Did construction of four new Glen Eden apartments breach power line regulations?

Did the construction of four new Glen Eden apartments breach rules about proximity to power lines when scaffolding was erected too close to the overhead wires, potentially causing a safety risk?

Answering that question is central to resolving a dispute between west Auckland developer 3C Homes, a utility giant and WorkSafe.

Lines business Vector says yes, infringement was an issue. The developer of the $2.6 million apartments says no. WorkSafe says prohibition notices remain in force.

Emenuwal Chandra, 3C Homes’ chief operations manager, acknowledges scaffolding on the front of the block was, at one stage last year, certainly in breach.

That rig infringed safety rules by 100mm or 10cm at 12 Pleasant Rd, he admitted.

But he sees that as only a minor or slight technical breach at one point which should have been not enough to stop the project. It wasn’t even the apartments that were too close to the power lines. Only exterior scaffolding was.

“The problem is, Vector includes the scaffolding in what it calls the structure,” he complained from the site of the homes, planned to sell for $650,000 each.

“We were supposed to be 2.5m from the overhead lines and the scaffold was 2.4m away from it but it’s only 10cm and we were easily able to resolve it,” Chandra said.

But removing that scaffolding didn’t put an end to his woes.

“When we removed the scaffolding, Vector told us they looked at it as a structure. Yet the houses are actually 3.5m away from the power lines.”

Vector took matters to WorkSafe “which stopped our work but then allowed us to continue. But then Vector went to Auckland Council saying they should not issue code compliance certificates until a resolution was reached,” Chandra said.

WorkSafe says the matter is not closed: “WorkSafe issued prohibition notices at 12 Pleasant Rd due to work in proximity to live network lines. WorkSafe has not lifted the notices as we are still making inquiries into the systems and processes 3C has in place. The matter is not closed from a WorkSafe perspective.”

Chandra says Vector has put forward potential solutions.

“There’s two: either we pay $180,000 for the overhead power cables to be undergrounded or we pay $70,000 for Vector to build a mid-span pole.”

For Chandra, neither option is palatable and he complained about works being held up for months and the homes not getting CCCs.

“We only have some minor work internally and the landscaping to complete. But we’ve been held up and unable to finish the houses because Vector says they are too close to overhead power poles.”

Vector said developers working near overhead power lines ran a high risk of serious injury and must apply to it for close approach consent.

Consent was needed before people could work or erect scaffolding within 4m of a live power line.

“Last year, it was brought to our attention that 3C Homes were carrying out unsafe work too close to power lines at 12 Pleasant Rd, Glen Eden and without close approach consent. This is a serious health and safety concern and Energy Safety was brought in to resolve the issue.

“Energy Safety inspected the buildings, found that 3C Homes were in breach of [an Electrical Code of Practice] and asked that work stop until the issues were fixed. They also asked Auckland Council not to give the developer any code compliance certificates.

“Vector works hard to reduce electrical safety risks to people and property, and involving us before work starts is the best way for developers to avoid higher costs,” it said.

James Cairney, a Bankside Chambers barrister acting for the housing company, wrote to the council in July saying 3C Homes was about to apply for code compliance certificates.

“The company would be grateful if you could please confirm the council is satisfied with the report on this issue,” Cairney wrote, attaching an expert report, paid for by 3C but requested by Vector. That report went into considerable detail about the new homes’ proximity to power lines.

“Vector’s requirements are met,” Cairney wrote.

That report said the building did not now infringe electrical regulations or standards, Cairney said. A temporary structure had been removed so “there appears to be no basis for the council to refuse code compliance on this aspect. And there appears to be no legal basis to require 3C Homes to obtain anything from Vector.”

There had been considerable, unacceptable and costly delays from Vector, including a five-month delay at one point, as well as lack of communication from Vector, Cairney said.

A 28-page report by Dan McLeely of Infrastructure Asset Management Systems was attached. The purpose of that report was to present information about distances between Vector overhead electric lines and structures adjacent to power lines, that said.

It referred to engineering to determine distances or clearances if a new midspan pole was erected.

Chandra said two pages of that report “highlight the only one infringement of 100mm which was mitigated long ago”.

When Vector received a copy of Chandra’s comments to the Herald, the Vector spokesman said there were “inaccuracies”. He referred the matter to WorkSafe for further comment.

“We’ve received no formal complaints from this developer,” the Vector spokesman said.

WorkSafe disagreed with Chandra’s claim that matters had been resolved.

Chandra’s lawyer Cairney said CCCs were yet to be applied for but the housing company had been given an indication they would not be granted.

“3C is soon to apply for a CCC, but the council have pre-empted that they will decline it.The council’s ostensible reason is an allegation the building does not comply with Vector’s requirements in terms of distance from a network line.3C’s position is that the building does comply and there is no such impediment to a CCC being issued,” Cairney said.

The council told the Herald CCCs were not yet applied for at the property.

Source: Read Full Article