MARK GORDON:

Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the second session of this year’s Development Seminar. The purpose of this session is to inform you of the changes to Planning Controls which are being implemented as an aftermath of the NSW Christmas bushfires last summer. Now between 24th December 2001 and 16th January 2002 a total of 454 separate bushfires burnt out over approximately 733,000 hectares across New South Wales - across a 4,000 kilometre perimeter. It affected 44 Local Government areas. Over 47,000 personnel including 5,000 from interstate were involved in fighting these fires. Although 109 homes were lost, this was only half the number lost in the 1994 bushfires seven years before. In addition 30 commercial or industrial establishments were also destroyed. The estimated cost of operations for New South Wales agencies alone was $106,000,000 and 3,000 insurance claims were lodged totalling about $75,000,000. It is obviously appropriate for planning measures to be put in place to minimise the effect of such natural disasters on the community, and the three speakers we have asked to address you here today are all well qualified to speak on the subject.

Firstly Kerry Bedford is the Director of the State and Regional Planning in NSW Department of Planning. She was responsible for coordinating key policy initiatives and projects for regional and rural New South Wales. Now after graduating with a Degree in Town Planning from UNSW, Kerry commenced her working life as a planner with the State Planning Authority and worked with the State Government for five years before moving to Sutherland Shire Council. At Council Kerry worked for 15 years in both Development Control and Strategic Planning, before returning to the Department of Planning in 1994. Kerry worked in planning teams first in the Wollongong office of the Department and then for the Western Region of the State before joining the Regulatory Reform Unit in May 1997. This branch was responsible for introducing the 1998 Reforms to the System of Development and Building Approvals and the recent Plan First proposals. She has worked on a range of projects including the Sydney Region Outline Plan, a Plainings Plan for rural areas, the 1998 Development Assessment Reforms to the EP&A Act and Plan First proposed changes of Planning System New South Wales, and last but not least the Bushfire Protection Legislation. Please welcome Kerry as she provides an analysis of new guidelines for planning for bushfire prevention.

Planning for Bushfire Prevention - analysis of the new guidelines

Kerry Bedford, Director, State & Regional Planning, Planning NSW

This is a landset image of the bushfires around the city. The blue dot on the coastline is the city and then as you move down we have Wollongong, Kiama and Nowra. The blue dot out to west is Katoomba. As with any landset image the dark red is the bushland and the light red is the cleared or developed land. And the interesting feature with this photo is the blue haze, which is the smoke from the fires. 750,000 hectares of land burned over 48 Council area. 109 residential properties destroyed. 40 damaged, but fortunately, unlike the 1994 fires, there were no lives lost. Protecting people and property from bushfires doesn’t have a single solution. In fact there are a range of issues and actions that we need to take if we are to protect ourselves from the bushfires. Firstly we need suitable land uses next to bushland. It is no good having hazardous industries that could in fact fuel the fire. Then you need good subdivision design and layout. You need sufficient separation between the hazard and the houses, and you also need good access for people to get out but also fire fighters to get in. You need the buildings designed to resist fire and to prevent the spread of fire. And then we need to continually manage the bushfire areas, the bushland on both public and private land and we need to maintain homes and gardens. And then lastly we need sufficient resources. Firefighters and equipment to be able to respond in an emergency situation. Now the responsibility for all these different things is shared between a variety of Government agencies, local Councils and ultimately individual landowners. So it should be no surprise to you that given the ferocity of the Christmas season, bushfire season, and the fact that there is a various range of people who are involved in fighting fires, that in fact the Government is looking at introducing new laws. There is in fact a bill in Parliament at the moment. It is called the Rural Fires and Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill. It amends the Rural Fires Act, and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. I am going to talk this morning about the changes to the Planning laws.

Firstly it gives firefighters clear powers to act in an emergency. At the moment, because of all the different types of environmental legislation there is some confusion about whether firefighters can actually enter land and carry out work to reduce a bushfire effect. This Legislation will make it clear that they won't be encumbered by any other approval that is needed. They will be able to take action.

Secondly there will be a single approval for bushfire hazard reduction. At the moment you might actually need to get a Threatened Species License, you might need to get consent under the Native Vegetation Act, and you might need to get a Part 5 Approval - a very complicated process. What this legislation does is it sets up a Bushfire Hazard Reduction Certificate; a streamlined process to cut through the red tape, but it has environmental safeguards built into it.

The next important aspect of the Legislation is that Councils will be required to map their bushfire prone land. Now it doesn’t apply to all Councils in New South Wales and I did have a list here for the first 100 lucky people. They got a list of the Councils where it does apply. But it will be in your papers. So you need to check out if you are doing Development Applications, as to which Council areas are required to map bushfire prone areas. And then the Councils will also have to notify on their 149 Certificates when a property is in a bushfire prone area, so that people who are buying land or buying houses know that they are buying into an area with a potential bushfire risk.

The last element of legislation relating to Planning is probably the most important one. That is that all developments in bushfire prone land must comply with ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’. If you don’t have a copy of this document I recommend you get one. It is put out by the Rural Fire Service & Planning New South Wales. It is a comprehensive document. It covers a range of issues including the rezoning of land, development approvals, constructions standards and maintenance issues.

In terms of rezoning of land, Planning for Bushfire Protection for example lists some of the inappropriate land uses that you just simply don’t want next to bushland. Like chemical storage or hazardous industries. Then it also requires that the zone itself allows sufficient space for access for firefighters and evacuation and also separation between the fire source and the building. And importantly there must be adequate water supply and access to that water supply. In terms of development approvals the Legislation actually creates two levels of development that need to be checked in bushfire prone areas. The first one, there is a new form of integrated development. And these are the high-risk developments which will be required to be referred to the Rural Fire Service. The second level of development is that all development in a bushfire prone land must comply with ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’. Otherwise it needs to be referred to the Rural Fire Service. So you can see that Planning for Bushfire Protection is becoming an integral part of any Development Application in a bushfire prone area. And the Rural Fire Service will ultimately be the ones who are having the say about detailed design requirements when it doesn’t comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection.

