Original source · versioned page text
Information response
Attached to the e-mail Response to Info Request, Landscape plans & amended Proposal Plans (1) - 1 of 4 - MCU16/0081.
Monday, 21 November 2016 Our Ref: 15104 / Office: Sunshine Coast Council Ref: MCU16/0081 NOOSA COUNCIL PO BOX 141 TEWANTIN QLD 4565 ATTENTION: Kerri Coyle Dear Kerri INFORMATION RESPONSE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES - MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPE 3 RETIREMENT & SPECIAL NEEDS 28 EENIE CREEK RD, NOOSAVILLE PART LOT 3 SP246584 Further to Council’s Information Request for the abovementioned proposal we now respond in full to each of the items raised. 1. Undertake an assessment of the bushfire hazards within and around the subject site using the Fireline Intensity Model as provided by the State Planning Policy of April 2016. Response: Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1. 2. Should a difference between the two bushfire hazard levels be found when comparing the two methodologies, the response to the code is to be undertaken using the higher bushfire hazard levels within and around the subject site. Response: Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1. 3. Following the determination of the bushfire hazard level required in 1b above undertake a re- assessment of the proposal using the highest bushfire hazard level and if the proposal is still appropriate, provides changes to the location and layout of the facility so it adequately responds to the determined bushfire hazards within and around the subject site. Response: Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1. 4. Demonstrate how the development will achieve the Natural Hazard Overlay Code Probable Solutions S7.1 a) ii) with respect to achieving setbacks from hazardous vegetation of 1.5 times the predominant mature canopy tree height or 10 metres whichever is the greater. Response: Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 40 pages
Page 2
5. Review the layout plan and remove this vegetated open space area to provide a contiguous
buffer incorporating the powerline easement and vehicle parking, etc. This may require
moving the building to the east or extending the car parking and internal roadways along or
under the powerline easement to remove vegetation between the proposed building and the
vegetation within the Noosa National Park to the east.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
6. Amended drawings demonstrating suitable safe egress for residents and staff to Eenie Road to
the north.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
7. Written State consent for the formation of a roadway across a piece of the Noosa National
Park.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
8. Provide an Emergency Response Plan that identifies: -
(a) Safe and accessible ingress and egress points for the facility where should one be
closed due to any reason an alternative egress/ingress point would still be available,
(b) Actions the facility will initiate should a bushfire threaten the area or the facility
including resources and training staff and management will receive to ensure they are
able to respond to a bushfire emergency in an effective and efficient manner.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
9. Written endorsement of the Emergency Response Plan from Queensland Fire & Emergency
Services.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
10. Provide additional justification of the location of this facility within the hazardous location to
support the proposal for an aged care facility within an area identified as a Very High Potential
Bushfire Intensity.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1.
11. Provide additional information and support with plans, drawings or photographs with respect
to how the Open Space areas (OS1 & OS3) are to be treated to minimise the bushfire issues
within that area. The response is to take into consideration the status of the vegetation, its
conservation values and its height and flammability.
Response:
Refer bushfire issues response prepared by Covey Associates included in Attachment 1 and attached
amended Landscape Plans prepared by Anembo. Further comments in relation to the open space
values and intent of OS1 and OS3 are provided in the response to item 14 below.
Page 3
12. Detailed landscaping and vegetation removal plans for the OS1 and OS3 buffer areas.
Response:
Refer attached amended Landscape Plans which provide further detail of proposed vegetation removal
and landscaping within OS1 and OS3 buffer areas. Further detail can be provided as part of
operational works stage.
13. Indicative cross sections from the Eenie Creek Road drainage swale through the OS3 buffer at
the site frontage.
Response:
Refer attached amended Landscape Plans which provide a cross section and detail plan from Walter
Hay Drive and through the OS3 buffer to the building edge. As indicated by these plans, there is
about a 22 – 25m separation between the road pavement edge and the proposed building edge.
While OS3 will largely be cleared for bushfire mitigation purposes, it will be maintained as an open
space buffer, with no building encroachment such that the intent for built form setback is achieved.
The distance between the road pavement and site boundary is in the order of 12m. This road reserve
area contains existing dense vegetation which will remain as a visual buffer.
14. Demonstrate the proposal meets the planning intent of The Noosa Plan for the Open Space
areas OS1 & OS3.
Response:
OS1 & OS3 are precincts under the higher order zonings of Open Space Conservation and Shire
Business Centre respectively. The overall outcomes for the Noosaville Locality and these zones do not
provide any specific reference to the precincts. The Shire Business Centre Map provides the most
guidance on the planning intent of precincts OS1 & OS3 as being:
OS1 – Open space environmental
OS3 – Open space preservation of visual amenity
The proposal takes a balanced development approach taking into account the sites environmental
values and bushfire constraints. While vegetation clearing is proposed within both OS1 and OS3
areas, the intent of these precincts is still achieved with the overall development outcome.
The Ecological Assessment has established that the ecological value of the site is consistent across
both the Shire Business Centre and Open Space Conservation zoned areas. In compensation for the
area of OS1 proposed for bushfire mitigation purposes, it is proposed to dedicate a largely equivalent
area of land, to the northwest of the development footprint, currently included within the Business
Centre Zone as Open Space Conservation Zone. This will ensure that the development does not result
in any net loss of Open Space Conservation Zone area within the site and achieves the intent of OS1
for environmental protection.
The OS3 area has been retained as a 10m wide strip along the frontage of the site. Being located
along Water Hay Drive, the main purpose of this buffer is to preserve the visual amenity along the
roadway from dominance by built form. While OS3 will largely be a cleared open space buffer, no
building encroachment is proposed within the 10m width such that the intent for built form setback is
maintained. As indicated in the response to item 13 above and shown in the attached amended
Landscape plans a separation in the order of 22m+ will be achieved between the Walter Hay Drive
road pavement and the proposed building edge. The intent of OS3 for visual amenity preservation
will be further enhanced and achieved by the existing vegetation within the road reserve which
provides for a 12m+ vegetated visual screen.
Page 4
15. Provide a flora survey report of the site in accordance with “Flora Survey Guidelines –
Protected Plants Nature Conservation Act 1992” DEHP Queensland Government 2014.
Response:
Refer attached Protected Plants Survey undertaken by Core Consultants in accordance with the Flora
Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants Nature Conservation Act 1992 DEHP. This report establishes that
no species considered endangered, vulnerable or near threatened under the Nature Conservation Act
were identified and additionally, no species considered protected under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act were identified.
16. Provide a fauna survey report of the site in accordance with Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna
Survey Guidelines for Queensland, Ecological Sciences, Queensland Herbarium, November
2014 (V 2.0) that documents any occurrences of endangered, vulnerable, near threatened or
locally significant species as defined by the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and Fauna and Its
Associated Biodiversity Values in Noosa Shire.
Response:
Given the findings and information contained within the Ecological Assessment submitted with the
application a fauna survey is not considered necessary. The report concludes that the site is
considered regrowth vegetation and is considered to contain significantly less ecological values than
the area immediately surrounding the Site. The area located immediately adjacent to the site is Noosa
National Park which contains significant ecological values including significant habitat and
connectivity.
While the report identifies a range of potential and probable fauna species that may occur on the site,
it indicates that the majority of these species are highly mobile and while may occur on the Site are
unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed works.
This is further supported by the attached Ecological Assessment prepared by Cardno for the landowner
QIC. This report provides a Fauna survey and habitat assessment and which includes the proposed
development area. No endangered, vulnerable, near threatened or locally significant species were
recorded over the proposed development area.
17. Provide a summary ecological assessment of the biodiversity values of the site with regard to
the findings of the flora and fauna surveys, by a suitably qualified person.
Response:
The Ecological Assessment submitted with the application provides a summary of the biodiversity
values of the site.
18. Indicate on the relevant plans a pathway connection from the proposed development to the
existing external pathway network.
Response:
A pathway connection is proposed from the proposed development to the existing external pathway
network and is shown on the attached amended Proposal Plans and Landscape Plans.
19. Indicate on the required “road” dedication on the relevant plans.
Response:
Refer attached amended Proposal Plans which show a road dedication area in the north-western
corner of the site.
Page 5
20. Provide written approval for the proposed access driveway from the authority benefitted by
the easement (ENERGEX).
Response:
Refer Energex Referral response included within Attachment 2 which provides support for approval of
the application subject to conditions for works within the easement area and within vicinity of the
Energex structures.
21. Provide additional detail on the proposed clearing and landscaping within the critical sight line
areas. Provide amended plans where necessary.
Response:
Refer attached amended Landscape Plan prepared by Anembo. Further detail can be provided as part
of operational works stage.
22. Provide a table showing the IFD data used for the hydrological modelling and a screenshot
showing the annual rainfall and evapotranspiration statistics used in the model.
23. Provide plans showing clearly labelled development envelope and catchment areas and refer
to the catchment parameters, including areas and impervious fractions within Section 3.3.2.
24. Include evidence that local and regional flooding has been checked and that a free
downstream boundary condition is appropriate for the site.
25. Ensure that the MUSIC modelling parameters follow the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (the
Guidelines) (Water by Design 2010), and confirm the runoff pollutant concentrations have
been generated stochastically.
26. Ensure that reporting contains enough detail to allow reproduction of the modelling. Please
refer to the reporting requirements within the Guidelines and ensure that all elements are
incorporated into the MUSIC component of the SMP.
27. Provide justification for the saturated hydraulic conductivity being set as 180 (mm/hr) instead
of the recommended 200 mm/hr in the Guidelines, and the TN Content of Filter Media being
set at 400 mg/kg.
