FAO

Alberto Rice

Copy

Stephen Braybrook Philip Garrett Anthony Benson

Hi Alberto, Alberto, you chose to answer 1 out of the 4 queries submitted to Anthony Benson . 1TU

U1T

Alberto, on what basis and without a Building Permit was the fan replaced? Who certified the design change? Does the system comply as it stands? Why I wasn’t notified of the change? Why Norman Disney & Young, the initial services designers were not involved? Reference your letter dated 22 June , in the paragraph extracted below, you state that the email I received from the Melbourne City Council “has nothing to do with the annual certification”. 1TU

U1T

I did not receive an email from City Melbourne Council. Melbourne City Council released, under the FOI, I a hard copy of an incomplete and yet to be finalised, Stokes Safety AEMSR report. The amended report, within which you were copied, refers to Stokes Safety AESMR in my email published on Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:07 AM . 1TU

U1TU

I extract below, my comments with respect to Stokes Safety AESMR: “ Stokes Safety , under the Building Act 1993 and Building Regulations 2006, amends the currently posted AESMR , to include CLASS 6. It does not identify the individual and specific obligatory Essential Safety Measures required by each of the 2 restaurants, uniquely, to, operate compliantly. U

U

U

U

Stokes Safety sign and state that the building owner took the necessary steps to demonstrate compliance ensuring conditions, reference PART B – (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) , are met. They are not, yet, they are signed.” U

U

Alberto, The 2 page Stokes Safety document you are referring to as “Certification” is not “Certification”. The document is an AESMR report summary, stating that the Safety Measures for the relevant BCA Classes within the building at the 333 Collins Street, are maintained as per 2006 Regulations, The Building Act 1993 and their Occupancy permits. U

U

Stokes Safety on one hand reports out that the building has BCA CLASSIFICATION 5, 6, 7b.

U

U

BCA CLASSIFICATION 6 is retail.

1TU

U1T

Stokes Safety on the contrary reports out, that the building is only an “OFFICE BUILDING AND CAR PARK”. It doesn’t refer to its retail, BCA Class 6, (cafés, restaurants, retail.....) U

U

It should be written in the “BUILDING OR PART OF BUILDING section: “OFFICE BUILDING (5), RETAIL (6) and CAR PARK (7a)”, not ( 7b) The relevant AESMR extracted text, below;

The AESMR summary report states on its 1 st page, that under 2006 Regulations, an AESMR report is needed for the required Safety Measures before each anniversary of an “Occupancy Permit”, as per extract below; P

P

Occupancy Permits for BCA CLASSIFICATION 6 , retail, Blu Nite and Strozzi Ristorante Cafeteria, do not exist. 1TU

U1T

Stokes Safety , does not Include and Identify in their AESMR the Safety Measures required for Blu Nite’s and Strozzi Ristorante Cafeteria. U

U

Blu Nite and Strozzi Ristorante Cafeteria’s Safety Measures cannot be listed, given; Occupancy Permits for their establishment do not exist. They’ve operated noncompliantly since their establishment. Stokes Safety AESMR report states that the building’s personnel carried out maintenance on the Safety Measures, only, those listed in the report, which have been checked and inspected by Stokes Safety, none of which have to do with Blu Nite or Strozzi Ristorante Cafeteria operating as cafes / restaurants and their required Essential Safety Measures?

U

U

Given the BCA CLASSIFICATION 6 Safety Measures of Blu Nite and Strozzi Ristorante Cafeteria, are not identified and listed in the AEMSR report, then, on what basis Stokes Safety includes BCA CLASSIFICATION 6 for the 333 Collins Street building? 1TU

U1T

U

U

1TU

U1T

Stokes Safety , upon signing the AESMR report need to satisfy Conditions 1 and 2 of PART B, below;

U

U

Condition 1, extracted below, requires details of any inspection report;

Condition 2, extracted below, requires that that owner took all reasonable steps to demonstrate compliance with respect to occupancy permits;

Stephen, Anthony Benson, 333 Collins Street building, submitted to Luke Hamblin, Melbourne City Council, the incomplete “AESMR” as an “Essential Services Report” to ”show compliance for monthly, quarterly and annual mechanical ventilation maintenance as requested”, extracted below; 1TU

U1T

Alberto Rice, attaches the AESMR summary, to what Anthony Benson submitted as an Essential Services Report, and in his letter dated 22 June , states that the email I received from Melbourne City Council under the FOI has nothing to do with the annual certification and that “current certification’ is valid until September 2016. 1TU

U1T

1TU

U1TU

U

Stephen, on what basis do you accept the anomalies within the Stokes Safety AESMR : 1TU

i)

U1T

Reporting out the building as having BCA CLASSIFICATION 6 without Occupancy Permits and without the required Safety Measures of BCA CLASSIFICATION 6 being identified and included, and to; State as well as sign-off on behalf of the owner that, “the owner took every reasonable step to ensure compliance”? 1TU

U1T

1TU

U1T

ii)

Stephen, For 7+ months now, I’ve requested Permits and Approvals for the establishment of the premise currently leased by Blu Nite since 2 December 2014. All I’ve had from you as a response being, “if we cannot locate the Occupancy Permit, it does not mean that it does not exist”? Extracted below, specifies that records should be available for your inspection within 24 hour;

PART B – (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) , are compliance requirements ensuring conditions to be demonstrated as met. They are not, yet, they are signed-off? 1TU

U1T

In the case of Blu Nite, you don’t even need to request maintenance records. You can determine, immediately, without leaving your office if an Occupancy Permit ever issued? You are the Authority. Occupancy Permit records reside within City Melbourne Council.

Blu Nite’s mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and plumping services were never commissioned, nor, complied and were never established under a valid Building Permit as a restaurant. The current Blu Nite premises never had a Certificate of Compliance for any of its services at the time of its establishment, early 2000. Stephen, your formal letter addressing 7+ months of correspondence related to all of the above is unacceptable as a, supposedly, responsible Deputy Municipal Building Surveyor. 1TU

U1T

Alberto, you did not disclose that Blu Nite had inherited liabilities and unforeseen exposures upon the commencement of its current lease, 2 December 2014. You cannot use the 2 pages of an incomplete, erroneous and invalid report to declare “Certification” Alberto, on what basis, do you lease out premises that do not have Occupancy permits? Given the premises don’t have Occupancy Permits means they are not suitable to be occupied from a Safety point of view, furthermore, the leasing out of non-compliant premises represents not other than a transferring of liability to tenants and represents a fundamental breach of the legal constraints associated therewith. Alberto, why now do you attempt to retrospectively create CAD drawings for a nonapproved – non-compliant sub-division to what is now Blu Nite & City Copy, these drawings required to be in place prior the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. If you want to rectify the issues, you require bringing appropriate expertise, the initial designers of the system; Norman Disney & Young. The fan arbitrarily replaced weekend commencing 10 June 2016 requires the relevant expertise to first scope its specifications and following its installation, it certification as compliant. This has not happened and cannot happen without the required competencies being engaged? Kind regards, Thanasis Raptis.