Now the high-risk developments are schools, childcare centres, hospitals, hotels, motels, tourist accommodation, housing for the aged and disabled, retirement villages, and group homes. So assuming that this Legislation goes through Parliament and I expect that it will within the next couple of days, if you were doing any of these types of Development Applications they will now be integrated development. And the same procedure applies for integrated as for other integrated developments in that the Council must refer it to Rural Fire Service and then must take into account anything that the Rural Fire Service says.

In terms of how should you design a development or a subdivision in a bushfire prone area, Planning for Bushfire Protection has some guidelines. Firstly in terms of subdivision design, the key element is to have a perimeter road or a fire trail. And this road needs to be two-way. It needs to be a through road with a minimum width of 20 metres. If you can at all, it is very important to avoid steep slopes. Particularly slopes with a northwesterly aspect, as these slopes are more prone to bushfires. If you can, build on level ground. Where you have a steep slope then bench into the site. Cut into the site so that you have got a level foundation so that the fire doesn’t have the opportunity to get up underneath the foundation of the building. And you can see that clearly Councils need to follow through with these types of requirements in their Development Control Plans to allow sites to be excavated.

Other design principles; keep the services underground, have water storage on site. The swimming pools were in fact a very good source of water during the Christmas bushfires. And probably the most important and the most contentious aspect of Planning for Bushfire Protection is the setback. The setback from the bushland.

Planning for Bushfire Protection calls the setback an Asset Protection Zone. And the idea of this zone is that it provides a separation between the hazard and the building. It is the buffer area where we can get in and reduce the fuel loads. Importantly it needs to be within your development site. It is no good saying he Asset Protection Zone is going to be on the adjoining National Park. It’s not on. It also needs to include the fire trail or the perimeter road, and importantly, it must be on land that is less than 18 degrees in slope.

The Asset Protection Zone consists of two areas. The first one is the outer area or the area that is closest to the bushland. And the purpose of this area is to decrease the intensity of the fire. So you can have the bushland with all the trees at a certain density. The outer zone actually reduces the density of the fuel load so that the intensity of the fire also decreases. It is about 10m - 15m in width and it has a fuel level of 8 tonnes per hectare, which I am sure Grahame (Douglas) would be happy to explain to you what that actually means because I don’t know what that means. The inner area is where you actually have minimum fuel levels. So not a lot of things that are going to be able to burn. The depth in this case depends on the slope of the land, the type of vegetation and also the type of development. And it can be 20m - 60m in width. And in some cases up to 85m. For example, next to an aged or disabled housing development.

Here is a diagram to explain it. You have got the bushland on your left and the wonderfully designed house on your right which you want to protect. And in between is the Asset Protection Zone. The outer zone is the smaller area where you have still got vegetation but it is decreased in its density. And then as you move closer towards the house you get less and less areas that can burn. The perimeter road or the fire trail is actually located within the Asset Protection Zone.

So a couple of examples of existing development. The slide at the top has got a fire trail with rear access. And it also provides a setback to the houses. The bottom slide, in contrast, provides no setback between the houses and the bushland and you can see in the bottom slide that it’s practically impossible for firefighters to get in there and provide any effective protection to those houses. So the bottom style of development is certainly the type of development that we don’t want to see in the future.

There is no question that bushfires are part of our environment and there is no question that we will have another bushfire season some time in the future. We can't avoid them but we can minimise the impact that it has on the community and on our property by sensible zoning controls, good subdivision layout and design, good Asset Protection Zones and ongoing maintenance of our bushland areas. The challenge for us in the next bushfire season will be if we can not only say ‘no lives were lost’ but wouldn’t it be good if we could also say ‘no houses were lost’. Thank you.

The new Rural Fires and Environmental Assessment Legislation Amendment Bill

Grahame Douglas, Manager of Planning & Environment Services, Rural Fire Service

THE NEW RURAL FIRES & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

by Grahame Douglas

MARK GORDON:

The second speaker for this session is Grahame Douglas, Manager of Planning & Environmental Services at the Rural Fire Service. Grahame has tertiary qualifications in Ecology, Environmental Studies & Management. He has been in the public service, the Conservation movement and academia for nearly 30 years covering such things as agriculture, urban regional planning, industrial issues and bushfires as well as OH&S. He is also an academic lecturing in Environmental Health at the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury. He has also worked as a policy advisor to two Upper House MLCs and the Minister for Environmental Emergency Services, the Honorable Bob Debas. He has been with the NSW Rural Fire Service for over 5 years. His current substantive position is as a Senior Environmental Officer for the NSW Rural Fire Service and he is currently Acting Manager Planning Services, a position here has occupied for two and a half years. Prior to this he was a member of the Bushfire Council and the Bushfire Coordinating Committee. He has also occupied positions on the National Parks & Wildlife Advisory Council and the Native Vegetation Advisory Council. Grahame was a major driver for many aspects of the Rural Fires Act and provided much of the drafting instructions for the recent Rural Fires & Environmental Assessment Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 which you heard Kerry talk about and that passed through both houses of Parliament last week. So please welcome Grahame as he discusses an almost brand new Act and its role in addressing problems in the development control and implementation of environmental assessment process for hazard reduction.

GRAHAME DOUGLAS:

Well thank you very much for inviting me to this forum here today. The organisers have been very generous in at least giving you a cup of coffee to try and wake you up before I talk about possibly one of the most boring subjects, and that is Legislation. So please bear with me. Some of the topic is a bit dry but I hope to liven it up a little bit for you and hope that you will get something out of it. The other thing I would like to do is just say that because Kerry snitched my satellite image I thought I would have to get a different one. And as most people will observe we actually had some fires around Christmas. And this is in fact a Noah satellite and the red bits are actually the infrared images of where the fires were at the particular time in that. Again, yes the smoke is still there. So I am going to talk about legislation.