28. Provide details of the lining to be used within the Bio-retention area and a typical cross section
clearly identifying the proposed lining.
29. Clarification as to how and where the 335 m3 of detention volume will be supplied, in both
report body and plans. Provide a typical cross section of the detention basin demonstrating
how the detention volume is provided over and above the extended detention depth/volume
of the bio-retention system, peak water level and freeboard.
30. The depth-area relationship and maximum inundation depth should be provided for XP-
STORM nodes 204 and 205 (assuming these represent the carpark ponding), along with
statements regarding compliance with QUDM and Council’s maximum inundation depth
requirements for carparks.
31. Demonstrate the design meets the requirements of Division 20 – Water Sensitive Design Code
of the Noosa Plan. The SMP should show assessment against this Design Code.
Response:
Refer attached amended Stormwater Management Plan together with correspondence from Empire
Engineering included within Attachment 3.
Page 6
32. Preliminary details of expected waste volumes, bin sizes and numbers, and waste storage area
requirements.
Response:
The applicant, Arcare, currently operates 26 aged care residences, including 10 in south-east
Queensland. Arcare enters into commercial agreements with waste removal companies to provide
waste collection services. Similar capacity facilities to that proposed have one 3000 litre general waste
bin which is emptied weekly and one 3000 litre recycling bin which is emptied fortnightly. The
proposed bin store at the north-eastern corner of the building is sufficiently sized to accommodate
this waste storage.
The Information and Referral Stage of IDAS has now concluded. We ask that you now provide details
of adjoining owners in order that we may commence the public notification of the application.
Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.
Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN
Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
Bushfire Issues Response
prepared by Covey Associates
[OCR of page images]
ATTACHMENT 1
Bushfire Issues Response
prepared by Covey Associates
Page 8
9 November 2016
Ref: AP/MCK/161953-Gen
41017Ltr
Knowles Group
PO Box 117
BUDERIM QLD 4556
Attention: Mr Peter Duffy
Dear Peter
Re: Response to Council Information Request – Bushfire Issues
At: 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville, Part of Lot 3 SP246584
For: Knowles Group
Thank you for passing on Councils information request for the proposed Aged Care Facility
at Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville. We are happy to respond to Councils request and provide
greater clarification in respect to the bushfire impacts on the proposal. The following
information should be read in conjunction with our previously prepared bushfire assessment
report, the latest architectural plans prepared by Oksio and the Landscape Concept Plans
prepared by Anembo (issue B).
In responding we have repeated Council information request item and followed it with the
information required for ease of reference.
Issue - Bushfire
The information provided within the Bushfire Assessment Report does not consider
the contemporary State Planning Policy bushfire hazard mapping. While the
determination of the severity of bushfire hazard as provided by the methodology in
the now superseded State Planning Policy – SPP1/03 is referred to in the Natural
Hazards Overlay Code, a comparison should be made with the latest State Planning
Policy bushfire hazard mapping of April 2016.
The application fails to satisfactorily meet the Specific Outcome 04 or the Probably
Solutions S4.1 or S4.2 of The Noosa Plan’s Natural Hazards Overlay Code
Page 9
1 Undertake an assessment of the bushfire hazards within and around the
subject site using the Fireline Intensity Model as provided by the State
Planning Policy of April 2016. The SPP mapping can be access from the
following URL - http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/state-planning-
instruments/spp-interactive-mapping-system.html
Using the state Fireline Intensity Calculator the classification attributed to the bushfire hazard
is high. A copy of the calculator results are included in figures 1 and 2. A calculation has
been made using maximum landscape slope as 0 degrees for the vegetation to the east and
3 degrees for the vegetation to the north. A fire weather severity rating of 40 has been
adopted as per AS3959:2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire prone Areas for
Queensland. It should be noted that changing the FFDI to 50 from 40 does not change the
Potential Bushfire Intensity hazard from High to Very High, i.e. it remains in the 20,000 –
40,000kW/m intensity class.
The fireline intensity classification ratings are included in table 1 and are based on A new
methodology for State-wide mapping of bushfire prone areas in Queensland.
Table 1: Potential Bushfire Intensity Classes and corresponding Potential Fireline intensity ranges from
CSIRO
Potential Bushfire Intensity Class Potential Fireline intensity
1. Very high (potential intensity) 40,000+kW/m
2. High (potential intensity) 20,000 - 40,000+kW/m
3. medium (potential intensity) 4,000 – 20,000kW/m
Figure 1: State Fire Line Intensity Calculator - Vegetation to the East of the site
Page 10
Figure 2: State Fire Line Intensity Calculator - Vegetation to the North of the site
2 Should a difference between the two bushfire hazard levels be found when
comparing the two methodologies, the response to the code is to be
undertaken using the higher bushfire hazard levels within and around the
subject site.
The Fireline Intensity Calculator methodology for determining hazard indicates a High
hazard with a fire line intensity of 22,320kW/m and 27,453kW/m respectively to the east and
north. This places the hazard level just above the medium category.
The Noosa Shire Council Bushfire Planning Scheme Policy Assessment Methodology
determines a Medium Hazard (refer to section 5.8 of the previously submitted bushfire
report). Using the State – CSIRO Fireline Intensity methodology a 100m potential impact
buffer is assigned to the edge of the hazard area. This results in all of the site being included
within the high hazard area.
The assessment report submitted to Council in support of the development application
contains various mitigation measures based on expected bushfire behaviour rather than a
hazard classification label per se.
These mitigation measures remain appropriate despite the changing of the hazard
classification label using the alternative assessment methodology.
We have also undertaken an alternative bushfire intensity calculation method for comparison
purposes including a radiant heat flux profile using the Leicester Model. The model shows a
similar result to the SPP intensity calculator and also verifies the construction standards
proposed in the submitted bushfire report.
Page 11
Figure 3: Fire Intensity Calculator for Comparison Purposes and Radiant Heat Flux Profile
using Leicester Model (0 degree slope to east)
Figure 4: Fire Intensity Calculator for Comparison Purposes and Radiant Heat Flux Profile
using Leicester Model (3 degree downslope to North)
3 Following the determination of the bushfire hazard level required in 1b above
undertake a re-assessment of the proposal using the highest bushfire hazard
level and if the proposal is still appropriate, provides changes to the location
and layout of the facility so it adequately responds to the determined bushfire
hazards within and around the subject site.
The proposed building has been sited slightly closer to the east so that there is now a 6m
landscape buffer between the carparks and Energex easement. This increases the
conservation zone offset to the west of the building. Reducing the width of the landscaping to
the east also reduces the potential for the landscaping to become part of the bushfire attack
as suggested by Council.
Page 12
Mitigation recommendation measures have been made in the submitted report based on a
combination of siting, building construction, landscaping and access for fire fighters to
adequately respond to the determined bushfire hazard. The amended landscape plans now
include greater detail on required bushfire mitigation measures. Please refer to the attached
landscape plans prepared by Anembo.
Issue - Bushfire
It is noted the adjacent vegetation is mapped as RE12.9-10.1 - Tall open forest.
Canopy species include Eucalyptus resinifera, E. grandis, E. robusta, Corymbia
intermedia +/- E. microcorys, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Syncarpia glomulifera subsp.
glomulifera and Lophostemon confertus. Occurs on Cainozoic and Mesozoic
sediments. (BVG1M: 8a). This regional ecosystem can attain heights in its mature
phase of greater than 30+ metres in height.
Information Required
4 Demonstrate how the development will achieve the Natural Hazard Overlay
Code Probable Solutions S7.1 a) ii) with respect to achieving setbacks from
hazardous vegetation of 1.5 times the predominant mature canopy tree height
or 10 metres whichever is the greater.
The siting of the building on the allotment takes advantage of the clearing within the Energex
easement to the east. The distance to the remnant vegetation from the building façade is
now as follows:
North: 24m
East: 55.4m
West: 24m (new open space conservation zone)
The primary threat from large fires is from the east. In this direction a 1.5 times the
predominant mature canopy tree height break has been achieved. Please refer section B-B
of the amended Anembo plans.
The adopted 24m setback to the north and west has been adopted in the site design to
achieve a BAL of 19 using method 1 of AS359:2009. This is a lower level BAL and
recognises the need to balance fire break size with conservation objectives.
The bushfire report previously submitted addressed siting and mitigation based on the 3
primary bushfire attack mechanisms being flame, radiant heat and ember attack. These
recommendations when used in combination provide appropriate siting to protect buildings
and people in a serious bushfire event.
Table 2 outlines the mitigation measures to maximise the protection of people and property
during the passage of a fire front.
Page 13
Table 2: Bushfire Attack Mechanisms and Mitigation
Bushfire Attack Type of Mitigation Measure Recommended Mitigation
Mechanism Used Number from Bushfire
Report
Flame Contact Fire breaks and separation from the 1,2, 10, 15
calculated flame length, fuel load
reduction strategies
Radiant Heat Flux Separation and building 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15
construction to withstand incident
heat flux, fencing and landscaping
to offer shielding
Ember Attack Building construction and 1, 3, 12, 15
landscaping to help filter embers
Information Required
5 Review the layout plan and remove the vegetated open space area to provide a
contiguous buffer incorporating the powerline easement and vehicle parking,
etc. This may require moving the building to the east or extending the car
parking and internal roadways along or under the powerline easement to
remove vegetation between the proposed building and the vegetation within
the Noosa National Park to the east.
The layout plan has been amended to move the building footprint further to the east as
suggested. The remaining landscaping will provide additional protection from radiant heat
flux and ember attack if undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the bushfire
report. Section B-B of the landscape concept plans prepared by Anembo shows the position
of the building relative to the existing remnant vegetation, the Energex easement and the
carpark.
