2017-06-06 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                       6 JUNE 2017


     using P3 respirators at bushfires must also monitor their exposure to CO and withdraw
     from danger if the exposure standard for CO (30 parts per million (ppm) is exceeded.
     While it is unlikely that smoke would present a problem every year, it should be carefully
     considered how much interruption bushfire smoke might cause and for how long that
     interruption might persist.
     The recent Coolum Fire (Jan-Feb 2017) occurred towards the end of an extended dry
     period. The extended dryness had allowed low lying land that would normally be sodden, to
     dry out, allowing fire to propagate through the sub-surface layers of duff, humus and peat.
     This residual burning persisted for almost 4 weeks with QFES receiving multiple complaints
     over that time about the ongoing irritation from the smoke produced. Unfortunately, the task
     of extinguishing sub-surface burning is not an easy thing to achieve due to inadequate
     access and the quantity of water needed. Usually these situations are monitored closely for
     uncontained fire spread until enough rain falls to extinguish the smouldering combustion
     and re-establish typical ground moisture levels.
     I see the main issues with this development to be the difficultly that would arise should a
     full building evacuation be needed due to a nearby vegetation fire. The follow-on issue
     would then be how long the facility would need to remain evacuated if smoke persisted in
     the area. Atmospheric smoke will also contain poisonous carbon monoxide gas and whilst
     filtration will reduce exposure to particles it will not remove CO.
     I don’t see the likelihood of a vegetation fire spreading to destroy any of the proposed
     structures as a significant risk due to setback distances and the suggested building site
     layout within the proposal.
There are consistent themes of concern that have been raised by Mr Friend and QPWS.
Of primary concern is the placement of a vulnerable community within an area of increased risk
from smoke inhalation and fire. It is important to note that even QPWS’ normal fuel reduction
operations present a risk to the proposed residents.
There is a distinct likelihood the development of an aged care facility in this location will
negatively impact on the ecological values adjacent to the National Park. The management of the
interface of the National Park will involve modification of the habitat to create reduced fuel loads
to reduce the risk of bushfire to the facility. The use of fire as an ecological management tool by
QPWS will be hindered due to the health needs of the facility’s residents.
Furthermore, there is an alignment of opinion that the facility will not be able to operate as a
standalone facility. Whilst the building is likely to be able to withstand damage from a bushfire a
fire event will most probably require evacuation of the residents.
Evacuation of the aged care residents raises concerns including:
   Adequate staffing levels required to evacuate 90 persons;
   Suitable locations for 90 residents to be accommodated when evacuated;
   Evacuation resulting from the presence of smoke will require the extended relocation,
     potentially weeks, of residents; and
   Additional pressure placed on QFES to monitor the threat of fire on the facility and provide
     advice to evacuate.
Biodiversity
The submitted ecological assessment report suitably analyses the quality of habitat for the
purposes of this assessment. The development requires the removal of vegetation within the
Open Space Conservation Zone, the Open Space Precincts 1 and 3 and the Recreation/Mixed
Use precinct for the purposes of bushfire hazard management.



                                                                                     Page 27 of 73