First of all I want to talk about a few bushfire myths, in introducing this topic. First myth is that Public Land Managers have a duty to clear their land to protect private property. Secondly, the construction standards can stop houses being destroyed. The bush is fuel and needs to be managed. Asset Protection Zones are not needed if we do broad area burning. And the Rural Fire Service is responsible for hazard reduction. Well let’s look at those questions in the context of the new Bill.

What is the scope of the bill? Well Kerry has already introduced much of what we are going to talk about, that is, the Planning and Development Control Strategies.

In addition the Legislation now makes provision for compliance and auditing provisions, particularly for hazard reduction issues. There is an improved hazard reduction reporting mechanism which will have obligations on both Local Government, Public Land Managers and private individuals. Streamlined approval process, the hazard reduction which Kerry indicated. There is a transfer of responsibilities in relation to permits and bushfire danger periods. And there are the emergency powers. I want to start talking about some of the development and planning control provisions and more or less build on top of what Kerry was talking about previously.

Firstly the mapping of bushfire prone land by Councils. The Legislation actually requires that Local Government will within 12 months write to the Commissioner or consult with the Commissioner for what is referred to as the designation of bushfire prone land. What this provision really means is they get a guideline or some documentation to explain to them how they should map it. And having mapped the bushfire prone lands in accordance with those guidelines, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service will certify that as being an accurate map, if you like, or a description of what is bushfire prone lands. Arising out of that are the other provisions; section 149 Certificates etc that Kerry talked about.

In a more general sense the EP&A Act has been amended to provide for Councils in considering development applications, to be satisfied that development in bushfire prone land complies with Planning for Bushfire Protection. Now in fact I have got a number of copies of that document with me here today, almost as many to cover the audience, won't be quite that many. And they will be here after lunch and I think the organisers will see to their distribution or whatever. However the key point here is that if the document does not comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection then there is a requirement to consult with the Rural Fire Service. And the Legislation refers to the Commissioner, but the Commissioner will delegate those matters to the local Rural Fire Service fire control staff, and that consultation between Council will be the basis of a decision in relation to that development.

In addition to that there is a new form of integrated development and as Kerry indicated the Bushfire Safety Authority that the Commissioner will issue will be to some extent contingent on whether the development constitutes integrated development. It’s of two forms. First of all the subdivision of land in bushfire prone areas for either a residential or rural residential purpose. Notice it is not for a residential or rural residential zone. It is for the purpose. In addition to that there are some special fire protection purposes such as the SEP 5’s, schools, hospitals etc to which Kerry referred. And this is what we don’t want to see. And this gets to my first myth. This house has only recently been approved for construction, is on land adjacent to some public land, and the Council approved that. It doesn’t comply with the Australian Standard. For those who are a little more observant you will notice that the decking and much of the material is of timber. You will also notice the great big gaps under the floor at the front. That landowner will not be asking the Public Land Manager adjacent to start clearing their land to provide them bushfire protection. And that’s an inappropriate and unacceptable situation to have. The containment of Asset Protection Zones must be within the development. And I actually had a second shot of this which I didn’t include which shows quite clearly that the person had plenty of room in which to locate this on an existing cleared block. Those situations are the situations to which we have specific concern. And if people think that that level of construction can withstand a bushfire that goes through there, then like that landowner, they’re kidding themselves.

So what does the Rural Fire Service need in the way of information, particularly when we get these integrated developments and how are we going to know whether the applicant has provided us with sufficient information? Well clearly we have got to know where the development is. We have got to know the property details, the ownership, and the basic information that goes with most development applications. But we also want to know a little bit about the environmental attributes of the site. For example, what’s the slope of the land? Is it flat? Does it slope uphill? Does it slope downhill? For a reasonable distance we talk about 140m as being the guide to determine these sorts of things. Remembering that the maximum distance to which bushfire prone land would apply is 100m. That is the maximum, if you like worst case scenario, that you could have. We need to know the vegetation type because that will relate to the fuel loads and the bushfire behavior that would exist if a bushfire were to occur. And whether there were any special scientific or threatened species type issues that need to be taken into account, and which would need to be protected as part of the overall development, which would influence some of those decision-making things. Not just on the site. Many people think that all they have to do is the consideration of the development site. But as I indicated to you earlier the influence of the development is often what is happening off site. So the immediate neighbours to the property will also have to be considered as part of that process. Then what we are asking the developers to provide information on is the bushfire protection measures. Whether it has inner and outer protection zones. Or as the protections zones what the water arrangements are, the roads access arrangements and what evacuation measures might be in place. Finally a summary of a comparison between what the development is proposing and what is in fact required through Planning for Bushfire Protection. So as part of the Integrated Development Application we would need to have certain information. And that constitutes the type of information that we would require.

This is an interesting little scenario. This house is in Western Sydney and on Boxing Day this house was destroyed by bushfire. The house is 600m from the nearest bushland block and the person who owned the land was away on holidays. The condition and maintenance of the backyard has been described as very poor. I think that is an understatement. In essence an ember travelled from some parkland Council Reserve area, ignited some of the backyard material and this house was burnt to the ground. Which gets to the second myth. The construction standards only go for the first 100m and we can't guarantee anything in relation to that. But we have to give people the best chance but it means that those people also have to take responsibility for the maintenance and management of that property. It is interesting to note that in that particular scenario there were 5 rows of houses as well as the 600m buffer between that and the bushland reserve to which I referred. Not one other house in that subdivision area was burnt or affected by bushfire.

‘Compliance and auditing’. Well under the new legislative arrangements there is an increased focus on ensuring mitigation works are complied with. Most people probably are not aware that there is such a thing as a Bushfire Risk Management Plan. And that Bushfire Risk Management Plan specifies requirements of landowners in relation to that land, including what mitigation measures they need to undertake. So there’s an increasing focus on that but there is also a new complaints process that has been formalised. A landowner can complain about hazards that they perceive in their area. Particularly if they are a neighbour or in the vicinity of that area. Be it public land, private land or whatever, or Council land. So there is a clear complaints process to address problems in the landscape. Under the Rural Fires Act there is a Bushfire Coordinating Committee and they can require the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service to undertake such an audit of an area. And the Bushfire Management Committees which prepare the Bushfire Risk Management Plans are to report on their implementation.

