Erinsborough

TV shows like The Block offer enticing glimpses of the potential riches to be had from buying properties and then squeezing the maximum renovation return from them. What they don't show however is the effect on both neighbours, and neighbourhood, from months of major construction work. And once focussed on profit, rather than say improving your own home, developers have minimal incentive for showing any respect or compassion for those nearby whose communal facilities, and vista, and parking, and morning sleep, are inevitably impacted in the pursuit of their prize.

Which is why I feel particularly sorry for this house facing Edwards Park which has the severe misfortune of demolition and construction occurring on both sides. In place of a single brick built bungalow to the right, they currently have a masterclass in selfish development, in the shape of a grossly out of proportion giant polystyrene Esky, complete with underground parking and real-estate agent friendly roof-top terrace. It remains to be seen what the other, slimmer, half of this sandwich of misfortune will look like.

State route 30

It is now possible, thanks to Google's recent addition of historical imagery to their Street View, to step back in time and see how Bay Street (aka State Route 30) has evolved since 2007. Though not as dramatic as this scene from WA, the change in sky-line resulting from the Bianca complex is pretty stark.

The time lapse shows the gradual replacement of cafes like Bay Treat Cafe, the Fergusson Plarre Bakehouse and Tallship Cafe with today's coffee heavyweights. It also a reminder of some of the chains that decided to move on from this suburb; like Pepe Jeans, Readings and Urban Burger. But it's the colourfully named independent stores like Fat Zap, Shoe Fetish, Boils and Kinki Koko I think I miss the most.

A block from the beach

Anyone wondering why there's been so many glimpses of Bay Street on the new season of the The Block need only peer round the corner onto Rouse Street. This nondescript commercial property, currently still listed on the business association's web-site as home to Think Sustainable Print, is actually where many of the DIY challenges have been performed.

With three of the last four series using properties within a kilometre radius of South Melbourne (the latest conversion, of a tall building described variously as a former factory, cinema or church, is on O'Grady Street in Albert Park), it comes as no surprise to learn that the executive producer lives nearby. Probably on a different street though, given the unwieldy volume of spectators the show seems to inflict upon disgruntled neighbours.

Directions hearing

The most visited post on this site, by some considerable margin, has nothing specifically to do with Port Melbourne. Perhaps because it can affect anyone in Victoria, my missive on the Building Appeals Board has remained in the top five posts-of-the-month ever since it was written. And that, sadly, was only my first experience with the body tasked with resolving building disputes. So, after receiving word from a fellow Port Phillip resident experiencing, depressingly similar, frustration with Victoria's Protection Works legislation I am spurred on to once again, deviate briefly from the trivialities of local news and reviews...

To briefly recap, the Building Act 1993 provides a mechanism for those performing building work to effectively guarantee access to adjoining properties. This process is only meant to be invoked and utilised where access is required in order to provide legitimate protection to the adjoining property from the building work. However an unscrupulous person could abuse it to gain access for other reasons, potentially without even performing the promised protection. In my opinion, the likelihood of this occurring is significantly increased by the unhappy combination of some apparent flaws in this part (7) of the Act, and an ill-conceived approach to enforcement that relies heavily on the resources and stamina of citizens unwittingly drawn into the process, without any pre-existing interest or experience. This may be most commonplace in Melbourne's inner suburbs, where proximity between adjoining dwellings grows ever greater.

The Victorian Building Authority (formerly known as the Building Commission) provides a number of regulatory bodies, among them the Building Appeals Board (BAB) and the Building Practitioners Board (BPB). One of the functions of the BAB is to hear disputes relating to these so-called Protection Works (and has the power to refer matters of conduct to the BPB which, in turn, has punitive powers). The "determination" of my first hearing before the BAB comprised a formal set of "directions" for the builders (the "owner's agent") to fulfil, within 60 days. I was told that these directions were enforceable as if they were a judgement or order of a court of a competent jurisdiction. So when they weren't fulfilled I assumed that by bringing this to the BAB's attention, they would then refer the matter to the BPB. I assumed wrong.