Issue - Bushfire
The application proposes an emergency access point onto the south-bound side of
Walter Hay Drive. This would not provide a suitable egress point for evacuation of
residents and staff, due to the current nature of the south-bound roadway of Walter
Hay Drive and the lack of safe connectivity to the north-bound lanes. It is important
an aged care facility has more than one access point in an emergency such as a large
fire within vegetation to the south or east.
A preferred egress route is along the powerline easement to the north and onto Eenie
Creek Road. Use of this route would require consent to cross National Park land.
Information Required
6 Amended drawings demonstrating suitable safe egress for residents and staff
to Eenie Road to the north.
Evacuation of residents would be by bus or ambulance with a combination of both being
likely to be required. It would be unsafe to evacuate residents at the last minute, so in
practicality, evacuation would be early or not at all. The most unsafe place to be, as the
bushfire impacts the site is outside of the building in the path of the fire.
Recommendation 17 of the submitted bushfire report requires that a bushfire evacuation
plan be prepared for the development. A template for the completion of the evacuation plan
was included in Appendix D. This template prepared by the NSW Rural Fire Service requires
that responsible persons and triggers be identified to execute the evacuation plan. The
template contains some suggested triggers for evacuation such as:
Police or fire authorities direct the facility to be evacuated;
Page 14
There is a possibility that a bushfire may impact the development within 1 hour, 6 hours,
or 12 hours;
There is so much smoke about that it is causing medical problems for residents and that
they should be taken somewhere less affected by smoke.
The emphasis should be on an early evacuation for an Aged Care Facility. If done early,
evacuation would be via the proper road network, in which case buses could turn around at
the roundabout to the south and then head north and not be impacted by an approaching
fire. In this instance no other evacuation route would be required. It is likely that residents
would be taken to a sister facility owned by Arcare until it was deemed safe to return to the
Noosaville facility.
Danger ensues when the decision to evacuate is delayed until it is too late and people are
caught by the fire while trying to escape.
The Bushfire CRC has undertaken research into evacuation in the event of a bushfire
emergency. The research concluded that the most important solution to decision delay was
to have brigades advise residents on how to identify appropriate decision triggers and
therefore appropriate actions to take under a variety of conditions.
The bushfire CRC identified some other triggers such as:
a predicted fire danger rating, such as a warning of extreme fire danger.
a fire actually breaking out within, five kilometres of their home when the fire danger
rating is ‘severe’,
10 kilometres if it’s ‘extreme’, and
20 kilometres if it’s ‘catastrophic’.
The appropriate actions would vary according to the intensity of the fire and the time until
impact. All fire agencies in Australia urge people to leave their homes if there is a fire
burning in the vicinity and the conditions are ‘catastrophic’.
In the unlikely event that the facility was not evacuated by the time a serious bushfire
impacted the facility, all staff and residents would be required to seek shelter inside the
building until the fire front had passed. The facility is well designed to resist the impact of a
bushfire including being sited and constructed to withstand anticipated radiant heat and
ember attack.
7 Written State consent for the formation of a roadway across a piece of the
Noosa National Park.
The formation of a roadway across the Noosa National Park is not required as explained
above.
8 Provide an Emergency Response Plan that identifies: -
(a) Safe and accessible ingress and egress points for the facility where
should one be closed due to any reason an alternative egress/ingress
point would still be available,
(b) Actions the facility will initiate should a bushfire threaten the area or the
facility including resources and training staff and management will
receive to ensure they are able to respond to a bushfire emergency in
an effective and efficient manner.
There are two egress points depicted on the site plan prepared by Oksio. The bushfire
evacuation plan template submitted with the original application provides a sound basis to
develop appropriate triggers for evacuation of the facility. The plan is best to be developed
and updated by the facility management team prior to the commencement of the use so that
the people implementing it have ‘buy in’ of the plan.
Page 15
9 Written endorsement of the Emergency Response Plan from Queensland Fire &
Emergency Services.
It is recommended that the evacuation plan be reviewed by or completed in conjunction with
QFES. Council may wish to include this as a condition of approval. The plan cannot be
completed in full at the present time as staff and residents have not yet been determined.
QFES would also be able to identify appropriate evacuation triggers as discussed above.
Issue – Bushfire
The proposed bushfire approach relies on achieving a radiant heat flux of 19 kW/m2 at
the building to justify the construction of this facility within the site. A dependence
on increased building design and construction standards for an aged care facility is
not considered appropriate. Additionally, the protection of the building from a
bushfire using construction standards does not take into consideration the impact a
fire and smoke has on residents.
Information Required
10 Provide additional justification of the location of this facility within the
hazardous location to support the proposal for an aged care facility within an
area identified as a Very High Potential Bushfire Intensity.
The submitted bushfire report recommends that the proposed building be constructed in
accordance with AS3959:2009 to mitigate against any potential flame, radiant heat or ember
attack. AS3959:2009 is only legally applicable to class 1 and 10 buildings under the National
Construction Code. In this respect the adoption of construction standards is voluntary.
The adoption of bushfire construction standards will greatly increase the ability of the
building to survive the passage of an uncontrollable wildfire. The proposed facility will also
be designed to combat any internal structural fires by including fire compartments, sprinkler
systems etc designed by a qualified fire engineer.
It should be noted that greater than 80% of buildings that have been destroyed by bushfires
in Australia have been destroyed by ember attack. Building construction methods are the
only appropriate method to mitigate against this within a bushfire prone area. BAL 19 is
designed to mitigate against ember attack and lower levels of radiant heat flux. It should be
pointed out that adopting a larger fire break such as 1.5 times the canopy height of adjoining
vegetation does not mitigate against ember attack, as burning embers can travel a far
greater distance than this typical width.
There is a strong argument to be made that adopting bushfire construction standards to
mitigate against wildfire is better than providing larger firebreaks as a building is less open to
change from season to season in terms of its maintenance, whereas a firebreak may not be
mown, resulting in an increase in fuel loads etc and is therefore a less reliable mitigation
measure. Passive protection measures such as permanent features (houses, driveways,
walls etc.) are more reliable than active mitigation measures such as landscape
maintenance, firefighting intervention, sprinkler systems etc.
The recommendations within the bushfire report appropriately address the hazard by
mitigating against known bushfire behaviour attack mechanisms, creating defendable space
for fire authorities, adopting appropriate emergency response arrangements for staff and
residents, designing landscapes that help mitigate rather than exacerbate bushfire risk,
providing water supply and other facilities to combat fires and including education to
increase community resilience. The proposed mitigation measures combine to reduce the
residual risk to more than acceptable levels.
Page 16
In respect to flame and smoke impact, recommendation 17 of the submitted bushfire report
requires the preparation of an evacuation plan that would result in the removal of staff and
residents from anxiety causing flame and smoke accompanying a bushfire.
In the event that staff and residents were impacted by smoke there are a range of mitigation
measures that can be taken including sheltering inside, closing all windows and doors and
fitting air-conditioners with appropriate smoke/air filters (high efficiency particle air filters).
Residents would be attended by Registered Nurses working at the facility who could assist
particularly vulnerable residents with appropriate medical care including oxygen supply,
asthma medications and air masks.
It should be noted that in the event of a large bushfire that much of the local area would be
impacted by smoke and this would not be limited to the subject site. Please find attached
additional information (Fire Note 21) on smoke hazards of bushfire and ways to combat
smoke hazards prepared by the Bushfire CRC.
Issue - Bushfire
The Application provides minimal information with respect to how the areas identified
as Open Space areas are to be treated to minimise the BAL affects.
Information Required
11 Provide additional information and support with plans, drawings or
photographs with respect to how the Open Space areas (OS1 & OS3) are to be
treated to minimise the bushfire issues within that area. The response is to
take into consideration the status of the vegetation, its conservation values
and its height and flammability.
Covey Associates have worked in conjunction with Anembo Landscape Architects to prepare
drawings that depict how the various Open Space areas will be treated to minimise BAL
affects. Please find attached a copy of the plans prepared by Anembo that incorporate
detailed bushfire mitigation measures that will be adopted at OPW design.
Principles for landscape design were also included in the submitted bushfire assessment
report, refer recommendation 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and Appendix F.
We hope this assists with the assessment of the application in respect to bushfire issues.
Trusting the above is to your satisfaction, and should further information be required please
contact this office.
Yours faithfully
COVEY ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
ANTHONY POWER
Reg Landscape Architect/Bushfire Specialist
GDDDBPA UWS, GradDipUrb&RegPlan,
GradCertNatRes UNE, DipHort, AILA
Encl
Page 17
PROPOSED AGED CARE FACILITY
WALTER HAY DRIVE, NOOSAVILLE, QUEENSLAND
Part of Lot 8, SP246584
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
OCTOBER 2016
Sheet Index
LANDSCAPE OBJECTIVES
·
Noosa
Civic
VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Landscape Objectives Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
1 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 18
TREE
TO BE
PLANTED AWAY
FROM ROOF, TYPICAL.
LIMITED
TALL
SCREENING
SHRUB AT KEY POINTS
FOR PRIVACY BUT
ALLOWING FOR VIEWS
THROUGH TO
BUSHLAND
BUILDING OR VIEW OUT
STRUCTURE TO GARDEN
CLIMBER
FIXED TO
2m HIGH
COLOURBOND
FENCING
600mm WIDE GRAVEL STRIP
FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS
SMALL TUFTY OR
SHRUB GROUNDCOVERS
FENCING
GRAVEL
MULCH
Landscape Site Context Plan
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Landscape Site Context Plan & Layered Planting Concept Section Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
2 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
NORTH nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 19
LEGEND
1. ENTRY
2. EXISTING ROAD RESERVE - Replant road reserve areas
disturbed by project entrance using same plant species with
respect to vehicular sight lines.