And finally there is a requirement for both annual reporting by both public authorities and Councils in relation to the implementation of these measures. What are the things Councils have got to report on? First of all the number of inspections that are undertaken. Local Government can and do undertake inspections in relation to lands to see whether there are hazards on those lands. They can issue a notice to clear that hazard from the land and if they issue such a notice the landowner may object to the notice on grounds that the hazard is not really a hazard, it’s needed for some other purpose. That is, it might be required for grazing purposes or it might have some threatened species. If the landowner has to, then they have to comply with any works in default of compliance and there is now this system of a ‘one stop shop’ certificate for landowners to get an environmental approval to do hazard reduction. Finally Councils have to report on the implementation of Bushfire Risk Management Plans. Are there any people in here who are associated with Local Government? A few. It might be just an issue for you to know about.

Public authorities are also to report on the implementation of Hazard Reduction and Bushfire Risk Management Plans. The Commissioner of the Rural Fire Services is to report all of this in their Annual Report.

So what about this streamlined Environmental Approval process? Okay there are a number of really quick things. Bushfire Hazard Reduction works are not land management activities. So if you clear a land for the purposes of development and have to remove vegetation and trees, the approval to burn that vegetation post development is not hazard reduction. Whatever the requirements are of the EP&A or other agencies in relation to that still apply. Local Environmental Plans can no longer require consent or prohibit hazard reduction activities. And there are a number of lands within the State which are probably of less interest to this group but they include CEP 14 and CEP 26 lands which are wetlands and little rainforests. The one stop arrangements replace the native veg, a legislation, threatened species and other requirements under EP&A Act. Persons can apply to the Council for the Certificate, and the Council must ensure that before issuing such a certificate the works are consistent with the Bushfire Risk Management Plan, a code of practice that will be finalised shortly and put on exhibition for public comment, and any necessary condition are imposed. Council is required to approve it within 7 days or other time as negotiated between the applicant and the Certificate lasts for 12 months. There is no fee which is of great concern to Local Government, understandably, and there is no appeal to refusal for a Certificate. Failure to comply with the Certificate or the Code means that you are actually in breach of the EP&A Act. Land Managers such as National Parks, State Forest, Catchment Authorities etc can self certify and indeed a landowner can approach those people for a Certificate if there is an adjoining area that needs to be hazard reduced in conjunction with that Authority. And they have the same requirements as Local Government in terms of the Risk Management Plans. They may certify their neighbouring private lands and the Council is now required to issue a Certificate with each Section 66 Notice.

Now the Bushfire Code therefore becomes an important document. It actually sets out the environmental constraints under which hazard reduction might occur. It is to be prepared by the Commissioner. The Commissioner must consult various stakeholders for input. There is a requirement tat the Code of Practice complies with the provisions of Section 111, that is the Part 5 general requirement. And the principles of ecological sustainable development. The draft Code will be exhibited for 6 weeks and at the end of that period the Commissioner must consider the submissions prior to finalisation. The Minister for Emergency Services is the approval person, but prior to approval he must consult, or she, depending on the future, consult with the relevant Minister for Environment or Minister for Planning. The document will be available for public inspection at the Local Council.

Just very quickly to let you know that bushfire danger periods will be subject to the Commissioner’s control now and in future you need to be just aware that the bushfire danger periods might vary from place to place. I won't go into that in much detail. In terms of permits, the bushfire danger period will require permits as it currently does. Just be aware of that as an issue if that is of interest to yourself.

Kerry referred to, and just very briefly, emergency situations. There are no longer any approvals required to undertake bushfire emergency works as a result of a fire situation.

So I just want to go back onto my myths and recap in the context of the Legislation. Now that we have put you all to sleep we need to recap on these issues. First of all public land managers also have to meet their land management objectives. Remembering the bush was there first. As a developer or as a person who is assisting a developer be it in Local Government or the private sector, the obligation is to contain the management of the risks on your own land, not on your neighbours’. Clearly we are currently suffering from poor past planning practices as was illustrated earlier. Construction standards do help and they are integrated into Planning for Bushfire Protection but landowners need to reduce hazards on their own land. Remember the bush is also an asset. People like it, they want to protect it. Asset Protection Zones in combination with other protection measures do help, but at the end of the day there are no guarantees. Thank you.

THE EXPERIENCES OF THE FIRE AFFECTED COUNCILS & THE IMPACT ON NEW DAs

Brian Crane, Principal Health & Building Surveyor, Blue Mountains City Council

MARK GORDON:

Brian Crane is the principal Health & Building Surveyor looking after the lower Blue Mountains area. Brian’s multi disciplinary team is comprised of town planners, health and building surveyors and administration staff. As part of his Graduate Diploma in Applied Science, Brian formally studied bushfire as it relates to the development and especially as it impacts on the Blue Mountains. Now this has given him a better understanding of where bushfire planning controls fit into the development process. Now in so far as hands on experience is concerned, during the last Christmas holidays Brian was out there. He spent 12 days working as a firefighter in the lower Blue Mountains with the Springwood Brigade. He later used this experience to undertake a review of damage to homes to increase his knowledge of bushfire behaviour, especially in terms of minimising its impact through well designed development. Brian has recently commenced a Masters Degree in Building Surveying where a significant portion of his study will be the impact of bushfires on buildings. Please welcome Brian as he details experience of his particular fire affected Council and the result and impact on new Development Applications.

BRIAN CRANE:

Thanks Mark. We have had two very good preceding speakers and they set the scene for the practical implementation, if you like, of what happens with planning for bushfire protection anywhere in a bushfire prone area. This first slide simply shows an aerial photograph - I think that’s near the Faulconbridge area and it gives an indication of the typical development pattern in the Blue Mountains and it shows what we are in for.

