Fire Danger
We receive an RFI
Last week we heard from Council. They sent an ‘RFI” which attentive readers will remember stands for ‘Request for Further Information’. The gist of it was: what about building in a Flame Zone? What are you doing about that? Where, in all these reports, have you addressed that?
Actually, what it said was:
Please provide a supporting plan which details how the existing canopy achieves the maximum 15% required under Planning for Bushfire Protection. If tree removal and/or tree pruning is required, please also provide an updated AIA and BDAR for any required tree removal, or an updated AIA for any required tree pruning.
Our Arborists Report (AIA) already specifies one tree to be removed. Our DA application repeats this request. I found the RFI a bit incoherent, but that may have been because it’s Council-speak. Luckily, my excellent architectural firm remained calm and professional, and we have responded.
The tree to be removed, currently bearing my DA application notice. Bye, bye, blackbutt :-(
The Bushfire Consultant, when consulted (again) wrote an explanatory letter to Council. The gist of it was: ‘I’m the Expert, I’ve provided a Certificate that it’s all okay, and that should be okay for Council, okay?’ I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea.
His Certificate:
I hereby certify, in accordance with Section 4.14(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that:
• I am a person recognised by the NSW Rural Fire Service as a qualified consultant in bush fire risk assessment; and
• the development conforms to the relevant specifications and requirements of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 in accordance with section 4.14(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
What the Bushfire Consultant actually said to Council—and this is interesting, if you’ve spent a good chunk of your life in Administrative Law (*raises hand*)—was:
It is important to note that the term “should” in PBP 2019 (i.e. as it relates to matters such as tree canopy cover and separation) establishes flexibility rather than a strict legal obligation (i.e. that would be created using the term ‘shall’ or ‘must’), allowing for flexibility in achieving bushfire safety objectives through alternative, site-specific solutions.
The proposed APZ and tree retention within the site are designed to be effective in preventing the spread of fire towards the building. Given that the site is on flat land in a lower-risk setting, and with a highly maintained understory, the proposal aligns with the intent of an APZ and PBP 2019. The presence of trees within the APZ does not compromise its effectiveness, particularly due to the active management and maintenance of the understory vegetation. This approach ensures that the risk of fire spread is mitigated, maintaining both bushfire safety and ecological benefits, in line with the Aim and Objectives of PBP 2019.
Research and best practices support the retention of trees within an APZ, particularly in lower-risk contexts such as the bushland to the west of the site. Proper understory management reduces surface fuel loads, minimising fire intensity and flame height, prevents the establishment of a vertical fuel ladder, and maintains ecological benefits while achieving bushfire safety outcomes. The retained trees, as proposed, meet these criteria and do not pose a risk to the development.
No one wants a ‘vertical fuel ladder’. Eek!
For those who haven’t been keeping up, ‘APZ’ = ‘Asset Protection Zone’. ‘PBP’ = ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’
The biggest tree on the site, a blackbutt. The arborist said it has a 13 metre canopy. (He also said it had termites, and deadwood which needed to be removed, but that’s another conversation.)
Fortunately we were also able to show, via a couple of snazzy site diagrams (thank you, Evan) that although the canopy coverage of the block is presently 17%, when we take out that tree we’ve asked permission to take out, the canopy will be reduced to 14%.
The upper limit, they say, is 15%. So that should be … okay? Okay!
Canopy coverage before and after: calculations
My neighbours haven’t been faring so well. Gossip on the WhatsApp group suggests that Council is insisting on Flame Zone construction for one neighbour, and that’s beyond the current scope of works, and now everyone is going to have to go back to the drawing board.
Now, all of this could seem irritating, or nit-picky. But last week also brought news of Sunset Boulevard on fire. In winter. It’s no wonder everyone is nervous about wildfires.
Los Angeles, January 2025. [Photo source: someone on the internet]