3. OVERHEAD POWER LINE EASEMENT - Replant disturbed
areas to match existing conditions.
4. PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION
5. FLOWERING ACCENT TREES - At entry
6. EVERGREEN TREES - For character, setting and amenity.
7. PROJECT ENTRY SIGNAGE
8. PARKING LOT TREES
- Evergreen, for shade and microclimate control.
9. TREES - All proposed trees shall be selected for appropriate
mature sizing and planted away from building and roof areas as
required.
10. FLOWERING ACCENT TREE
11. LANDSCAPED INTERNAL COURTYARD
- With possible enclosed aviary.
12. OS3 BUFFER ZONE - Remove exiting vegetation and plant
disturbed areas with fire retardant plant species and rock cobble
mulch. Maintain OS3 Buffer Zone per Bushfire Management
Recommendations.
13. SENSORY COURTYARD GARDEN
- With fragrant plants including Citrus Trees.
14. COURTYARD GARDEN
15. SENSITIVE CARE UNIT GARDEN
- Secured, with sensory plantings.
16. FIRE BRIGADE ACCESS GATE
17. BIO-RETENTION AREA
18. OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION ZONE - Remove existing
vegetation and plant disturbed areas with fire retardant plant
species, turf and rock cobble mulch. Maintain Zone per Bushfire
Management Recommendations.
19. VEGGIE PATCH / GARDENS - For resident and kitchen use.
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Landscape Concept Plan Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
3 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
NORTH nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 20
PROPOSED PLANTING PALETTE
GENUS species - Common Name
TREES
ACMENA smithii - River Lilly Pilly
ACMENA hemilampra - Bush Satinash
ALLOXYLON flammeum - Waratah Tree
CITRUS trees
CUPANIOPSIS anacardioides - Tuckeroo (male)
ELAOCARPUS obovatus - Hard Quandong
MAGNOLIA 'Little Gem'
PANDANUS utilis - Red Edged Pandanus
PLUMERIA obtusa 'Singapore White' - Evergreen Frangipani Tuckeroo - Dense Theme Golden Penda - Accent Tree Waterhousia - Theme Tree Magnolia 'Little Gem' Sensory & edible gardens
WATERHOUSEA floribunda - Waterhousia & Buffering Tree - Feature Screen
XANTHOSTEMON chrysanthus - Golden Penda Tree/Hedge
SHRUBS
APINIA species
CHAMAEDOREA cataractarum - Cascade Palm
CORDYLINE species
METROSIDEROS species
SYZYGIUM species
ZINGIBER officinale - True Ginger
GROUNDCOVERS
ANIGOZANTHOS species - Kangaroo Paws
BLECHNUM nudum - Fishbone Fern
Evergreen Frangipani - Fragrant Warratah Tree - Accent Tree Scrub Cherry - for hedging and buffering Pink Bower Climber
BROMELIAD species
CARPOBRUTUS glaucescens - Pig Face Species Flowering Courtyard Accent Tree
CASUARINA glauca 'Cousin It'
CISSUS rhombifolia 'Ellen Danica' - Grape Ivy
DIETES grandiflora - Bearded Iris
HYMENOCALLIS speciosa - Spider Lily
LAVENDULA species
LIRIOPE species - Evergreen Giant
LOMANDRA hystrix - Mat Rush
PHILODENDRON 'Xanadu'
TRACHELOSPERMUM species
Various edible herbs & vegetables
ZOYSIA 'Empire' - Turf
ZOYSIA tenuifolia 'No-mow-grass'
Metrosideros 'Springfire' Creeping Fig Climber Formal landscaped gardens with layered Decorative gravel -
plantings of shade trees, shrubs and White Crushed Quartz
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS
groundcovers
FICINIA nodosa - Knobby Club Rush
JUNCUS usitatus - Jointed Rush
LOMANDRA hystrix - Flowering Mat Rush NOTES: Plant selections consist mainly of native species. All plants have been selected for their drought tolerant characteristics and suitability with proposed horticultural
conditions bushfire management regimes. Some plant species have selected for fauna habitat opportunities. All garden areas to be mulched 100mm deep with organic mulch
for soil water retention and aid in improving soil profiles.
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Proposed Landscape Planting Palette & Indicative Imagery Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
4 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 21
BAL Zone 19
Existing vegetation removed and planted with fire
retardant plant species and gardens mulched with gravel
24m
Open Space Conservation Zone
Existing RE 12.9-10.1
12m Flame Zone Vegetation Retained
Maximum Fire Run
60-120m to
Eenie Creek Road
ce
en
dF
on
lou gh
rb
Co Hi
2m
A A
SCANIA
FIRE
QLD 007
lch
ve lan ire
nd
ad
el olat nd
ar etab ond
l m ts
ale
mu
F
ou
Ro
mu ed
h
a
gr in is rs a
s
ulc
d g an ith
re
ed
gm
de le
lch
sw
b
el
Ve lour
ra t p
fA
an tard n w
nB
e
av
Slope <5 degrees
ing
tin
wi rub ov
r
Tu
Gr
Re de
Co
xis
g
en sh dc
ist
r
av
wn
rd al un
Ga
Ex
fe
G
ga sion t gro
po
Mo
th
To
ca an
oc tard
SCALE:
e
eR
Fir
SECTION A-A 0 2 5 10 25m
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Section A Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
5 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 22
SCALE: 25.4m Overhead HV Easment
Maintained and Mown Grass Area
0 2 5 10 25m
Off Site Existing
RE 12.9-10.1 Vegetation
BAL Zone 19
Existing vegetation removed and planted with fire
retardant plant species and mulched with gravel
24m
Open Space 12m Flame Zone
Buffer
Zone - 6m
e
nc
Fe
d
on
lou gh
rb
Co Hi
2m
SCANIA
2m
B B
FIRE
ARCARE
QLD 007
ce
lch
ra t p Fire
av hie ad ilt o
he d of em plan ire
y
ad
gr at s fer r ber f ts t
an
l m ts
Ba
mu
h
mu lding iant r
an t as ant ith F
ve lan
Ro
e
ac en
ulc
d g an th
ng
an tard n wi
el
d
Tr aint
ac tard n w
rki
lch an
av
k
Re rde
Pa
ce g M
Gr
Re rde
Ga
Ac istin
Ga
ss
Ex
el
SECTION B-B
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Section B Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
6 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 23
Road Reserve
Paved Road Surface 12m+ Dense Road Reserve OS3 Buffer Zone
Southbound Lanes (2) Vegetation to remain as buffer
Planted Road
Reserve RE 12.9-10.1
Vegetation Vegetation
e
ag
a
a
re
re
ain
fA
fA
Dr
ur
ur
m
T
T
or
wn
wn
St
Mo
Mo
vil
C
Ci
C
wi isola iona ers ant
gr ted g l shr nd
in cas cov tard
y
el ard ub
el olat rs
a
ar
mu en
mu ed
gr in is ove
B
nd
oc und e re
lch
lch
To
ou
c
B
g
CL
g
wi rub und
o Fir
kin
Eo
kin
tB
B
sw ad
Eo
ar
en sh ro
ea
ale
ar
re istin of
av
av
em
rd al t g
rve ro
em
ex ttom
nc
gr
ga ion an
se g
Lin
Fe
Lin
th
th
d
Bo
r
cc eta
nd
bo
do eR
as
ur
an Fir
lo
Co
gh
Hi
2m
SCALE:
SECTION C-C 0 2 5 10 25m
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Section C Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
7 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 24
CE
CE
CE
CE
Image Courtesy of Google Earth Street View. Image date May 2014. Existing vegetation is denser now.
anembo consultants
Landscape Architects Project Management
THE KNOWLES GROUP Detail Plan Environmental
anembo consultants pty.ltd. A.B.N. 75 089 473 156
8 This document is the copyright of anembo consultants and shall not be copied without written approval,
Sunshine Coast: PO Box 24 Moffat Beach QLD 4551
Ph: 07 5437 0000 Fax: 07 5437 0088
NORTH nor shall it be used except for the development and the site specified. Scale cannot be guaranteed when
printing from PDF files. This plan is CONCEPTUAL, subject to change, and NOT for construction. e-mail: [email protected] www.anembo.com
Page 25
Issue 112 july 2013
DEFEND OR EVACUATE? WHY
RESIDENTS DELAY THIS DECISION
CONTEXT
To assist community members in preparing
for a bushfire, fire agencies need to
understand:
1. Why many community members delay
their decision to defend or evacuate
until the day of a fire.
2. What can be done to assist community
members plan for fires more
decisively, and therefore prepare more
effectively.
This research investigated what factors led
people to delay deciding on their fire response
before a fire occurred. Following collection
of this data, a workshop with community
engagement leaders from fire agencies
investigated two issues:
1. How can this research inform strategies
that aim to overcome the problems
associated with decision delay?
2. What are the most important barriers
that agencies may face in trying to
This study shows that residents need triggers to take different actions under a variety of conditions. implement such strategies?
