OPW15/0195 Supporting Information- Clearing Vegetation

    7.   March 2015 Elandra body corporate seeks a meeting with Council to ascertain how the fire management
         plan would now be implemented as a result of the letter from Council in February (point 6) and discussed
         a number of issues it considered needed to be addressed. It was agreed to have a joint expert report.
         The discussions at this meeting were documented in a letter from the Elandra Body Corporate Committee
         to Council dated 25th March 2015.
    8.   In late March 2015 the Elandra Body Corporate Committee appoints joint experts, Mr Friend and Mr
         Houghton, to prepare a Joint Expert Report regarding the bushfire issues within the Covenanted area
         attached to the Elandra Apartments.
    9.   Mr Conor Neville from Noosa Council informed Mr Friend that Council did not accept nor would accept
         that there would be any cost to Council resulting from Elandra Body Corporate instigating a Joint Expert
         Report involving Mr Houghton or Mr Friend.
    10. Mr Houghton and Mr Friend have undertaken independent s~e inspections and assessment of the factors
         with regard to the bushfire hazards within the covenanted area.


Mr Friend and Mr Houghton have undertaken a discussion of the issues and presented their opinions regard this
matter to each other and the following areas of agreement and disagreement are the results of that discussion.


Areas of Agreement
    1.   Fuel loads within POSCWP area were well in excess of the designated action criterion of 10Uha at the
         time of inspection as set out in the existing approved fire management plan.
    2.   Fire risk was identified as being low at the time of inspection by both authors.
    3.   Controlled buming is not being advocated by e~her party.
    4.   There is a need to avoid any adverse effects on the existing ecological                  values of the
         covenanted/POSCWP area.
    5.   That planted less-flammable species are providing benefits in reducing the fire risk to the adjacent area
         (the degree of benefit at this stage is a matter of debate however).
    6.   Both recognise the importance of having a useable and effective fire management strategy.


Areas of Disagreement
    1. The status of the FMP Stage at present Le. whether it is Stage 2 or 3 (including the degree to which the
         planted less-flammable species are contributing to this staged transition).
    2.   The need to manage existing and future fuel load, especially when significanijy in excess of 10Uha in
         proximity to the development boundary. (Mr Houghton considered that assessment of fire risk is dynamic
         and changes over time due to seasonal and vegetation conditions and, in the longer term, possible
         climatic change effects. This dynamic nature needs to be recognised and the consequential management
         requirements need to be provided for in the FMP). While Mr Friend agrees with this statement, it is not
         practical or reasonable to manage an area on what mayor may not happen within a particular area at a

JER RF2-1 DH2-1 24 July 2015