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:

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.

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.  

 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 3001
T: 03 9658 8400 | M: 0429 502 043 | F: 03 9658 9891
|www.melbourne.vic.gov.au | |www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/whatson

Alison Lyon leaves the den Leaving behind a legacy of poor governance

Rumour of fact – our sources in the Council Governance Department tells us;

Alison Lyon, Melbourne City Council’s Legal and Governance Officer is departing the City of Melbourne and taking up a position at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Ms Lyon’s advice to the City of Melbourne was highly questionable as was her professional ethics.

She cost the City of Melbourne $100,000’s of dollars in highly questionable advice and on many occasions had generated concern about misuse of her office and possible breaches of the Local Government Act.

She was the officer responsible for spending over $60,000.00 of ratepayers money in seeking to withhold detailed election results.

The standard of Council administration under her management seriously declined. Many around the town hall had good cause to question her motives and the quality of her advice.

Ms Lyon was responsible for the management of the Council’s FoI section. It appears that the State Government may have been mislead by the City of Melbourne in relation to the Council’s non-performance of FoI with notable omissions to the number of decisions overturned on appeal by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Staff were often compromised (on at least one occasion members of staff came close to being charged with giving false evidence in court proceedings) as a result of her ill-considered unprofessional advice.

She will not be missed.

Alison Lyon leaves the den Leaving behind a legacy of poor governance

Rumour of fact – our sources in the Council Governance Department tells us;

Alison Lyon, Melbourne City Council’s Legal and Governance Officer is departing the City of Melbourne and taking up a position at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Ms Lyon’s advice to the City of Melbourne was highly questionable as was her professional ethics.

She cost the City of Melbourne $100,000’s of dollars in highly questionable advice and on many occasions had generated concern about misuse of her office and possible breaches of the Local Government Act.

She was the officer responsible for spending over $60,000.00 of ratepayers money in seeking to withhold detailed election results.

The standard of Council administration under her management seriously declined. Many around the town hall had good cause to question her motives and the quality of her advice.

Ms Lyon was responsible for the management of the Council’s FoI section. It appears that the State Government may have been mislead by the City of Melbourne in relation to the Council’s non-performance of FoI with notable omissions to the number of decisions overturned on appeal by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Staff were often compromised (on at least one occasion members of staff came close to being charged with giving false evidence in court proceedings) as a result of her ill-considered unprofessional advice.

She will not be missed.

Alison Lyon leaves the den Leaving behind a legacy of poor governance

Rumour of fact – our sources in the Council Governance Department tells us;

Alison Lyon, Melbourne City Council’s Legal and Governance Officer is departing the City of Melbourne and taking up a position at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Ms Lyon’s advice to the City of Melbourne was highly questionable as was her professional ethics.

She cost the City of Melbourne $100,000’s of dollars in highly questionable advice and on many occasions had generated concern about misuse of her office and possible breaches of the Local Government Act.

She was the officer responsible for spending over $60,000.00 of ratepayers money in seeking to withhold detailed election results.

The standard of Council administration under her management seriously declined. Many around the town hall had good cause to question her motives and the quality of her advice.

Ms Lyon was responsible for the management of the Council’s FoI section. It appears that the State Government may have been mislead by the City of Melbourne in relation to the Council’s non-performance of FoI with notable omissions to the number of decisions overturned on appeal by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Staff were often compromised (on at least one occasion members of staff came close to being charged with giving false evidence in court proceedings) as a result of her ill-considered unprofessional advice.

She will not be missed.