CoGC Standard Connection Project Audit Report

• Conducted on

  Date

• Development Services auditor

• Accredited Contractor (Company) name

• Key personnel name

• Development address

• Development number (MCU/ROL/OPW)

• Standard Connection application number (WWS)

Minor non-conformance (1)

• Environmental management system or plan in place but not fully effective.

• Negligible environmental impact easily restored to pre-existing condition.

• Required guidance from the City to effectively manage environmental aspects that would otherwise lead to Environmental non-conformances.

Major non-conformance (3)

• Required guidance from the City to effectively manage environmental aspects that would otherwise lead to environmental non-conformances.

• Failure to improve environmental performance for erosion and sediment control upon request from the City.

• Ineffective environmental hazard identification and control, poor incident management and inadequate ability to pro-actively manage environmental safety for staff and sub-contractors.

• Ineffective environmental hazard identification and control, poor incident management and inadequate ability to pro-actively manage environmental safety of the community and public.

• No site-specific environmental control system or plan in place where required.

• Ineffective environmental controls resulting in detrimental impact on the environment.

• Failure to report a notifiable incident to the City.

Minor non-conformance (1)

• Regulator/external auditor ‘observation’ or request for further explanation.

• A single localised complaint directly related to Standard Connection works that’s is promptly and adequately rectified.

Major non-conformance (3)

• Failure to comply with Regulator requirements resulting in a warning or improvement notice.

• Failure to comply with Regulator requirements resulting in a breach of compliance resulting in a fine/penalty.

• Failure to uphold the City’s reputation through poor workmanship resulting in complaints being made to the City.

• Failure to uphold the City’s reputation by not effectively communicating to developers or clients resulting in complaints to the City that would otherwise be negated by effective communication.

• Failure to uphold the City’s reputation by not effectively planning and scheduling works resulting in complaints for delays to the City that would otherwise be negated by effective planning and scheduling.

• Failure to address and rectify the cause of a complaint promptly and adequately.

Minor non-conformance (1)

• Failure to comply with the City procedures for submitting a satisfactory standard connection application resulting in the application being rejected.

• Failure to submit an acceptable project completion report resulting in an information request for one omitted item.

• Failure to carry out the standard connection on the nominated date due to poor organisation resulting in more than one rebooking.

• Failure to ensure all relevant registration documents are compliant and in date within vendor panel.

• Failure to ensure application fees are paid within the nominated timeframe.

Major non-conformance (3)

• Failure to submit a standard connection application prior to carrying out works.

• Failure to adhere to processing timeframes and commencing work before written authorisation is received.

• Failure to comply with the City procedures for carrying out standard connections.

• Failure to identify and comply with overarching Development Approval conditions for the installation of sewer and water connections.

• Failure to comply with a project audit report and the remedial action items and timeframes.

• Failure to comply with the process for submitting a formal response to a project audit report.

• Failure to carry out the standard connection on the nominated day when a network shutdown is required.

• Failure to ensure owner consent is obtained for works on the subject development lot or adjoining lot when works are required to be carried out in adjoining lots.

• Failure to obtain written authorisation from the City when compliance cannot be achieved.

Minor non-conformance (1)

• WH&S management system or plan in place but not fully effective to adequately address all site safety hazards and constraints.

• Conducted activities with acceptable safety awareness outcomes and only minimal WH&S guidance or input from the City.

• Injury or illness not requiring first aid treatment.

• Failure to report near miss events.

Major non-conformance (3)

• Required WH&S guidance from the City to effectively manage safety that would otherwise lead to WHS non-conformances.

• Failure to improve safety performance upon request from the City.

• Ineffective hazard identification and control, poor incident management and inadequate ability to pro-actively manage safety for staff and sub-contractors.

• Ineffective hazard identification and control, poor incident management and inadequate ability to pro-actively manage safety of the community and public.

• No site specific operational WH&S system, SWMS, or plan in place.

Minor non-conformance (1)

• Required minor technical input from the City that would otherwise result in the non-acceptance of water and/or sewer infrastructure.

• Required minor input from the City to find relevant technical information requirements including the City Standard Drawings, Technical Specifications, and Guidelines.

• Required minor changes to the standard connection works to achieve acceptance of water and/or sewer infrastructure.

Major non-conformance (3)

• Failure to comply with the City’s technical requirements including Standard Drawings, Technical Specifications, and Guidelines.

• Failure to comply with the SEQ Code.

• Failure to use approved products as per the IPAM list.

• Required technical input from the City that would otherwise result in a non-acceptance of water and/or sewer infrastructure.

• Failure to achieve acceptance of water and/or sewer infrastructure.

• Failure to carry out the works in accordance with the stamped approved plans.

• Failure to ensure personnel carrying out works are adequality trained and hold all relevant certificates and licences relevant to the works being carried out.

• Failure to obtain written authorisation from the City when compliance cannot be achieved.

• Failure to identify and adequately notify the City when a network shutdown is required.

• Provide details of non-conformance identified.

• Provide photos/evidence of non-conformance.

  Media

• Development Services Auditor signature

  Sign