Building a commission complaint

This is going to be another atypical post, both in its verbosity and its lack of specific relevance to Port Melbourne, although there's certainly no shortage of building work going on here. It follows on from two similar rants about apparent flaws in the law regarding building Protection Works and the effectiveness of the Building Appeals Board in dealing with them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that some builders, even those with fancy adverts on the radio, are ... downright shonky. Most people seem to either have some direct experience of the phenomenon, or know someone who has. And that's before you even start to consider the potential for dodginess amongst the full range of "building practitioners"; building inspectors, surveyors and the like.

Thank goodness then for Victorian building regulations and for the primary (and alas only) upholder of them ... the soon to be replaced Building Commission. Providing that the building practitioner is at least registered, then they provide a number of avenues for dealing with problems. One of these is the Building Appeals Board, however as I discovered this isn't focused on enforcement, and in any case is only applicable in certain specific cases. This post documents my experience with a different approach; a complaint regarding a registered building practitioner...

Building Appeals Board

This is going to be an atypical post, both in its verbosity and its lack of specific relevance to Port Melbourne (although we do border what looks set to become the country's largest urban renewal project). Many would even describe it as another rant.

It is presented here to aid others who find themselves considering lodging a dispute with Victoria's Building Appeals Board (BAB), as there is a dearth of useful information around on this subject, and these pages rank relatively highly in search engines. In follows on from an earlier post on building Protection Works, and deals in particular with invoking a hearing with the board as a result of the problems detailed there.

The Building Appeals Board is a creation of section 10 of the Building Act 1993 that hears 'appeals', 'disputes' and 'modifications' related to specific provisions of that act. It seeks to make it quicker, cheaper and easier to resolve problems by providing an alternative to legal representation. However if you are unwittingly drawn into a dispute, for example as a property owner adjoining a construction development, you may be surprised at how slow, expensive and tricky it is.

Block heads

For months, hardly anyone batted an eye-lid at the scaffolding, and occasional film crews, outside the block of four terraced houses on nearby Dorcas Street. However, to the delight I'm sure of the neighbours, thanks to Channel 9's cunning reality/property development hybrid show, it appears to be the current pointless place to have your photo taken.

If you do feel compelled to gawp at the finished houses, you can already see 401, 403, 405 and 407 on-line as they're up for auction at the end of the month, and here's what they looked like before the circus came to town.

Protection works

This is going to be an atypical post, both in its verbosity and its lack of specific relevance to Port Melbourne (although the amount of building going on here, and the wafer thin proximity between houses, means that there is a higher than average chance of relevance). Some might even describe it as a rant.

It is presented here to aid other residents of Victoria who find themselves in the situation of being served a "protection works notice" as a result of proposed construction on adjoining land, as there is a dearth of useful information around on this subject, and these pages rank relatively highly in search engines. It does however include some information for Port Phillip locals on what they might expect from their council, should they encounter difficulties.

Protection Works are a term defined within Victoria's Building Act 1993 which defines a process for builders to gain access to "adjoining owner's" land for the purposes of protecting said property from construction work, whilst simultaneously enshrining certain rights for those owners. As an affected neighbour this sounds like good stuff, however the process has serious limitations which are well worth being aware of...

Little and large

Port Melbourne feels like one big construction site again with the addition to the sky-line of a third tall crane.

The two 'Little' cranes are working on the 101 Bay Street project, whereas the other crane is working on the so-called Waterside apartments. The former has a slick promotional video that makes the most of selling the Port lifestyle (and I have to agree that Noisette's coffee is pretty fine).

Missing army

One of fourteen former hotels still standing in Port Melbourne, the Army and Navy is about to be subsumed into the, remarkably misleadingly named, Waterside apartment development.

For the time being the 1866 structure stands alone, although since this picture was taken the building has become obscured by elevated contruction cabins. Maybe it's to cover up for the fact that on the artist's impressions of the finished building (which artistically also show festive Dow Street as a free-flowing road without parked cars), the pub is incorrectly shown as just the Navy Hotel.

This pub closed back in 1915, which is perhaps no bad thing given the friendliness of the landlord.