SUMMARY BACKGROUND
This Fire Note outlines research investigating why many residents of bushfire prone areas Australian residents of bushfire-prone areas
delay their decision to defend or evacuate in response to a bushfire until the day of a have a choice between either defending
fire. The research examined several plausible reasons for such a delay stemming from their property or evacuating, preferably well
decision avoidance research. This Fire Note discusses the research findings, as well as the before the fire reaches their area. To increase
opportunities and obstacles to overcoming the problems associated with decision delay. successful execution of these two possible
bushfire responses, fire agencies encourage
Research showed that a lack of difference in the attractiveness between the options of
residents of bushfire-prone areas to determine
defending a house or evacuating was the only significant predictor of householders’
ahead of time what they will do in case of a
decision delay. Therefore, of the options investigated, this selection difficulty was the
fire, and properly prepare for this intended
only valid explanation for householders’ delaying their decision in response to a fire.
response. However, when given the choice
A solution to this involves appropriate triggers and subsequent actions to take under a
between defending or evacuating, many
variety of conditions.
people delay making this decision (i.e. wait
ABOUT THIS PROJECT and see; Whittaker et al., 2010).
This Fire Note is an update on the Information Processing Under Stress: Community Reactions This delay is problematic for several reasons.
project, conducted under the Bushfire CRC theme Communicating Risk. First, previous studies have shown that
AUTHORS people who delay this decision tend to be less
prepared for both defending and evacuating,
Dr Ilona (Illy) McNeill, Dr Patrick Dunlop and Mr Huw Flatau, School of Psychology,
compared with people who intend to respond
University of Western Australia, Professor Timothy Skinner, Charles Darwin University,
with one of the two more concrete actions
and Professor David Morrison, Murdoch University. For more information contact
(Dunlop et al., 2012). The decision delay
[email protected] increases risk to a person or household
© Bushfire CRC Ltd 2013 1
Page 26
Residents watch a fire burn on a hill behind their house. Difficulty in deciding whether to defend or evacuate can cause indecision. Photo: CFA Strategic Communications
during a bushfire. Second, people who delay responses. This provided a quite satisfactory was a motive for decision delay, the study
this decision are more likely to spend valuable 20% response rate. The March 2012 survey asked people to indicate who would be
time on deciding during a fire, compared with was required to measure any changes in responsible for saving their house and for
people who intend to respond with a concrete behaviour. As a result, this survey was only saving their lives during a fire (government,
action. This can result in late evacuation distributed to the 350 households that themselves or a mix of both). Theory would
(McLennan et al., 2012), and thus further completed the initial survey at the beginning predict that people might delay their decision
risk of harm. The study presented in this Fire of the bushfire season. 189 usable responses as a means of avoiding responsibility for
Note uncovers the causes behind this delay were received – an excellent response rate any negative outcomes resulting from their
in decision making. In addition, the results of 54%. decision, such as their house burning down
of this study were used to suggest strategies as a result of having chosen to evacuate. This
The October 2011 survey measured several
to reduce the problems associated with such is because outcomes resulting from a decision
plausible causes of decision delay: two
delay and identify possible obstacles that lead to greater perceived responsibility
personality factors (general indecisiveness,
agencies may face in applying these strategies. compared with outcomes resulting from
Frost and Shows, 1993; and need for
decision avoidance. The main dependent
BUSHFIRE CRC RESEARCH cognition, Cacioppo and Petty, 1982), lack
variable, their intended response to a bushfire,
Bushfire CRC researchers from the University of perceived relevance of the decision (i.e.
including several options marked as decision
of Western Australia, Murdoch University and low risk-perception), and decision difficulty
delay (e.g. wait and see), was measured both
the University of Tasmania developed a survey due to a lack of difference in attractiveness
before and after the bushfire season.
that was distributed to residents of bushfire- between the option of defending a house or
prone areas around Western Australia across evacuating. To gauge this decision difficulty, RESEARCH OUTCOMES
the 2011/2012 fire season. In addition to researchers measured how much value people Most of the survey respondents indicated
measuring the anticipated fire response of expected to derive from defending their house they would delay their decision of whether to
residents, the survey measured plausible versus evacuating early. These value scores defend or evacuate: 68.1 % in October 2011,
causes of decision delay. These plausible were based on the importance of several and 67.2% in March 2012.
causes were derived from social psychology outcomes (e.g. saving the house, saving
Across the two survey periods, about 23%
literature on decision avoidance. Surveys were livestock, keeping the children safe) and the
expected they would defend their property
distributed to residents on two occasions: likelihood of achieving these outcomes by
throughout the fire, and about 6% expected
the first in October 2011 (beginning of the either defending or evacuating.
to leave as soon as they knew there was a
bushfire season), and the second in March
The March 2012 survey measured another fire threatening their town or suburb. Less
2012 (end of the bushfire season).
plausible cause of indecision: the avoidance than 1% would not be home as they would
The October 2011 survey was sent to 1700 of responsibility for bad outcomes. To leave their property on days of extreme and
households, resulting in 350 completed understand whether avoiding responsibility catastrophic fire danger, and less than 2%
2
Page 27
END USER STATEMENT
Getting a better understanding of what
motivates people to ‘wait and see’ as
a bushfire approaches, rather than
committing early to a plan, is a problem
that has plagued fire agencies for several
years.
This very useful research is unpacking
this problem by explaining why residents
are indecisive, and providing ideas about
how such indecisiveness can be overcome.
This will enable fire agencies to develop,
in time and with further research,
targeted strategies to address this large
at-risk group, hence making a significant
contribution to public safety.
– Damien Killalea, Director of
Community Fire Safety, Tasmania Fire
Service.
ticked the ‘other’ box (these were all volunteer
firefighters who would be out fighting any
fire).
The most important finding was that
decision difficulty as measured by the relative
attractiveness of defending or evacuating was Findings of this study showed that if evacuating held a significantly higher perceived value than defending,
the only significant predictor of why people residents were more likely to evacuate when a fire threatened.
delayed deciding on their action in response to think about bushfire, nor are they trying • Include a back-up plan, or a range
to a fire threat. to hide from the reality of bushfire threat. of options of what would be done in
In fact, they are just as aware of the risks as response to a fire.
More specifically, if defending held
those who intend to respond to a fire threat • Be flexible and adaptable so it can be
significantly higher perceived value to the
with a concrete action: either defending or adjusted to a variety of situations.
householder than evacuating, then they
evacuating. They also feel just as responsible
were more likely to anticipate defending. If • Contain detailed information, such
for bad outcomes (e.g. losing their house or
defending held significantly lower perceived as which information sources would
being injured). What this study shows is that
value to the householder than evacuating, be used, what would be the triggers
the extreme difficulty in making the decision
then they were more likely to anticipate for action, transport arrangements,
to defend or evacuate causes paralysing
evacuating. However, when they perceived emergency contact numbers, safe place
indecision.
defending and evacuating as being equally of last resort, etc.
valuable, then they were very likely to delay An article containing the full details of this
Next, the group was asked to identify barriers
their decision until the time of an actual research is currecntly under review for
to the creation of a good fire plan, with a
fire threat. publication by The International Journal of
special focus on back-up plans and flexibility/
Wildland Fire, which can be made available
People were not more likely to delay this adaptability.
upon request to the author of this Fire Note.
decision as a result of lack of risk awareness,
The biggest barriers related to the creation of
so it was not the case that people who delayed HOW IS THE RESEARCH BEING USED?
such proper contingency plans were:
their decision were less aware of the risk. The research team presented the results
of this study to a group of community • The difficulty/complexity of
People were not more likely to delay their engagement leaders at several different constructing multiple action plans. Too
decision motivated by responsibility fire agencies across Australia, including many options in ‘what to do’.
avoidance, so they were not delaying their Western Australia’s Department of Fire • Related to this, many families
decision in order to avoid feeling bad for and Emergency Services, South Australia’s experience communication issues
having made the wrong decision (e.g. Country Fire Service, Victoria’s Country over simple things, so would their
deciding to evacuate and ending up with their Fire Authority and the New South Wales communication skills cope with
house in flames). Rural Fire Service. During the workshop, complex contingency plans?
Furthermore, measured differences in participants received several assignments. • Many people/households lack the
personality did not play a role in the decision They were first asked to identify the key confidence to read/identify the triggers
delay. ingredients of a good fire plan. for different actions.
In conclusion, this study showed that The results showed that a good fire plan should: The group identified that the problems
householders who delay their decision about • Suit the needs and abilities of all associated with delaying the decision about
either defending their home, or evacuating household members, and consider all defending or evacuating are unlikely to be
beforehand, are not necessarily unmotivated living beings (e.g. pets). reduced by forcing people to choose ‘defend’
3 Background briefings on emerging issues for fire managers from AFAC and Bushfire CRC. 3
Page 28
REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Cacioppo J and Petty R, 1982, The
need for cognition, 42(1), Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
116–131.
Dunlop P, McNeill I, Stacy J, Morrison
D, Skinner, T, 2012, Preparing … for
what? Exploring the dimensionality
of community wildfire preparedness,
paper presented at the 3rd Human
Dimensions of Wildland Fire
Conference, Seattle.
Frost R and Shows D, 1993, The nature
and measurement of compulsive
indecisiveness, 31(7), Behavioral
Research Therapy, 683-692.
McLennan J, Elliot G, Omodei M, 2012,
Householder decision making under
imminent wildfire threat: Stay and
defend or leave, 21(7), International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 915-925.
Tibbits A and Whittaker J, 2007, Stay
and defend or leave early: Policy,
problems and experiences during
the 2003 Victorian bushfires, 7(4),
Environmental Hazards, 283-290.
