Letter to CYC 05Dec2024

                                                                                                 5 December 2024




           have come to the fore as a consequence of improved understanding about bushfires. As such, the
           previous approach did not include a site-specific analysis of radiant heat exposure. The experts are
           both of the opinion that the incorporation of a site-specific analysis of radiant heat exposure in the
           current guidelines provides a more robust and finer-grained analysis of bushfire risk and allows
           determination of a more appropriate bushfire hazard protection zone.

           [59] The bushfire experts agree that, applying the State Interest Guidance Material and Bushfire
           Resilient Communities, a setback from hazardous vegetation that achieves a BAL rating of no more
           than BAL-29 (or radiant heat flux 29kW/m2 ≤ at the building or building location) is deemed to achieve
           an acceptable or tolerable level of risk to people and property. As such, the experts say that a 12-
           metre-wide setback is all that is necessary, whether the house is located as proposed by Traspunt or
           in accordance with condition 1. This is the extent of setback that both experts recommend.
           (Underlining added)

           [63] When the Council provided its revised conditions of approval, it did not have the benefit of the
           evidence of the bushfire experts. Those experts are eminently qualified to express opinions about the
           appropriate extent of clearing around any house on Lot 909 and Lot 910. As is reflected by my
           summary of their evidence in paragraphs [34] to [59] above, the bushfire experts have undertaken a
           detailed, sitespecific analysis of the bushfire risk of the subject land. They detail all of the material
           facts on which their reports are based, reference the literature and other material on which they rely,
           comprehensively document their observations, investigations and calculations, and provide a cogent
           explanation for the opinions they express. No material challenge was made to their evidence. There
           is no suggestion of relevant error with the material facts on which their reports are based. With the
           exception of the evidence of Mr Friend referred to in paragraphs [48] and [49] above, I accept their
           evidence.4

Without suggestion of relevant error with material facts upon which the report of North Coast Environmental
Services is based, the evidence contained within it ought to be accepted.

The State interest requires avoidance of development in the “natural hazard area”, not generally upon any
premises upon which a natural hazard area is mapped.

The proposed development has avoided “development” in the “natural hazard area”.

A consideration for the SPP relating to flooding described numerous ways in which avoidance could occur.

           [27] The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘avoid areas prone to flooding’, in context, requires
           development to ‘keep away from’, ‘keep clear of’ or ‘evade’ an area prone to flooding38. This may be
           achieved, in my view, in a number of ways, including the following: (1) development does not occur
           on any land which is flood prone, be it in whole, or part; or (2) development is designed to remove the
           flooding constraint – i.e. land is filled to the point where flood immunity is improved, and the
           constraint is effectively removed; or (3) development occurs on land partly flood affected, but sited
           to laterally avoid the constraint; or (4) development occurs on land that is flood affected, be it in
           whole or part, but is vertically elevated above the constraint, thereby allowing flood waters to rise
           above, and pass beneath, it. Here, it is said the proposal has been designed, and sited, to achieve
           avoidance in a manner consistent with item (4).5

4
    Trask and Traspunt No. 4 Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No. 2) [2021] QPEC 7

5
    Black Ink Architecture Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2020] QPEC 13




                                                                                                            Page 4