We’ve received the following email and series of photographs highlighting (once again) the chaos that residents have to put up with. Why this goes on and on and developers allowed to own our streets is incomprehensible. Even if fined, we’re told that either the fine is ignored, or it’s so miniscule that it is a drop in the ocean for most contractors working on multi-million dollar projects. It is our understanding however, that councils have the legal right to set their own penalties. A $200, or even $300 dollar fine is negligible. It is time that this council got off its backside and starting properly policing, fining and prosecuting each and every single developer that does not give a damn about those living next to his mess.
In order, here is:
- The email we received
- The photos depicting day after day
What we do not have photos of is the claim that on Friday last, there were 16 trucks parked in the Carnegie Street – three with trailers attached. The street in its entirety is approximately 200 metres long. Residents were unable to get out of their drives.
Development has a major impact on us everyday and council just doesn’t care and doesn’t have the interest in doing anything about it!! Our neighbourhood has been impacted, like so many others, by a local single block development in Carnegie. The developers and construction company have had no regard for publicly owned property, no regard for public access, no regard for neighbours and have had a number safety breaches on site that I understand have resulted in fines and orders to rectify the site. This week council has been contacted everyday to complain about the impassable footpath that has been created by the construction company. The attached photographs show the problem. The daily calls have resulted in 3 notices being issued to the construction company (Wednesday) – but the result was no change at all – the footpaths remain impassable. Calls were made again on Thursday and Friday – again no change to the footpaths at all. This morning the solution seems to have been found! ‘Use other footpath’ signs erected. So the developers get away with completely ruining public infrastructure and are not made to immediately rectify the damage – no strong action from council, nothing that does anything to protect the health and safety of residents, nothing that makes a strong statement to developers about not damaging public property. This council is shameless and completely ineffective.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 16, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Two developments are going up in our street and the conditions are the same. They don’t care. Since these started I’ve had 2 flat tyres and my wife one. We hadn’t had any in the past 6 years. Our out of pocket expenses are over $300. Maybe coincidence but walk along the street and debris and nails are scattered everywhere. Talk to these men and politely ask if they could please not close off the footpaths and there is indifference or abuse. I’m sick of it.
August 16, 2015 at 10:35 AM
For each of these many many breaches, there will be a council officer who has made a decision not to enforce the relevant legislation, regulations, or Local Law. In the interests of accountability and transparency, these decisions should not be secret and nor should the identity of the decision-makers. I hold the CEO reponsible, because after all, Local Government Act says the CEO is responsible for all matters concerning staff. The exception would be if staff are acting according to their delegated authority and that authority extends to compromising public safety and amenity if it helps developers make more money.
These footpath occupancies and road closures are illegal unless Council authorises them. The mud and building debris being deposited on nature strip and road are breaches of Local Law. It is time Andrew Newton was held accountable for the attitude of his staff, which is that no enforcement action should and will be taken. Council’s non-existent processes for managing amenity and safety issues around building sites has been raised before, but met with indifference from Council.
August 16, 2015 at 11:01 AM
What’s the bet that Council provided the “Use other Footpath” sign. Probably relocated it from Bent Street Bentleigh.
August 16, 2015 at 1:37 PM
Moderators: comment deleted
August 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM
I suggest the folks in this street read the Letters section in this weeks Leader.
Someone in Ormond had the same problem and encountered the same don’t give a sh*t Council attitude. So they snaffled a few traffic cones and some of that yellow tape and placed them around their home.
Score = ten for innovative resident and a humungous blurt to Council
August 16, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Adding to this access problem is no pedestrian access to Elliott Avenue from Neerim Road again today as new electricity infrastructure is put in for the new developments. The closure of Elliot avenue has been a frequent occurrence as all loading for the development site on the corner of Neerim Road has taken place with the road closed. Neerim Road with restricted traffic access coupled with restricted access on Koornang Road south of Neerim today – you just can’t get away from works taking place every day of the week. – again total inconvenience and Foxtel not working – assume they have cut cables during the works
August 16, 2015 at 6:27 PM
And I bet Council staff will refuse to let you see the approved traffic management plan, citing “privacy concerns”. That’s how debased the whole process has become.
August 16, 2015 at 8:35 PM
FYI – some extracts from council’s local law that should apply (and be enforced to the limit) –
Building materials and rubble
317. Placing of building material, building rubble, plant and equipment or a
portable toilet on any Road or Council Land.
Penalty: 10 Penalty Units
Building Site Management
330. A Person in charge of a Building Site (other than a Building site where
only Minor Building Works will be undertaken) within the Municipal District
must comply with any requirements imposed by the Building Site
Management Code of Practice as adopted from time to time. The Building
Site Management Code of Practice, as adopted from time to time, is
incorporated into this Local Law by reference and must be read as part of
this Local Law.
