We’ve received an email from one of our readers asking that we put the following up as a post –
How can a building be completed and occupied when the basemen car park was not built to the Approved Plans?
Carnegie residents were surprised to receive an application from the developer for an amendment to the VCAT approved plans of a 3 storey apartment development in Neerim Road, Carnegie. his might not be unusual, except for the fact that the apartments have been completed and occupied for over 12 months
It appears the ramp into the basement car park was not built to the approved plans. In fact the ramp that was constructed does not meet Australian standards.
So the developers are going back to VCAT to seek an amendment to the plans after the building has been constructed proposing changes to the length and angle to the entrance ramp to the requirements of council.
How can a development to be completed, signed off, occupied and then found to have not been built to plan, particularly when the basement car park is one of the first things constructed?
How can this happen? Why wasn’t this picked up at the very earliest stages of construction by the building surveyor who has a legal responsibility to ensure plans are complied with? Who signed off the project at different stages of construction to say it met with the approved plans? What was council’s role in this and if council didn’t have a role in signing off on the construction then what action will be taken by council against a building surveyor who has signed it off?
It is beyond belief that a project can get to this stage and this issue arise following construction and occupation of a building.
There are very serious planning issue for council and the questions must be answered. This is not the first time developers have constructed buildings multi storey buildings in Cargnegie not to the approved plans. Council has chosen in these instances to take no action against the developer or the surveyor. SO how can we as residents have faith or trust in the developers and the planning and building system of this municipality?
Glen Eira Debates 
September 9, 2011 at 7:27 PM
My dear resident please don’t be surprised. After all this is Glen Eira Council and the Planning Department to boot! Perhaps we should up Mr. Akehurst’s salary to $350,000 per annum and employ another 10 compliance officers each on about $80,000 per annum. That should get the job done properly. We can then sit back in perfect confidence that such practices will cease and desist. For good measure we should also employ another person to ensure that residents are notified of developments next door to them and that notices are sent out in reasonable time. A doorman would also be useful since the last few meetings someone forgot to unlock the entrance to the town hall bastion. Then we also need another staff member to print out correct notices and another staff member to go to alternate destinations that were previously noted in earlier releases in order to tell people exactly where meetings are being held. Yes, another 20 or so staff should fix all these little hitches quite nicely. Then Mr Newton and Mr Burke can always keep telling us how efficient wonderful exceptional this council is at the most basic tasks. Mr Burke is a stand out winner for my annual bullshit award.
September 9, 2011 at 11:41 PM
This happens all the time in the building industry, it’s as common as apples.
It usually gets cleared up fairly easily without much fuss.
Unless it happens next door to were a litigious Barristers lives, and he/she wants to drag someone over the coals just for revenge.
Height violations are treated more seriously as an issue.
Have a look at a contract to buy off the plan, you will see just how flexible a final outcome can be.
Anyway in the scheme of all things, is this such a big deal, is it life threatening or is it going to ruin the fabric of our society.
September 10, 2011 at 10:10 AM
Glennie, this may happen all the time as you write, but that doesn’t make it right. The example given also talks about Australian Standards. They’re there for a purpose – to protect people and to ensure that what’s done is completely safe for everyone. If these standards weren’t upheld, then there is a risk, which is unacceptable. Ultimately it’s the job of surveyors and council to make sure that the law is being upheld. They’ve failed here and that leaves the door open for doubt as to how many other times they’ve failed to adequately protect residents.
September 10, 2011 at 8:26 AM
The answer to ‘”Happy’s” very valid questions has to be either incompetence or corruption. Why did nobody do their job?
These questions should be put to Councillors and the Administration individually (emails) and using the formal and open public question process. Of course, the answers will be pure crap but at least the powers that be will receive a message that after years of slumber the residents are finally waking up and are not happy.
September 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Maybe its the same in all suburbs in Glen Eira, but Carnegie does seem to get its fair share of shonks. The issue in Neerim Road is not an isolated example, and the view of Council has been that they don’t expect developers to comply with their Planning Permits. Unofficially Council makes decisions, completely lacking in transparency, about which breaches of Permit conditions they will pursue and which ones they will ignore. We also know there are developments (including a Major Project) in which construction took place without a Planning Permit.
VCAT Deputy President Helen Gibson told a meeting of VCAT “stakeholders” 4 years ago that corruption in the development industry wasn’t a problem in Victoria. Its interesting that the “Spotlight Centre” she forced upon us still doesn’t comply with its Planning Permit. VCAT isn’t responsible for its decisions though.
It can cost considerable money to pursue non-compliance. For example it is prohibitive to seek a “stop-work” order if there’s a chance that VCAT will grant a retrospective Amendment to a Planning Permit. So instead, at 300 Neerim Road we have 7′ ceiling heights on some floors to work around the developer’s gratuitous raising of the height of lower levels. For those with long memories, Cr Tang “informed” a Planning Conference that 300 Neerim was 58% site coverage. It isn’t. Its 100%. Jeff Akehurst later explained that accuracy in planning applications wasn’t Council’s responsibility. [And included a comment on the lines of “we’d have no planning applications if we insisted on them being accurate”.]
