Original source · versioned page text
2018-04-10 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 10 APRIL 2018
Figure 4 – Bushfire hazard over subject site
The Natural Hazard Overlay Code does not support the creation of additional lots on land which
is subject to fire hazard and where the safety of people and property cannot be suitably
maintained.
The applicant has submitted a Bushfire Hazard Assessment in order to determine the bushfire
risk to each proposed lot. With regards to aspect, the report determines land north and east of
the site has a low potential bushfire hazard while land to the south and west generally comprising
fragmented Melaleuca forest as a high potential bushfire hazard.
The report concludes by providing a bushfire attack level assessment which determines the
“…construction standard of buildings in bushfire prone areas. The construction standards are
intended to improve the performance of buildings subject to burning debris, radiant heat and
flame contact.”
The bushfire assessment recommends a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating for any future
development on the 3 additional lots which include: Lot 1 - BAL 19, Lot 2 – BAL 29 and Lot 3 –
BAL 12.5.
It is considered that the bushfire assessment has not addressed the Specific and Overall
Outcomes of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code. The report fails to identify suitable locations on
the site least affected by the bushfire hazard and does not provide acceptable fire mitigation
methods which are adequate for the bushfire threat of each individual site.
The proposed development is considered incompatible with the bushfire hazard and places
people and property at risk. The proposed development relies solely on BAL ratings for any
future buildings and does not provide an appropriate response or solution to the threat such as
appropriate bushfire buffers or setbacks to hazardous vegetation. It is considered that the
development is not resilient to the bushfire hazard and increases the potential risks of the natural
hazard to people and property.
Page 17 of 38
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.