2021-12-07 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda - Updated

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                7 DECEMBER 2021


              (5) Due to the significant bushfire threat from the highly flammable Conservation
                  Estate containing the Vegetation Hazard Class 22.1 – Melaleuca open forest on
                  seasonally inundated lowland coastal swamps, the setback to achieve an
                  acceptable risk should be that to achieve a Radiant heat flux exposure of
                  12.5kW/m2 not 29 kW/m2.
              (6) The setback is to be to the closest wall of any habitable structure or other
                  structure that is connected to the habitable structure such as a shed or garage.
              (7) Structures that are generally included as Class 10b structures which can include,
                  tennis courts, swimming pools or raid transmitting towers, which also requiring
                  development approval, could be located within any setback as they are not
                  structures which will present an un-acceptable risk to a habitable structure.
Considering the comments provided by Council’s consulting bushfire expert it is evident that the
proposed development has not provided sufficient separation from the bushfire risk, specifically
with regard to the risk from the north of the site. The application material has not demonstrated
that the QPWS fire line will be maintained in perpetuity. Therefore, the required APZ to achieve an
acceptable risk is 29.7 metres and needs to be contained wholly within the site. The APZ within
the site provided for lots 4, 5 and 12 is less than 10 metres wide.
The requirement for a 29.7 metre wide APZ from the site’s northern boundary means that the
location of the building envelopes for lots 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 building envelopes do not meet the
Bushfire Hazard Overlay code requirement to achieve an acceptable level of risk.
The applicant’s bushfire assessment has not addressed the Specific and Overall Outcomes of the
Natural Hazards Overlay Code. The report fails to identify suitable locations for future dwellings on
the site least affected by the bushfire hazard and does not provide acceptable fire mitigation
methods which are adequate for the bushfire threat.
The proposed development is considered incompatible with the bushfire hazard and places people
and property at risk. The proposed development does not provide an appropriate response or
solution to the threat with the proposed buffers/setbacks to hazardous vegetation inadequate. It is
considered that the development is not resilient to the bushfire hazard and increases the potential
risks of the natural hazard to people and property.
Bushfire Access/Egress
The development proposes a 20-metre-wide ‘firebreak trail’ to the west of Lots 9-12, contained
within Lot 12. The fire management plan requires this area to be constructed in accordance with
SPP Assessment benchmark 4 Table 4 which requires a trafficable width of 4m to accommodate
a rural firefighting vehicle.
The external bushfire consultant’s review has identified:
      This lot configuration places the access to the Firebreak Trail and therefore protection from
      bushfire for Lots 9 – 11 in the hands of the future owner of Lot 12.
      This therefore creates a situation similar to the adjacent Conservation Estate in that all
      bushfire protection and access for Emergency Services is dependent on the future owner of
      Lot 12 and therefore places the future owners of Lots, 9 to 11 at the behest of the future
      owner of Lot 12.
      This, I would suggest, places an unacceptable burden on the future owner of Lot 12 and an
      un-necessary risk on the future lot owners of Lots 9 – 11 in that the Lot owner of Lot 1 will
      continue to manage the access of Firebreak Trail.
Therefore, it is my opinion that:
      a.     Any lots which abut the retained vegetation within Lot 12 is to be setback by a distance
             to achieve a Radiant heat flux of 12.5kW/m2 and the lot boundary for those lots should
             meet with the boundary of the retained vegetation within Lot 12.
      (8)    The easement providing access to the retained vegetation within Lot 12 is to remain.
                                                                                    Page 60 of 140