Residents were not likely to delay making a decision on their action due to a lack of risk awareness, or
avoiding responsibility. Photo: CFA Strategic Communications Whittaker J, Haynes K, McLennan J,
Handmer J, Towers B, 2010, Victorian
or ‘evacuate’, or by increasing their risk The most important solution is to have
2009 Bushfire Research Response:
perception. A solution could be to transform brigades advise residents on how to
Household Mail Survey, Bushfire
their delay into a contingency plan that spells identify appropriate triggers and therefore
Cooperative Research Centre, East
out under which circumstances they would appropriate actions to take under a variety
Melbourne.
defend, and under which circumstances of conditions. In Victoria, households can
they would evacuate. This would also be in already get personalised advice on whether
own fire plans, which they then communicate
line with what a good fire plan would entail. they should even consider defending
to the community.
However, this may be problematic due to their house.
obstacles such as the complexity involved in Finally, random fire drills across neighbourhoods
Over the longer term, agencies could
making a contingency plan, and the lack of could help households to practise and improve
eventually reduce the community’s reliance
the necessary support from brigades or fire on the agencies’ advice by establishing better their plans. This is already undertaken in NSW.
agencies in helping these householders to links with the community and increasing It is clear that delaying the decision regarding
develop their contingency plans. community-driven education. Community individual or household bushfire response is
FUTURE DIRECTIONS members could then use this knowledge to a substantial and complex problem, which
help individual households to develop good will be challenging to resolve. It is hoped that
During the workshop for community
contingency plans. this study helps to clarify the problem and
engagement managers, the group also
identified several ways to overcome obstacles Fire agencies and brigade members should identify the strategies that are most likely to
to developing contingency plans. also model this activity by developing their succeed or fail.
Fire Note is published jointly by the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre Australasian Fire and Emergency Service
Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre Level 5/340 Albert Street Authorities Council
(Bushfire CRC) and the Australasian Fire East Melbourne VIC 3002 Level 5/340 Albert Street
and Emergency Service Authorities Council Telephone: 03 9412 9600 East Melbourne VIC 3002
(AFAC). This Fire Note is prepared from www.bushfirecrc.com Telephone: 03 9419 2388
available research at the time of publication www.afac.com.au
to encourage discussion and debate. The Bushfire CRC is a national research centre in the
contents of the Fire Note do not necessarily Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) program, formed AFAC is the peak representative body for fire,
represent the views, policies, practices or in partnership with fire and land management agencies emergency services and land management agencies
positions of any of the individual agencies in 2003 to undertake end-user focused research. in the Australasia region. It was established in 1993
or organisations who are stakeholders of the Bushfire CRC Limited ABN: 71 103 943 755 and has 35 full and 10 affiliate member organisations.
Bushfire CRC.
4 Background briefings on emerging issues for fire managers from AFAC and Bushfire CRC.
Page 29
Issue 21 june 2008
Bushfire smoke and public health
Dr Rachel Tham, Monash University School of Rural Health
Dr Tina Bell, School of Forest and Ecosystem Science, University of Melbourne
This work was completed by Rachel Tham as part of the Victorian Public Health Training Scheme administered by the
Victorian Department of Human Services
Bushfires produce copious quantities Smoke composition
About this fire note of smoke that often disperses over long
Smoke produced during bushfires or
distances depending on the climatic
prescribed burning contains a complex
This Fire Note is not intended to be used as advice conditions, topography and vegetation
mixture of particulate matter, water vapour
for the general public. sources.
and gases, many of which are known to be
air pollutants or greenhouse gases.
It is a summary of a report that collated the As a result, smoke may affect human
information available to the general public communities that are not directly Particulate matter results from incomplete
concerning health issues associated with bushfire threatened by bushfire or impacted by combustion of vegetation and varies
smoke. prescribed burning. in concentration, composition and size
distribution.
It draws on interviews with relevant agencies, The presence of greater numbers of people
The gaseous components of smoke include
published scientific literature and an assortment living in or near the bush has increased the
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane,
of information materials available to the general size of the at-risk population in the event of
ammonia, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur
public, including pamphlets, websites and phone a bushfire.
dioxide, volatile organic compounds (e.g.
helplines.
alcohols, esters, carbonyls, benzenes and
The population health impacts associated
acids) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
with smoke from bushfires are not well
(e.g. fluorene, anthracene, pyrene, perylene
About the project defined but are thought to have possible
and coronene). Gases and particulate matter
adverse effects on respiratory and
Smoke composition from prescribed and may be considered to be ‘primary’ if they are
cardiovascular systems and are therefore
wildfires and health emitted at the source and remain unchanged
important considerations for public health,
(Project B 2.2) or ‘secondary’ if they are formed from
and for emergency and environmental
gaseous precursors by various oxidation
agencies.
This project is applying new and existing pathways (e.g. ozone).
techniques to measure the contribution of
prescribed burns and wildfires to particulate
matter, classical pollutants, dioxins, irritants and
carcinogens, greenhouse gases, photochemically
active gases and ozone-depleting chemicals in
smoke emissions.
The project will answer key questions about
ecological and environmental aspects of bushfire
smoke - What contribution do prescribed burning
and wildfires make to greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere? What is the extent of loss of nutrients
through oxidation of carbon, nitrogen and
sulphur?
And, is there a ‘good’ side to smoke for
regeneration of vegetation, for example in the
promotion of germination of seeds?
The Project Leader is Dr Tina Bell, from the
School of Forest and Ecosystem Science at the
University of Melbourne.
© Bushfire CRC Ltd 2008 1
Page 30
bushfire Smoke research
The composition and quantity of smoke burning during the dry season in northern
produced during a fire will differ depending Australia caused an increase in hospital visits Other CRC projects are researching aspects of
on the chemistry and condition of the for asthma (1) but the same effects were not bushfire smoke.
fuel, the amount and arrangement of fuel found in a study undertaken after a large
Behaviour of smoke plumes and hazes
layers and the behaviour of the fire and bushfire event in New South Wales (2).
from rural or urban fires
weather conditions. Many of the gaseous
Another study did not find any reduction (Project B 2.1)
aerosols produced in smoke can exist in
in lung function in symptomatic asthmatic
the atmosphere for variable lengths of time This project is enhancing models of smoke
children during the same fires in New South
ranging from days to months and can travel movement and integrating them with other
Wales (3).
considerable distances. meteorological tools, including the Smoke
A recent study conducted in Brisbane Dispersion Forecasting Service, which is
Particulate matter is not as long lived as
has shown that daily respiratory hospital available through the Bureau of Meteorology.
gaseous products and generally only remain
admission rates consistently increased with
in the atmosphere for periods of hours Air Toxics Exposure and measurement
increasing levels of PM10 for both bushfire
to weeks, depending on their size. Most (Project D 2.2)
and non-bushfire periods over a three year
particulate matter emitted by combustion of
period. The findings were also suggestive This project is advancing the knowledge
vegetation consists of elemental and organic
that bushfire smoke was significantly of firefighters’ exposure to such toxic air
carbon and can be categorised according to
associated with increased risk of respiratory pollutants as carbon monoxide, respirable
their aerodynamic diameter: coarse particles
hospital admissions (4). particles, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and
are between 2.5–10 μm (PM10), fine particles
dioxins.
are 0.1–2.5 μm (PM2.5) and ultrafine particles Elsewhere in the world, smoke from the
are less than 0.1 μm. 1997-1998 forest fires in Indonesia resulted It is identifying key toxic pollutants, evaluating
in substantially reduced air quality over their concentration and providing tools to
The coarsest particles in smoke generally
Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, southern measure, evaluate and control the exposure
settle out from the atmosphere by gravity
Thailand and parts of the Philippines for of firefighters and communities to these
close to the source within hours, the smaller
a number of months (5, 6). This haze was substances. The study is monitoring on the
particles can be dispersed further before
associated with a significant increase in fireground at prescribed burns and wildfires.
settling.
the number of people requiring clinic
Respiratory Health of Firefighters
All particles with an aerodynamic diameter and hospital treatment for smoke-related
(Project D 4)
of less than 10 μm can enter the human symptoms in some studies (7) but not in
respiratory tract, but those particles that are others (8). In the United States, smoke from This project, now complete, investigated the
smaller than 2.5 μm are of particular concern large forest fires have resulted in increased respiratory effects of combustion products as
as they are small enough to penetrate deep hospital visits according to at least three well as the efficacy of the standard issue smoke
into the lungs then enter the blood stream studies (9-11). masks.
and be transported to other tissues.
Three types of masks were tested. One mask
is designed to protect from particulates only,
Sensitive populations
and the other two from both particulates and
Effect of bushfire smoke on Most healthy adults and children will organic volatiles.
human health recover quickly from acute smoke exposure
More information on these projects at:
and not suffer from any long-term adverse
Smoke has been demonstrated to have www.bushfirecrc.com
consequences. However, there are some
significant negative effects on human health
sensitive populations that may experience See also:
from studies investigating the impact of
more severe short- and long-term effects FireNote 3, Smoke and the Control of
tobacco smoke, smoke from indoor wood
from exposure to smoke. Bushfires.
fires and ovens (called indoor biomass
FireNote 12, Firefighter’s Exposure to Air
smoke) and industrial smoke in urban Sensitive populations include:
Toxics During Prescribed Burns.
centres (smog). In these studies, exposure
• individuals with asthma and other
to smoke is usually investigated at a known
respiratory diseases, such as chronic
concentration and for a specified duration.
obstructive pulmonary disease;
In contrast, bushfires and prescribed burning
• individuals with cardiovascular disease
activities episodically expose humans to high
including high blood pressure, coronary
levels of pollutants and for short periods
artery disease, congestive heart failure or
of time. The cause-effect relationship of
angina;
bushfire smoke is therefore more difficult
to investigate. The association between • the elderly as they tend to have pre-
respiratory illness and community exposure existing respiratory and cardiovascular
to smoke from bushfires or prescribed diseases and reduced immune defence
burning has been made in a number of systems against the particulate matter;
Australian epidemiological studies but a
• children inhale more air per kilogram of
causal link is yet to be established.
body weight and as their lungs are still
For example, increased levels of particulates developing, they are more susceptible to
(PM10) in smoke produced by vegetation the effects of air pollution.