The presentation I will be doing is just to show a brief evolution of bushfire protection as it applies in the Blue Mountains. I will examine an area with no planning or building controls first up, and I will run through some examples of how the bushfire actually impacted on that area. It is an area in Sun Valley if anybody in the audience knows the Blue Mountains at all. The second area we will examine and emphasize a recent subdivision, and when I say recent, it is probably the mid 90’s, under Blue Mountain City Council standards and the construction of dwellings in that subdivision are to Council standards but not quite to the Australian Standard, and we can show where we can move with that. I will also examine a hypothetical in-fill development assessed under Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines which Grahame and Kerry preceded with.

I am asking the question and I can see it in everybody’s mind, are we going a little bit too far now with our planning for bushfire protection? It’s a little bit like standing here and saying are you arguing against more beds for hospitals? Are you making more developments safer for bushfires? But I think I will explain myself a little bit here through the process. It was touched on earlier about the mapping of bushfire prone areas. This is an aerial photograph of the lower Blue Mountains. I will go into detail as to where that all is in a minute. Currently in the interim period before the mapping is formally finalised over the next 12 month period which is our time frame after the gazettal of the new Legislation, an area regarded as bushfire prone is if it is within 100m of a high or medium hazard, or within 30m of a low hazard as recognised in the Bushfire Risk Management Plan. The Bushfire Risk Management Plans on a similar scale to that and it makes it very difficult to come to some sort of determination about that. I have had interim discussions with our local RFS about how we go about that. Blue Mountains Council has always taken the view that the whole area is bushfire prone for ember attack and Grahame gave some good examples as to why that could be the case. Often 100m is not enough.

The case studies I will be showing are all Lower Blue Mountains and all very much in a similar area. Case Study 1 is Sun Valley, an older subdivision; Case Study 2 is in Yellow Rock, a street call Purvines Road; and Case Study 3 is somewhere in between but on a similar ridge top in Paterson Road at Springwood. They are all located in the Lower Mountains. They are all dry sclerophyll forest - Group 1 Vegetation, which is the highest category in the Planning for Bushfire Protection. They are all adjacent to steep slopes as you can imagine, anybody who knows the Blue Mountains. They were all impacted by the Christmas fires and they each have a varying degree of bushfire protection measures.

First case study. Ridgeway Crescent at Sun Valley. It is an old subdivision. Simply a straight line. It has got the central roadway. It is developed on the prone side and in fact both sides of Ridgeway Crescent are fire prone. There are no purpose built asset protection zones. What clearing has been done has been done for the clothesline and the swimming pool and a bit of landscaping. There were no building standards at the time of most of the construction in this street. That is an aerial photograph of the subdivision. That’s the area that the photographs I have taken we will be concentrating in. On that ridge top one of the Springwood NSW Fire Brigade crews was actually there with a number of other crews up and down the street at the time the fires were impacting on this particular subdivision. And that is how I have gone about the case studies. I have actually done many more than the ones I am showing you now but I have just tried to highlight a few of the points. There were no houses burnt down in Ridgeway Crescent but that was not due to good design and not due to good building standards. It was massive firefighting intervention. This is a view of that particular knoll, the ridge top and you can see that there is nothing in the way of Asset Protection Zones. The houses are snuggled right into the bush. It is a great amenity for 10 or 20 years at a time but when the fire happens it is not so much fun. This building here is right on the top of that ridge top and it is visible from the knoll on the other side. It certainly doesn’t comply with Australian Standards. It has got timber dormers and the fellow wouldn’t take the blue flap off the roof for me so I could get a better shot at that. And he has got decks that are integral to the main structure of the building. So there is a huge potential. And in that gable end I have got a photograph taken from inside the roof. There is a vent which has opportunity for ember entry. This is a closer view of the dormer window setup where you have got vertical Western Red Cedar cladding coming down to the roof space. You can probably just see, virtually in the middle of the picture, where the fire actually caught hold on the dormer and it also caught hold on the other side of the dormer and that’s a photograph taken from the inside of the roof. A couple of points to note in that photograph in that this house probably would’ve burnt down if it hadn’t been for intervention. It was a fair effort under breathing apparatus to get that under control.

The Western Red Cedar burnt through, caught the rafters, caught the roof structure and that spread by virtue of the old type sarking in the roof, the bituminous sarking. And that proceeded to spread through the roof space. As a well constructed house and tightly insulated. Another point to note is that you could see the top of the ceiling joists where one of the insulation bats has been removed, the top of the ceiling joists has been charred and the ceiling bats actually went to a way of reducing some of the impacts. That’s the open unprotected vent on a prone elevation. Although looking into that roof space I actually didn’t see any evidence of embers entering the roof even though there was a massive front coming through that particular area.

Around that general subdivision, this is a pool deck, an indication of fire science if you like. The way fire behaves. Embers thrown up under this particular deck and they rest in a nestle if you like, between two faces of timber and they burn away. This was a fire in progress that was stopped so the deck would’ve burnt down. That’s another side of the deck, and again, when I asked the firefighter that was there, I said why didn’t the deck burn down? He said ‘because I put the fire out’. So things on first value just aren't always there.

This is a house across the road from the place with the dormer window. This has got everything going wrong with it. The slope is excessive. It is probably somewhere in the region of 30degrees or probably even greater. It is densely vegetated and you would think wow they were lucky, but again, it was massive intervention and people would’ve put themselves at risk to actually protect these places. The little building in the background was actually gutted by the fire. But again, even though with the proximity to the bush, it was the embers that entered the building and caused the damage to it.

Summary of this first Case Study. There is no significant Asset Protection Zones. Substantial firefighting effort was required. Buildings haven't been constructed to resist bushfires, and steep heavily timbered terrain. Probably one of the worst case scenarios almost.