As for compliance with AS2890.1 – 1993 [obsolete, replaced by AS2890.1 – 2004, but we can’t expect Planning Schemes to keep up], there are at least two reasons to care. The first is safety, and the second is amenity.
Each year, tragically, many young people die in driveway-related accidents. The standard specifies slopes and sightlines to control vehicle speed and provide a minimum field of view where a driveway crosses the property boundary (typically a footpath). It wants cars to be essentially stationary before crossing the boundary. Glen Eira and VCAT’s view, without expert advice such as from Monash University Accident Research Centre, is that AS2890.1 provides too much safety. Until this latest contretemps, we didn’t know how much they were prepared to compromise our safety to help a developer make more money–only that the bar had been lowered several times.
The amenity aspect comes from all the vehicles that are parking on the street at the subject Neerim Road property rather than attempting to use the ramp as currently provided. The ramp slope is simply too intimidating.
Additional criticisms of the current status quo re AS2890.1 and clause 52.06 can be found in the report from the Road Safety Committee Inquiry Into Pedestrian Safety In Car Parks May 2010.
September 10, 2011 at 11:36 AM
Reprobate, I always look forward to your comments and your indepth knowledge of the issues and the legislation. It’s just an enormous pity that our planners aren’t as dedicated to enforcing them as they should be. I would certainly be in favour of paying you $250,000 to head our planning department.
September 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM
The fact that this has been discovered shows that the system works. Could you tell us the name of the Private Surveyor. his income and any proposed punishment.Name the looser.
September 10, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Sorry. Anon, I don’t agree with you – the fact that it was discovered 12 months after building compeletion and occupation doesn’t prove the system works. If the system had worked it would have been discovered much much earlier (i.e. when the basement carpark was under construction or completed) ergo this proves the system doesn’t work and is in need of a radical overhaul
The name of the surveyor (and other details you mention) would be useful as would the name of the Council Inspector who signed off on the ramp which endangers both residents and unsuspecting pedestrians.
September 11, 2011 at 2:51 PM
If this is allowed to pass through without serious penalty one would have to suspect that someone is copping a big sling. The ombudsman should be alerted. If the building does not meet Australian Standards it will have to be put right. Any insurance claims that emerge in the future would certainly be refused at which point the all efforts would be directed at the Council aka. ratepayers.
September 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM
Gimmeabreak you really don’t have a clue.Every stage of this project is signed off by a Private Surveyor who is paid big bucks to ensure the project is completed in accord with the Original Plans.That is why this person needs to be named and shamed.
September 11, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Fine, Anon, name the person that needs to be named. Get Council to name the surveyor and outline their actions against that surveyor and their actions against the developer. Who , when, what should be relevant. By the way, given Repobates comment consider how accurate the planning application was and Council has off loaded that particular responsibility – if they approve it shouldn’t they have a responsibility to ensure it is followed
September 12, 2011 at 7:11 PM
There’s a couple of things I’d like to clarify. I used 300 Neerim Rd as an example of what I consider to be shonky behaviour, but I could have chosen others. There have been many developments along Neerim Rd in recent years after all. Whether its cut-n-paste mania, or a genuine inability to distinguish between railway lines and kindergartens, the results are the same–an undermining of the integrity of the Planning System.
I’m not really for “naming-and-shaming”, but honesty and accountability. If somebody makes a mistake, then they should admit it, and rectify it. What really gets up my nose is when its tried to be kept hidden, and residents are expected to lose further amenity so the perpetrator can avoid having to rectify the mistake at their own expense.
While Council theoretically is responsible for the administration of PAEA in Glen Eira, there is another act, Buildings Act 1993, involved. For example, if a Planning Permit is required, then its an offence for a Building Surveyor to issue a Building Permit without verifying that the required Planning Permit has been obtained. As one said to me, “you have no idea how serious that would be”. Well I do now. Its not. Doesn’t matter what the Act says. Money matters.
Here’s a challenge to you all: is there a multi-unit development anywhere in the municipality, where the result complies with its original Planning Permit, where the builder complied with the Glen Eira Building Site Management Code Of Practice, and the development complies with the standards and policies contained in Glen Eira Planning Scheme?
September 12, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Some years ago I had a similar issue with a new house being built on a neighbouring property. As the house was being built I realised that it was different from the plans submitted for the planning permit. New homes usually require both a planning permit and a building permit. It appears that in this case, the plans submitted for the building permit were different from those submitted for the planning permit. After complaining about this to council, the builder was required to submit a new planning application which council duly approved. At the time it was acknowledged that there were no checks made between planning permits and building permits. It seems things haven’t changed.