By Benjamin Millar
The western suburbs warehouse where a massive blaze broke out in August had been identified as “a danger to the life” of residents and occupants, according to internal Maribyrnong Council documents.
The documents, released under Freedom of Information laws, reveal Maribyrnong Council had inspected the Tottenham warehouse in February 2017, uncovering what it claimed were illegal building works and a series of dangerous hazards.
The tranche of documents includes details that call into question claims made by the council in the wake of the fire that the warehouse had recently been found to be compliant regarding safety standards.
Released to former western suburbs Greens MP Huong Truong and obtained by Star Weekly, the documents also contain photographic evidence indicating that the large number of drums of chemical waste that fuelled the fire had been moved into the site during the three weeks prior to the blaze.
A coronial investigation is underway into the massive August 30 inferno, which sent a plume of toxic smoke over the western suburbs, contaminated nearby Stony Creek and triggered health complaints across the inner-west.
The 14,000 square metre fire was fuelled by a range of illegally stored chemicals and materials, but the fire was so fierce investigations may never be able to determine precisely what chemicals were involved.
The warehouse is owned by Danbol Pty Ltd, a company registered to Shepparton accountant Christopher James Baldwin.
Star Weekly does not suggest Mr Baldwin, who did not respond to requests for comment, has done anything illegal.
Maribyrnong Council served the owner of the warehouse at 420 Somerville Road with a building notice and building order in July 2017, noting a number of illegal structures and multiple fire safety failures.
“The building/land is a danger to the life, safety or health of any member of the public or any person using the building/land,” the notice stated.
“The buildings are not provided with an adequate fire hose reels coverage [or] an adequate fire sprinkler system coverage].”
The council noted inadequate access for fire fighting vehicles, obstructed fire hydrants and failure to provide a suitable emergency plan.
It found the property had been illegally subdivided and there was no record of maintenance checks or servicing of fire fighting equipment.
The owner was given 90 days to comply, a period later extended until December 2017. No record has been provided regarding any follow-up inspections to ensure compliance.
Another internal council document, dated August this year, noted the Environment Protection Authority had raised concerns following a July site inspection that revealed high piles of recycling materials inside the warehouse.
“These sites are deemed to be at high risk,” it stated. “The EPA would like to do a joint inspection with a Council Planning Enforcement Officer.”
An email trail shows the EPA contacted the council on July 17 seeking to coordinate the inspection.
Despite the high risk rating and a July 30 internal council email noting “EPA are getting impatient”, no inspection took place until August 9.
A report following this joint inspection noted the previous tenant was continuing to clean out the site, with an “application in for next possible tenant (still intending for recycling materials)” still being assessed.
The document stated that although the EPA and planning department no longer planned any enforcement action, council’s building department remained concerned and had identified work needed “to gain compliance”.
This appears at odds with statements made by the council in the wake of the fire that “the facility was inspected in the last month and found to be compliant” with regards to meeting safety standards.
Photographs taken during the August 9 inspection reveal a number of shipping containers stacked into dividing corridors, along with piles of timber pallets and equipment, but no sign of the vast quantity of 44-gallon drums found by firefighters as they tackled the fire.
The MFB has denied requests for access to documents relating to its concerns about the site, citing ongoing investigations into possible breaches of the law as grounds of refusal.
The MFB and Victoria Police are treating the fire as suspicious and will not comment on the ongoing investigation.