2 Fire Note: Bushfire Smoke and Public Health
Page 31
october 2008 Issue 21
The main component of smoke that affects and with models for predicting smoke plume • If your home gets too hot to be
these sensitive populations is particulate activity. comfortable or is letting in a lot of smoke,
matter; however there is limited evidence try to take a break at a local building that
The main recommendations to the
as to whether particulate matter produced is air-conditioned with filtered air; for
general public, taken from a range of state
by bushfires affects susceptible populations example a library or a shopping centre.
jurisdictions, for behaviour during a smoke
differently from particulate matter produced
or haze event (but not a severe bushfire event, • Monitor all people for signs of heat stress,
by indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke or
which has a separate set of recommendations especially in the very young, elderly or
smog.
that encompass the Prepare, Stay and Defend those who are unwell. These signs include:
or Leave Early policy) include: heavy sweating; paleness; muscle cramps;
tiredness; weakness; headache; dizziness;
The symptoms of smoke • Be prepared.
confusion; nausea; fainting; poor co-
effects
• Anyone with a lung or heart condition ordination and restlessness.
Fine particles and gases can accumulate in should ensure that they have at least five
the eyes, nose and lungs and cause a number days supply of medication available and
of health problems including burning or follow their treatment plan.
Do masks help?
itchy eyes, runny nose, sore throat, headache
• People with asthma should adhere to their
and general coughing. Ordinary dust masks, surgical masks,
personal asthma plan.
handkerchiefs or bandannas are not effective
People with heart disease might experience
• Minimise exercise and physical activity for filtering out fine particles or gases from
chest pain, palpitations, and shortness of
outdoors as the increased breathing depth bushfire smoke, and are therefore limited in
breath or fatigue. People with lung disease
and rate encourages more fine particles to the protection they can provide.
may not be able to breathe easily, deeply or
be inhaled deeper into the lungs.
vigorously and may develop symptoms such Special masks that have been designed to
as wheezing, coughing, phlegm and chest • Whilst indoors, close doors and windows filter out fine particles in dust and smoke are
discomfort. to reduce the entry of smoke. readily available in hardware stores. They
must be rated P1 or P2 and should fit well
• If you have an air conditioner, turn it on
by sealing closely against the face to prevent
to ‘recycle’ or ‘recirculate’ to reduce smoke
Mitigation measures leakage.
being drawn indoors.
Current practices to reduce the impact of However, people with beards or small faces
• Reduce other sources of indoor air
bushfire smoke on public health include (children) cannot get a good fit. They are
pollution such as cigarette smoke,
pre-bushfire preventive measures such often hot and uncomfortable to wear and the
woodstove smoke, burning candles, using
as prescribed burning and enhancing filter system makes breathing more difficult,
unflued gas appliances or stirring up fine
community education. even with exhaust valves.
dust with vacuuming or sweeping.
These information programs focus on fire
• If there is a break in the smoky conditions,
prevention, management and general safety
take the opportunity to air out the house
and adopting personal protective behaviours
to improve indoor air quality.
during a smoke episode. During a bushfire
event the impact of smoke on local • If you are in a vehicle, close the windows
communities can be reduced by managing and use the air conditioner on recirculate
the smoke with fire suppression techniques mode.
3
Page 32
References
1. Johnston, F. H., et al.: Exposure to
bushfire smoke and asthma: an ecological
study. Medical Journal of Australia 176,
535 - 538 (2002).
2. Smith, M. A., et al.: Asthma
presentations to emergency departments
in Western Sydney during the January
1994 bushfires. International Journal of
Epidemiology 25, 1227 - 1236 (1996).
3. Jalaludin, B., et al.: Acute effects of
bushfires on peak expiratory flow rates
in children with wheeze: a time series
analysis. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health 24, 174 - 177
(2000).
public health information in Victoria, an extensive review of published
4. Chen, L., Verrall, K., and Tong, S.: Air
and links scientific literature and gathering together
particulate pollution due to bushfires
of information available to the Australian
This project, part of Program B of the and respiratory hospital admissions in
public (for example, pamphlets, websites and
Bushfire CRC, aims to identify and collate Brisbane, Australia. International Journal
information phone lines).
the sources of information available to the of Environmental Health Research 16,
general public concerning health issues The following sources of information were 181-191 (2006).
associated with bushfire smoke. found to be helpful:
5. Nichol, J.: Smoke haze in Southeast Asia:
This involved interviews with fire, land a predictable recurrence. Atmospheric
management, emergency and health agencies Environment 31, 1209-1219 (1998).
6. Aditama, T. Y.: Impact of haze from
forest fire to respiratory health:
Victorian Department of Human Services - Emergency Management Indonesian experience. Respirology 5, 169
http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/emergency/ - 174 (2000).
Better Health Channel
7. Phonboon, K., et al.: Smoke episodes
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/hc_environmental?open
emissions characterization and
South Australian Department of Health
assessment of health risks related to
http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/Alerts-&-Recalls/bushfire-smoke-11jan05.htm
downward air quality- case study,
New South Wales Department of Health
Thailand. In Health Guidelines for
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2004/pdf/airpollution_public.pdf
Vegetation Fire Events: Background
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/factsheet/pdf/bushfire_fs.pdf
Papers, vol. 334-380, edited by K. T. Goh,
Department of Health and Ageing
et al. World Health Organization, Lima,
http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Fires_and_Fire_Safety
Peru, 1999.
NSW Department of Environment and Conservation
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/airqual/aqupd.asp 8. Emmanuel, S. C.: Impact to lung health
United States Environmental Protection Agency of haze from forest fires: The Singapore
http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=smoke.smokecover experience. Respirology 5, 175 - 182
http://www.epa.gov/airnow//smoke/Smoke2003final.pdf (2000).
United States Centre for Disease Control
9. Viswanathan, S., et al.: An analysis of
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/firesafety/wildfires/pdf/wildfiresfacts.pdf
effects of San diego Wildfire on Ambient
Montana: Wildfire Smoke – A Guide for Public Health Officials
Air Quality. Journal of Air and Waste
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/FireUpdates/WildfireSmokeGuide.pdf or
Management 56, 56-67 (2006).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/progdev/pubeduc/wfgv8.pdf or
http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/smoke/wildgd.pdf 10. Duclos, P., Sanderson, L. M., and Lipsett,
M.: The 1987 forest fire disaster in
California: assessment of emergency
Fire Note is published by the Bushfire The Bushfire CRC is a national research centre formed room visits. Archives of Environmental
Cooperative Research Centre in conjunction in partnership with fire and land management agencies Health 45, 53 - 58 (1990).
with the Australasian Fire and Emergency in 2003 to undertake end-user focused research.
11. Mott, J. A., et al.: Wildland forest fire
Service Authorities Council.
The Bushfire CRC is part of the Australian smoke: health effects and intervention
Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. evaluation, Hoopa, California, 1999.
Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre
Western Journal of Medicine 176, 157-162
Level 5/340 Albert St
(2002).
East Melbourne VIC 3002
Telephone: 03 9412 9600
www.bushfirecrc.com
4 © Bushfire CRC Ltd 2008
Page 33
ATTACHMENT 2 Energex Referral Reponse [OCR of page images] ATTACHMENT 2 Energex Referral Reponse
Page 34
2 November 2016
J & G Knowles & Associates Pty Ltd
C/- Project Urban
PO Box 6380
Maroochydore QLD 4558
Attention: Scott Sobey
cc Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin QLD 4565
Attention: Denis Wallace
Dear Scott,
Development Application – Material Change of Use of Premises
(Multiple housing Type 3 - Retirement & Special Needs) located at 28
Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville, described as Part of Lot 3 on SP246584.
Applicant Ref: 15104
Council Ref: MCU16/0081
Our Ref: HBD 5390549 346062
We refer to the above referenced Development Application which has been
referred to Energex Limited in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act
2009.
This site is subject to Easement D on RP177294 in favour of Energex for
high voltage 132kv overhead powerlines.
In accordance with its jurisdiction under Schedule 7 of the Sustainable
Planning Regulation 2009, Energex Limited recommends approval of the Enquiries
Angela Collins
proposed Material Change of Use of Premises (Multiple housing Type 3 -
Telephone
Retirement & Special Needs), subject to the following conditions being (07) 3664 5766
imposed by the Assessment Manager: Facsimile
(07) 3664 9829
1. This application is approved in accordance with the below referenced Email
plans. Any alterations to these plans should be resubmitted to angelacollins
Energex for comment: @energex.com.au
Corporate Office
Approved Plans 26 Reddacliff Street,
Title Plan Number Issue Date Newstead QLD 4006
CONCEPT SITE CON04 D3 19/09/2016 GPO Box 1461
Brisbane Qld 4001
Telephone (07) 3664 4000
Facsimile (07) 3025 8301
www.energex.com.au
Energex Limited
ABN 40 078 849 055
Reference: HBD 5390549 346062
Page 35
2
ACCESS AND
EXISTING
ELECTRICAL
EASEMENT
LAYOUT PLAN
CONCEPT SITE CON05 D3 19/09/2016
ACCESS ROAD
CROSS
SECTIONS
132kV LINE PE2943-01 D 31/10/2016
PROFILE OVER
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN - - 14/06/2016
RESPONSE
PLAN
SITE PLAN - - 14/06/2016
LANDSCAPE LCP3 - 23/05/2016
CONCEPT
PLAN
CONCEPT SKC01 - April 2016
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
PLAN SHEET 1
CONCEPT SKC02 - April 2016
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
PLAN SHEET 2
2. All easement conditions must be maintained.
3. Satisfactory clearance from your proposed structure to the existing (and/or
future) electricity wires must be maintained in accordance with the Electrical
Safety Regulations 2013.