Penalty: 2 Penalty Units for a contravention of the Building Site
Management Code of Practice
5 Penalty Units for a contravention which requires action to be
taken under clause 807(b) of this Local Law, if the
contravention is a first offence
10 Penalty Units for a contravention which requires action to
be taken under clause 807(b) of this Local Law, if the
contravention is a second offence
Direction
403. The Council or an Authorised Officer may, in their discretion and without
limiting a right, power or duty to prosecute for an offence, issue a
direction requiring a person:
(1) to cease any prohibited matter or activity; or
(2) to undertake any works or to do specified things within a specified
time to remedy a breach of this Local Law or to otherwise comply
with the Local Law.
The direction may be issued in writing.
Tradesperson parking scheme
502. (1) A tradesperson engaged in Building Works or maintenance of a
Building in an area set aside as a resident parking area may apply
for a tradesperson parking Permit for that area, in accordance with
Council Policy Parking Permit System as adopted by Council from
time to time.
(2) The owner of a Building Site or Building subject to maintenance
works in an area set aside as a resident parking area may apply for
up to two (2) tradesperson parking Permits for that area, in
accordance with Council Policy Parking Permit System as adopted
by Council from time to time.
(3) A tradesperson engaged in emergency repairs or maintenance in a
commercial area, or the owner of a Property in a commercial area,
that is subject to such emergency repairs or maintenance, may
apply for a temporary tradesperson parking Permit(s) in accordance
with Council Policy Parking Permit System as adopted by Council
from time to time.
Impounding
615. (1) If any goods, items or material are placed on any Council Land or
Road in a manner for which a Permit is required under this Local
Law, but no Permit has been obtained, an Authorised Officer may
impound such goods, items or material.
(2) In addition to any penalty prescribed in this Local Law for an
offence relating to goods, items or material impounded under
subclause 615(1), Council may charge an appropriate fee for the
release of such impounded material.
Proceeding for enforcement
803. Any Authorised Officer may institute proceedings in the name of Council for the
enforcement of this Local Law or the recovery of any penalty in relation to any
offence under the Local Law.
Application for injunction
804. Any Authorised Officer may apply to a Court of competent jurisdiction for a
declaration or an injunction to prevent any act or threatened act which is or
would be contrary to this Local Law.
Additional penalty for continuing offence
805. In addition to any penalty imposed pursuant to the Local Government Act 1989
or this Local Law for a contravention of this Local Law, a penalty not exceeding
two Penalty Units shall apply for each day after conviction for an offence
during which a contravention of the Local Law continues.
Enforcement of Building Site Management Code of Practice
807. (1) Where an Authorised Officer has reason to believe that a Person has not
complied with their obligations under the Building Site Management Code
of Practice in contravention of clause 330 of this Local Law, the Authorised
Officer may issue that Person with a notice to comply.
(2) Where an Authorised Officer considers that urgent action is necessary to
prevent any danger to the environment or any nuisance arising from a
contravention of the Building Site Management Code of Practice, the Chief
Executive Officer or his/her delegate, not being the Authorised Officer
administering this clause, may approve such action as is considered
necessary to cause the immediate abatement or minimisation of the risk or
danger involved.
(3) If such action is taken under subclause 807(2), a notice must be served on
the owner or builder of the Building Site or their authorised agent setting
out details of the circumstances and action taken in response.
August 16, 2015 at 10:00 PM
This is the best council money can buy
August 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM
Anyone with any site inspection knowledge or experience can, without much more than a general look around, gauge whether a site is well or poorly managed (managed in this instance meaning as per workplace and public safety requirements and compliance with regulations and laws).. A more detailed review usually only provides info on how well or poorly it is managed. Issues or infringements noticed on the first visit remaining unaddressed on the second visit is also a clear indicator of management practices and attitude (current and future).
Increasingly, it is becoming clear that Council is failing residents during the construction phase by failing to recognise that public safety and residential amenity are being severely and routinely compromised. Residents complaints have gone way beyond issues of “convenience” or “nuisance” and legitimately raise substantiated major issues. Council has an unequivocal responsibility to regularly and proactively inspect sites to ensure such issues do not arise (or are minimised) and when they do occur are promptly and appropriately addressed.
Yet Council does nothing, allowing repeat offenders to continue along their merry way.
In an earlier posting Reprobate (a respected contributor) commented that CEO Newton should be held accountable for the do nothing attitude of his officers. I’d go further, the officers attitudes reflect those of the CEO and Councillors need to be involved to ensure that attitude changes and that the change is driven from the top. So far the silence from Councillors has been deafening, residents need to ensure that also changes.
August 17, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Off topic: Saturday’s Age has an article on corruption [“Conspiracies and cover-ups”] which mentions Dudley House Caulfield [sic]. The article ignores how the dodgy developments in Dudley St obtained their Permits, just the money that flowed subsequently. The area is a “Minimal Change” area and is zoned NRZ, so people may well wonder what 5-storey buildings are doing there. Indeed.