a building site on Swanston Street not to mention problems associated with traffic management and Melbourne' bicycle network.  Why make them think they are best to take over control of the Fishermans Bend redevelopment?

Confidence in the City Council is in decline. the Council holds most of its meetings behind closed doors and its minutes of meetings are not accurate or true. It's failure to ensure public safety on the Swanston Square project site are just a few of problems facing the Council.

Port Phillip Mayor, Amanda Stevens, said 'The City of Port Phillip is outraged at the Lord Mayor's suggestion that over 200 hectares of our city should be transferred to the City of Melbourne"

In the absence of rational debate about a possible merger between the two cities and  the establishment of a Greater Melbourne the best solution for the redevelopment of the Fisherman's Bend site is an independent development authority that includes representatives from both Municipalities and the State Government.

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. 

MIA: Cr Watts

Melbourne City Councillor, Jackie Watts, missed last Tuesday's  Melbourne City Council Future Melbourne Committee Meeting without any apology or explanation given.

It is rumored that Councillor Watts has some medical issues and has requested indefinite leave from the City Council.  (Not confirmed).  We are told her family has requested privacy during this time.

If Councillor Watts is unable to fulfill her elected duties then she should consider tendering her resignation and allow for a count-back to fill any extra-ordinary vacancy that may arise.

It is understood that Michael Kennedy, who was number two on the Morgan-Elliot ticket, would be elected on a count-back to replace Cr Watts should she resign.

Under the provisions of the Victorian Local Government Act

Section 69 

(1) An extraordinary vacancy is created if the office of a Councillor becomes
vacant because the Councillor-

   (a)  fails to take the oath of office of Councillor; or

   (b)  dies; or

   (c)  resigns in writing delivered to the Chief Executive Officer; or

   (d)  becomes incapable of continuing to be a Councillor; or

   (e)  ceases to be qualified to be a Councillor; or

   (f)  is ousted from office; or

   (g)  is absent from 4 consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council without
        leave obtained from the Council.

ABC News makes claims not supported by CoM statement

ABC OnLine News service article titled:

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 2013 

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.

Melbourne Fishing around to manage Fishermens Bend redevelopment site

Do we really want the City of Melbourne managing the proposed Fishermans Bend re-development?

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle has unilaterally proposed that the City of Melbourne's external boundaries be altered so it can propose to the State government that it be the proposed redevelopment authority.

The proposal which first appeared in the Age had the City of Port Phillip up in arms with Port Phillip Councillors attending the City of Melbourne meeting expressing their dismay at the proposed boundary change without first consulting the Port Phillip Council.

Bowing to developers pressure the State Government is most likely to appoint an independent development authority to over see the Fishmens bend site as it did in redeveloping Docklands.

There were clear problems with the Docklands development but do we really think the City of Melbourne will do a better job given they can not even mange a safe work environment for the Swanston Street CUB development site?

Given that the redevelopment will have a significant impact non the City of Port Phillip should not Port Phillip have the lead say in the re-development plans? 

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.

"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:

• public safety, amenity and site security 

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)

 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. Chain wire and corrugated iron fences are considered unsuitable for this purpose.

 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.