4. Detailed civil design drawings showing any proposed cut and fill levels on the
easement and the location of the Energex assets in relation to the proposed
development must be approved by Energex before any works can commence
on site.
5. No civil works are to occur within 5 metres of any part of an Energex Structure
(e.g.- tower base, pole or stay) without Energex approval.
6. Lighting structures are not permitted in the easement without prior written
consent of Energex. Lighting designs for proposed developments (e.g. road,
carparks etc) on the easement are likely to require reduced height structures.
Please submit detailed design to Energex for approval. These drawings must
clearly show the following;
Proposed height of the lighting structures and the ground level at the
structure base,
Relative (to lighting structures) ground levels at Energex structures
(towers, pole etc) either side of the lighting structures, and
Reference: HBD 5390549 346062
Did you know Energex has a referral website?
https://www.energex.com.au/home/our-services/connections/development-application-referrals
Page 36
3
The location of the Energex structures in relation to the proposed
lighting
7. Proposed underground services such as stormwater, sewerage, water and the
like are to be kept to the outer edge of the easement. Services crossing the
easement should be as near as practicable to right angles to the overhead
conductor direction and not within 10 metres of any tower, pole or stay.
Pipelines and crossings are to be clearly marked. Please submit the
relevant design drawings to the Energex for review. The identification,
assessment and mitigation of any possible hazards in the service due to
electromagnetically induced voltages, is the responsibility of the Developer.
8. At all times the following clearance must be maintained from the top of any
machinery moving in the vicinity of energised conductors:
132kV and 110kV conductors – 4.5m minimum clearance
Should it be necessary to transport equipment or extend any equipment, such
that these clearances cannot be confidently maintained, you are required to
contact our office to ascertain whether a Safety Officer is required on–site. All
operators of machinery are to be made aware of the presence of high voltage
conductors.
9. Any proposal for landscaping on the easement must have prior approval from
Energex. Please submit the relevant landscaping design to Energex for
approval. When considering landscape designs the planting of trees must be
kept to the edges of the easement and not under any overhead conductors.
When mature, plants or trees must not grow in excess of 3.5meters in height.
Please visit https://www.energex.com.au/home/safety/safety-around-the-
network/safetree-plants for a full list of safetree plants.
Any further works should be in accordance with Energex Standard Guidelines MD-
03/12 for general conditions when considering works either on an Energex easement
or in the vicinity of Energex assets. These are attached for your reference.
ENERGEX Limited would like to advise that Noosa Council should treat this response
as a properly made submission, as per Section 292 (3) of the Sustainable Planning Act
2009.
Should you require any further information on the above matter, please contact Angela
Collins on (07) 3664 5766.
Yours faithfully,
Angela Collins
Town Planner
Property Services
Energex Limited
Reference: HBD 5390549 346062
Did you know Energex has a referral website?
https://www.energex.com.au/home/our-services/connections/development-application-referrals
Page 37
4
Standard Guidelines MD-03/12
When considering Works, either on Energex easements or in the vicinity of Energex
assets, please be aware of the following general conditions:
Satisfactory clearance from your proposed structure to the existing (and/or future)
electricity wires must be maintained in accordance with the Electrical Safety
Regulations 2013.
All previous conditions must be adhered to and Energex may, at its discretion, audit
the finished development to check that it conforms to the conditions of the
development.
Detailed civil design drawings showing any proposed cut and fill levels on the
easement and the location of the Energex assets in relation to the proposed
development must be approved by Energex before any works can commence on
site.
No civil works are to occur within 5 metres of any part of an Energex Structure
(e.g.- tower base, pole or stay) without Energex approval.
If the minimum 5m horizontal separation to the Energex structure cannot be
achieved, the Developer must consult Energex with regards to allowable
construction methods. This may include full depth shoring of the excavation sides
for a minimum of 5 metres either side of the structure.
Any excavations deeper than 5m must have a minimum horizontal separation from
the excavation to any tower, base or pole at least equal to the excavation depth.
The excavation is not to be left open overnight and backfill is to be compacted in
150mm layers in the immediate vicinity of the structure.
10 metres clear access must be provided around all towers and pole structures
after the completion of any works on the easement.
Natural ground level on the easement should not be disturbed without Energex
approval.
Final ground levels should slope gently to the edge of the easement, surrounding
area or kerb such that pooling of water on the easement is avoided and conductor
ground clearances are not decreased.
Stockpiling of spoil on the easement is prohibited.
Lighting structures are not permitted in the easement without prior written consent
of Energex. Lighting designs for proposed developments (e.g. road, carparks etc)
on the easement are likely to require reduced height structures. Please submit
detailed design to Energex for approval. These drawings must clearly show the
following;
Proposed height of the lighting structures and the ground level at the structure
base,
Relative (to lighting structures) ground levels at Energex structures (towers,
pole etc) either side of the lighting structures, and
The location of the Energex structures in relation to the proposed lighting
Reference: HBD 5390549 346062
Did you know Energex has a referral website?
https://www.energex.com.au/home/our-services/connections/development-application-referrals
Page 38
5
Proposed underground services such as stormwater, sewerage, water and the like
are to be kept to the outer edge of the easement. Services crossing the easement
should be as near as practicable to right angles to the overhead conductor direction
and not within 10 metres of any tower, pole or stay. Pipelines and crossings are
to be clearly marked. Please submit the relevant design drawings to the Energex
for review. The identification, assessment and mitigation of any possible hazards in
the service due to electromagnetically induced voltages, is the responsibility of the
Developer.
Any cut in the vicinity of a structure or between a structure and the road kerb will
need to be stabilised by a retaining wall. The retaining wall design and location is
to be submitted to Energex for approval.
Any costs incurred by Energex as a result of the works on the easement are to be
met by the property Developer / owner.
Access to the easement and access along the easement must be available to
Energex personnel and heavy equipment at all times. Energex will require the
Developer / owner to supply and install gates where fencing prohibits access to and
along the easement area. To enable travel along the easement at anytime the
gates must be series locked with an Energex padlock. Both the padlock and a
design drawing of an acceptable gate will be provided by Energex.
At all times the following clearance must be maintained from the top of any
machinery moving in the vicinity of energised conductors:
132kV and 110kV conductors – 4.5m minimum clearance
33kV and 11kV conductors – 3m minimum clearance
Should it be necessary to transport equipment or extend any equipment, such
that these clearances cannot be confidently maintained, you are required to
contact our office to ascertain whether a Safety Officer is required on–site. All
operators of machinery are to be made aware of the presence of high voltage
conductors.
Any proposal for landscaping on the easement must have prior approval from
Energex. Please submit the relevant landscaping design to Energex for approval.
When considering landscape designs the planting of trees must be kept to the
edges of the easement and not under any overhead conductors. When mature,
plants or trees must not grow in excess of 3.5meters in height. Please visit
https://www.energex.com.au/home/safety/safety-around-the-network/safetree-
plants for a full list of safetree plants.
Reference: HBD 5390549 346062
Did you know Energex has a referral website?
https://www.energex.com.au/home/our-services/connections/development-application-referrals
Page 39
ATTACHMENT 3 Stormwater Issues Response prepared by Empire Engineering [OCR of page images] ATTACHMENT 3 Stormwater Issues Response prepared by Empire Engineering
Page 40
Our Ref: SC-5594
Your Ref: MCU16/0081
17th October 2016
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin, QLD, 4565
(Attention: Dennis Wallace)
Dear Dennis,
RE: MCU16/0081 – 28 Eenie Creek Rd, Noosaville RESPONSE TO INFORMATION
REQUEST
In response to Council’s Information Request dated 6 September 2016, we provide the
following further information.
22. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Appendix C for IFD data. Refer to amended
Section 3.0 and Appendix B for rainfall and evapotranspiration statistics;
23. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 3.0 & Appendix A;
24. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 4.0;
25. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 3.0;
26. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 3.0;
27. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 3.0. The parameters have been
adopted from the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines and the Healthy Waterways MUSIC
Version 5 recommended parameters for Bio-retention basin nodes, which are as
follows:
a. 400mg/kg TN Content
b. 50mg/kg Orthophosphate Content
c. 200mm/hr Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (amended from 180mm/hr);
The most recent Version 6 recommended parameters from Healthy Waterways have
reduced the value of Orthophosphate to 30mg/kg compared to the Version 5
parameters, see link: http://healthywaterways.org/initiatives/waterbydesign/stormwater
However, we have continued with the Version 5 parameters for consistency with the
previously submitted SWMP;
28. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Appendix A;
29. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 4.0 & Appendix A;
30. Refer to amended SWMP, specifically Section 4.0;
31. The SWMP complies with the Water Sensitive Design Code.
1
Page 41
We kindly request Council proceeds with their assessment of the MCU application. Should you have any queries, please contact the undersigned at our Sunshine Coast office. Yours faithfully, Net Matt Johnson For and on behalf of EMPIRE ENGINEERING Pty Ltd