Case Study two: Purvines Road is probably the crux of this talk and I have got an Mpeg to show you through this and I will get some assistance in getting that technically set up in a second. Again, it is only, as the crow flies, about 400m from the other example. It is not quite on the ridge top. It is a recent subdivision, mid 90’s. It’s to BMCC Standards which basically is a negotiation with the Local RFS in subdivision. You do what you can with the terrain that you have. We have got some very experienced people in the RFS and they are very widely respected. The Asset Protection Zones are there to the best they can be. They are perimeter fire trails. And I would just like to make a point with the hydrant location which I noticed at this particular place. I was actually at this site during the fires. This is again an aerial photograph. The fire came from left to right. There is a perimeter fire trail which doesn’t show up through the vegetation and between that green line and the assets there is pretty good under-storey clearing. The video will show an ember well ahead of the fire front and the fire front will impact from roughly the southwest direction. By virtue of the landscape more than anything else. And I agree with Kerry’s comment that the bulk of the fire situation comes from the northwest. And that was typical.

Another general point to note about the bushfires in 2001 is that the bulk of the fire was on the south of the highway. That’s where all the effort was concentrated. We lost 12 houses all up on the north of the highway. None on the south. And all from very short fire runners. I might ask Roy to help me set up the Mpeg. It came to my attention that this video was made, after the fire and it shows a number of aspects of fire behaviour in terms of it moving around the knoll. I don’t know if you recall but the knoll shows the fire coming in one direction and then it wraps around and starts coming from another.

Just bearing in mind that first slide showed where the ember came across because it is a home video that has been taken all over the place and it’s not exactly a professional production. We are talking about a day that is around about 40 degrees, we are talking about 1 o’clock. This is about the same time that 7 houses in Warrimoo were lost and this is all going on at the same time. This is virtually the same gully system that that fire - not saying it is the same fire - but it is the same gully system that it came through. We were in place probably about half an hour before the front came through. Where the two fire appliances are at the moment, there is actually a hydrant. It’s a point I want to make. We’d set up a 70mm supply line to our appliance and through the fire front our supply lines actually burnt through. The hydrant is so close to the bush. And have a good look at the vegetation in the front yard of that property. The agapanthas flowers, the maples there that are nice and lush and green. I will be having still photographs of this later on. That house was just sold and the lady was just moving her stuff into the neighbour’s place. The video when the front comes through is actually shot from this house here which is next door and the window is 85m from where the fire breaches the front. The shot is taken from just inside this entrance here. It is a very steep gully system further away. We have got fairly good grades as you can see there. They are probably complying grades in terms of the Planning for Bushfire Protection. There is a lot of nervous energy going on here at this moment. A lot of concern for assets. The smoke is billowing. We actually didn’t think that the fire was going to impact in this end of Purvines Road. Purvines Road is probably a kilometre or so long and all the indications were that it was going to be higher up and we were just there for property protection. The front here is coming through. That’s a lighter colour smoke and you will see that the colour of that smoke will change as it takes a left-hand break around the top of the knoll. When you watch the ember set forward into the bush, it is a long way ahead of the fire front and it is an example of some of the hazards that you can face. The perimeter road there is concrete, it’s all the way around. It is only one way but there is ample level areas for passing of appliances. But you really don’t want an appliance down there at this time. I don’t want to waste too much time here but it is all good footage. This is where the spot fire has come ahead. Notice the firefighter there hasn’t got any of his gear on. He’s just observing it. He knows the front is a long way away. This rapidly rises through the layers of vegetation to just about the crown. And this happens all over with bushfires. They don’t just run in a line. They throw embers out and they can become very substantial fires in their own right. Things start to move on fairly quickly from here. You notice the change in colour of the smoke and I don’t have an explanation for that. It is probably the type of fuel and the completeness of the burning. I have asked half a dozen different people and they have given me half a dozen different answers. We notice the fire intensity. The smoke is thickening up. People have moved inside now. The voices are a little bit more panicky. Remember we are 85m (away), watch this part very carefully….. Don’t blink….. That’s the fire front. We are not talking about long duration. All this. Watch the embers now. This is one o’clock in the afternoon, see how dark it is, the embers, and the trees in the inner protection zone. There is no fuel around the bottom of the trees. Just watch what happens with these trees. The fire front has gone. The massive radiant heat flux issued by the fire front has passed and it passes in a hurry. But the after effects now, the embers could be in roof spaces now. They could be on decks, in a trailer, in a shed, and they could be working away. There is a comment in here which is a pertinent comment, when the audio runs, is - gee the firefighters don’t do much. And that is really what you want to hear with good planning. The winds that come with the fire, there is a whole change in atmosphere. The winds certainly buffet the trees around a lot but it is quite still to start with. I think it is like hell one of the occupants said. You had short grass burning. That is short grass burning there, and look what is happening to the trees. This is after the fire front. The embers have had a chance to settle and do their work and remembering the preceding conditions are so dry, the humidity is so low, it takes nothing to get a fire going. The same happens in your roof space. Any dry leaves or whatever that have accumulated in voids in your roof are so susceptible to a spark causing problems. See that is even crowning. That’s a fire crowning out of an inner protection zone. It is a good video. It’s an 18 minute long video but I won't go right into the tour around the area afterwards. I could go on for hours with this stuff.

I will go now and show you through some stills. I will go straight to the building design and there is only one house impacted and that was the end house. It is brick and tile. Flame retarded sarking as opposed to the bituminous type sarking that was in the first example. Steel facias, non-continuous decking, meaning that the decking doesn’t run back into the floor joists of the house. Treated pine decking which is not a good thing. Screens to windows and small windows presenting to the fire which is a design consideration but a lot of Blue Mountains properties people want to be looking Australian the bush and it is quite understandable. That’s the after shot. This is taken probably 3 weeks or so after. That’s my car parked on the fire trail. The agapanthas are a bit fried and there is not a hell of a lot of vegetation and fine fuels left on the bush. The maples were certainly fried off. We are talking a good distance away from the fire here and that is basically radiant heat damage. That’s the presentation to the prone elevation. Since taking that photo I actually think you go more to the right for the actual impact when it is following more up he gully. But note the condition of the greenery, even on the vegetation furthest away from the shot. I mentioned the hydrant location - the hydrant is just there and as I say we had a 70ml supply line which was previously full of water burnt through and it is like a candle hanging off the stand pipe. That lot is an undeveloped lot there, so when it is developed it will be okay but at subdivision stage Councils will have to start thinking about providing a cleared area around hydrant access space. This is the underside of the deck which is the only damage of any note to any building in that subdivision. The flame retarded sarking burnt in the gutters. I didn’t get a shot of that. Subdivision design provides a perimeter fire trail. Asset Protection Zones have been provided. But they are not as extensive as the Planning for Bushfire Protection, but they worked. Building standards were tested. There is area for improvement in the design there and the Australian Standard actually addresses the decking. The hydrant location protection can be improved, and as I said, there is minimal fire fighting intervention. We put out some treated pine logs. A trailer on the lee side of the development where the video was taken from was burnt through. Just totally destroyed. A shipping container, swimming pool pump. That’s all peripheral damage.

Case Study 3. I will zip through this. This is just a lot I’ve selected at random, somewhere between the two examples. I have got a dotted line there. You will probably see that okay. It is a typical in-fill development on large lots and mountains. Just assuming a house is located in that green spot. Group 1 vegetation, 20degree slope or in excess of 20degree slope. Council won't be able to deal with that without an RFS referral and if that site were to be subdivided it would be integrated development which goes to the next step which is not a local referral. And I am assuming that the referral would be a local for the construction of dwelling. That dotted line is the maximum area you can clear under Council policy; Council’s Local Environmental Plan. Because on sites like this we ask them for a principle development area where you have 15m buffers and a maximum area available for development. And there may be flora and fauna issues or any number of issues that might affect the approval of clearing that lot. And if you look at the adjoining Lots they have got minimal zones. This photograph is taken before the fires and I have no doubt that there would’ve been damage to some of these properties. A few properties to the east of that or to the right of picture, a house was destroyed. It was snuggled right down in the bush. Points to note out of this Case Study; it is a typical large lot development in the Lower Blue Mountains. It presents as a dry forest, slopes in excess of 18 degrees. It is outside the scope of Planning for Bushfire Protection, principally because of the Asset Protection Zone requirements. Requires referral to the RFS and subdivision of site would be integrated and as I mentioned, the other LEP considerations.

Just a quick overview of the day to day impact on Planning for Bushfire Protection Document on the DA process. The guidelines will mostly not be able to be met by in-fell development in the Blue Mountains. And I would suggest that most subdivisions in the Blue Mountains will be integrated also. There are not too many that won't be in areas of bushfire prone. If any of you here are from the Blue Mountains or have worked in the Blue Mountains, extensive referral to the RFS locally and down to Rosehill (head office of RFS) would be necessary. And the guidelines may conflict with Council’s LEP with respect to bushland issues and in some instances could lead to refusal of Applications. And the guidelines are yet to allow for local solutions which Council have worked up. I have actually been working in Development Control Plan up until recent times. We are trying to look at the Planning for Bushfire Protection principles and apply those across. We engaged a very highly regarded consultant to assist with that process but that has been put on hold.

Conclusion: Council will work with the RFS to devise streamlined means of dealing with in-fill development. We have already talked to our local guys used to dealing with them and we will make this work. The firefighting intervention will always be necessary. Doesn’t matter how well you design a development, and I think that is agreed across the board, that the embers are insidious little things and they can get into spaces under extreme conditions of bushfire weather and burn a house down 600m away from a fire front as Grahame pointed out. Even the best designed homes in well designed subdivisions can be destroyed by fire. Building to appropriate standards, paying attention to detail is an integral part of the solution. I am a building surveyor and from fire engineering principles there is no reason why you can't keep the little buggers out, the embers. And you do need to stop that persistent flame against your house, like you saw with those trees that caught fire. You don’t want them close to your house. You don’t want your wood piles close to your house. You need that break. That radiant heat flux that comes from that fire front is much less critical in my mind than the actual impact of the follow up fires and the embers.

One point that always confuses me or intrigues me a little bit, is that we put all this emphasis on new development and we have got very little new development that can go ahead in the Blue Mountains. I would like some sort of addressing of the existing houses, like in Ridgeway Crescent in the first example, where there should be some sort of retrospectivity. Some sort of research in that area is something I will be looking at. And I will leave the thought - do the guidelines go too far especially with the Asset Protection Zones. I think we proved that you can deal with it on a 17m setback in appropriate conditions. I am not saying that 17m is appropriate. We actually ask for 25m in a lot of instances. It is just food for thought.

Thank you for your attention.

MARK GORDON:

I would like to open the session to questions. A question about half of the way down the back.

Neil Ingham:

My name is Neil Ingham. I am a consultant town planner. I’d like to ask either Kerry or Grahame, a couple of questions. Firstly let me say that if I create a nuisance on my land at the present time, that annoys my neighbour, I am required to control that nuisance on my own land. And that principle seems to apply in all environmental planning instruments that I am aware of. Can you tell me why a different principle applies in relation to bushfire when the bushfire arises on public land? One would tend to think it might be to or simply because it is public authorities that own the adjoining land. Secondly, what happens to land which is zoned for an urban purpose such as residential which now can't be used for that purpose at all because it is vacant and because it adjoins land which is subject to these controls, and where people have paid land price commensurate with urban use and now find that it has virtually no value? And thirdly, are there appeal rights against any determination of the Rural Fire Service with respect to the Asset Protection Zone?

BRIAN CRANE:

We are just tossing coins here to see who will answer that one. I am going to answer the first part. I guess the first issue about the so called nuisance on land where another agency is, I think it is a fundamental planning principle that when you’re introducing a development into the area you contain the impacts of that within your own site, and you need to take account of those issues in the context of the particular development in the area there is. The Land & Environment Court will establish this principle in relation to Planning for Bushfire issues. There are significant legal precedent and court cases on this. If the particular individual wants to look for it they’re on page 16 of the Planning for Bushfire Protection. I don’t agree that the bush is a nuisance. The bush was there as I said first, and it may be a nuisance for you because you can't get your development but when you develop you are supposed to take account of whatever the factors are.

KERRY BEDFORD:

In terms of the area that might currently be zoned residential and now simply doesn’t have enough area to provide sufficient setbacks or Asset Protection Zone, I agree that it is a problem. And this situation happens every time you introduce a new planning control. What you do with those people who have existing expectations to be able to develop land. All I can say that each one of those cases has to be taken on its merits, and that Rural Fire Service are looking at alternate solutions to actually impose strict controls in the Asset Protection Zones. But ultimately we don’t want to set up the same situations that we have had in the past, where we design so that it is difficult to fight bushfires. All I can say is each one is going to have to be considered on its merits.

In terms of the third question - appeal rights. Yes appeal rights apply on any Development Application and particularly on the integrated development. If you appeal the decision and it is on an aspect to deal with a condition imposed by the Rural Fire Service then you will find Grahame in court defending the decision.

Terry Watkinson:

Kerry, can you tell me whether there is any priority between the Rural Fire Service and the threatened species officers of the various organisations?

KERRY BEDFORD:

In terms of the Bushfire Hazard Reduction Certificate, the Rural Fire Service effectively is going to override the threatened species. If it means that it would stop the bushfire hazard reduction being carried out. Although what we are trying to do is to build into that Bushfire Code sufficient protection of things that are environmentally important. In terms of your Development Application the threatened species stuff still is there. We will still have to do an SIS if you have threatened species, but ultimately we are still looking at providing those Asset Protection Zones where you are minimising the fuel load as you get closer to the house. And that is really the highest priority I think in bushfire prone areas.

MARK GORDON:

Next question?

Robert Monteith:

Robert Monteith is my name. A question for Grahame. I understand that one hectare is the size of bushland that is going to be classified as bushfire prone land. Now I imagine there are a lot of small one hectare or similar size parcels of bushland in urban areas, but are these really bushfire prone areas?

GRAHAME DOUGLAS:

Robert there are actually two aspects to this question. The one hectare criteria is really it says that if there is a remnant piece of bushland that is an otherwise low hazardous area. Say there is a remnant of one hectare of forest in a grassland, just in an area of grass. That remnant will be treated the same as the grassland. That is the context of that one hectare. If you have got a one hectare reserve or area of urban bushland or something like that, and it is say in Ashfield or somewhere like that, that is not going to be bushfire prone land. That’s not the context in which it operates. But what the one hectare is trying to do is differentiate from where the development time for a hazard, that is, for the time as you saw with that spot fire that was on the film footage, the spot fire once it starts, doesn’t instantaneously become a raging bushfire. The fire takes time to develop and to build up, if you like. I don’t like using the term speed or steam, but it builds up over a period of time. So you don’t get the full effect of a bushfire in less than that one hectare. Now what we will be doing clearly is in providing guidance to Local Government on preparing those bushfire prone maps, that one hectare of remnant bushland will be in the context of its immediate and surrounding bushland. So if it is in the middle of Sutherland near the shopping centre or something like that it won't be a bushfire prone area around it. But if it is associated with or very close to Blue Mountains National Park, it may well be. So it is contextual.

Noel Craven:

My name is Noel Craven. I am a surveyor. A question to Brian Crane. Is there any work being done on identifying less combustible vegetation that can be planted in the protection zones?

BRIAN CRANE:

There is certainly a lot of examples of where less combustible vegetation, if you like, like your maples in the example, they might fry up but they tend not to give off so much heat. I know the Rural Fire Service have got some advisory documents on certain low oil type species but I am not an expert in that area. But I actually saw the benefits of having something like a Petinia hedge for example. It really calmed down the effects of radiant heat and trapped embers. So there are certainly some huge advantages in having the right sort of vegetation in your inner protection area.

Owen Earle:

Under most Legislation as I understand it, each owner is responsible for making reasonable attempts to prevent the prevention of fire escaping from their property. I might be misreading it, but the implication that National Parks aren't going to provide protection for development adjacent to their property seems to be going into contrary nature of that. And given the fact that the development is now there rightly or wrongly, I would hope that this doesn’t mean that there is going to be a further diminution in the amount of hazard reduction in national parks. Grahame might be the one for that.

GRAHAME DOUGLAS

Yes Owen I am happy to comment on that. Look, the answer to your question is twofold. First of all no it doesn’t mean that National Parks & Wildlife Service won't be making reasonable and practical attempts to prevent fires getting from their land and they will be doing that particularly in a strategic way that recognises and protects the type of housing assets for example that we have been talking about here today. And truly we have been focussing more on those sort of urban type assets as part of the discussion. But I do want to just indicate to you that it’s very clear that the focus of it doesn’t/does need to be at those interface and intermix areas. And at the assumption that broad area burning in some way provides, on its own anyway, the benefits that you are trying to suggest can be very questionable. For example I would argue that burning in the middle of the growth wilderness would probably provide little benefit compared to some hazard reduction at depth, in relation to areas closer to the urban interface. Now that is not to say that the burning isn’t important and it doesn’t mean to say that National Parks shouldn’t be taking reasonably practical steps, which is what the Legislation in fact requires. But I am sorry, we will be disagreeing with you if you think that the whole landscape between Sydney and Perth has to be somehow or other be blackened.

MARK GORDON:

I would like to call a close to question time now. If you have any further questions, if you can see the speakers over lunch or if they’re going to be here afterwards maybe they can answer your questions then. I think you will all agree it has been a terrific session and on your behalf I would like to present the three gifts to our speakers. Not of course to be used on bushfires but maybe they can use them internally.

Go to Development Seminar Session 3 Proceedings

Return to Development Seminar Program

Return to Home Page