The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Victoria’s bushfires: time to reflect new urban strategies > Comments

Victoria’s bushfires: time to reflect new urban strategies : Comments

By Beatriz Maturana, published 27/3/2009

Australia has abundant land and for the 200 years of colonisation settlers have had no need to compromise ...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
To sum up the article:

a) Fires happen and kill people in small towns.
b) The solution is to get rid of the small towns so that when the fires rage no one is killed.

What a ridiculous proposal. Rural communities exist primarily for the local farmers and foresters.

The real solution would be to manage the fuel load and clear fire breaks to reduce the severity of the fires and reduce the damage and prevent loss of life, as has been recommended in 2 royal commissions after previous fires.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 27 March 2009 9:54:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow minister,
This is a well constucted article canvassing some ideas and as such it is even better than the one the one by the Wilderness bloke.

As usual on issues like this your lack of thought or understanding of the issues involved means you have missed the point Comprehensively.

Wholesale burning off (using greens as fire lighters) IS NOT a smart option nor is it the only one.

Wise old saying tis better to be silent and thought perhaps a fool than to write and remove all doubt.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, this is my first post here - but have to agree with your comments regarding Shadow Minister.

Aussies have for a long time been developing semi/rural areas in ways which are not only poor in terms of bushfire safety, but make little sense in terms of town planning (5 acre blocks cost a heap more to service in terms of roads, electricity, water, garbage collection etc etc and make very poor use of avaiable land resources)

Planners have long recognised that problems with this form of urban edge development and this is reflected (in NSW) in newer planning strategies such as those for the Central Coast and Lower Hunter which steer away from rural residential developments.
Posted by King Idiot, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:37:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, I see that in this post you have chosen to heed your own words, your attack on me in the other post was so factually incorrect that this time you have chosen to attack without actually providing any trite opinion or viewpoint.

The article by Beatriz Maturana is simplistic and incorrect in its comparison with rural Europe in which even the smaller "towns" number in the tens of thousands often with some industrial base,and the spacing between the towns is small and intensely farmed. Even here you will find on the outskirts small holdings of a couple of hectares.

Most small towns in Aus are not within commuting range of a large city, and many of the small holdings on the periphery have some form of intensive agriculture ie fruit and veggies and provide supplimental income, whilst many of the houses within the town are on 1/4 an acre. The cost of services to these small holdings is higher, but even when paid for by those on the properties, is small compared with the value of the land and so this reasoning is facile.

The other issue is that most people living in the small towns earn substantially less than those in the city, but prefer to remain because of the lifestyle that open space provides. Crowding them into high density ghettos would effectively kill off the small towns and would face such resistance as to be totally impractical.

A comparison to motoring would be to say that people are killed in motor accidents, thus the solution would be to ban private cars and only allow public transport because it is also more efficient.

The other alternative would be to make cars safer, such as seat belts etc.

Fire breaks and fuel reduction work. The greens and the wilderness junkies have been actively opposing it, and floating purile suggestions such as HD rural towns is only a distraction from the main issue.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 27 March 2009 2:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,
I agree with what you say but maybe you were a little harsh on the author. She, at least, recognises the part Town Planners play in the prevention of home distruction, even though she has not got it quite right.

My extensive experience with bushfires makes me believe that town Planners have much to answer for. It seems, in most cases, they disregard the fact that we live in high risk bushfire enviroment and allow developers carte blanche. Given their own devices developers will go for maximum blocks at the lowest cost to them, and do nothing about perimiter roads/access, fire breaks/ fuel reduced areas or the placement of sporting fields and maintained public areas.

Rather than larger town areas, perhaps we can get the author to cast her mind to these issues irrespective of the residential block sizes.

The Canberra situation was a classic example of bad town planning. Who, in their right mind, would allow an urban area adjoining thousands of acres of pine forest.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 27 March 2009 3:26:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you go to the NSW Govt handbook on "Building in Bushfire prone areas"
you will find a swag of restrictions and prohibitions for building in rural areas.
This is the book that councils use in assessing any development proposal.
One of the many requirements is the development of a "asset protection zone (APZ)" around the structure.
In High risk areas this is suggested to be 50 meters around the house to cleared, the idea being to trade distance for safety.
This does go against small blocks in a village environment.
I wonder how our town planners will deal with this one issue alone.
I also note that Beatriz makes no mention of us strange folk who are quite content to live away from towns alone in the bush.
Are we all meant to be corralled into fortified towns against our will?
Fortunately, we loners that live, work and enjoy the remote bush rarely see town planners.
It is hard enough to get the council to maintain our dirt roads to a reasonable standard let alone some serious town planning.
Posted by Little Brother, Friday, 27 March 2009 4:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,
Your comments not only miss the points raised in the article, they are utterly simplistic. You didn't read the article, did you? The notion of farmers and 'foresters' living in the bush is highly appealing, but it does not reflect the reality of the affected communities discussed by Beatriz. The two worst affected areas, Marysville and Kinglake, are not made of farmers and loggers, at least not in the built areas discussed by the article.

European villages and towns offer hundred of examples that would fit the bill on the issue of 'morphology' that the article addresses. A workable parallel could easily be drawn between sizes and number of individuals—but that is not the question here. The article discusses urban spatial arrangements and alternative organisation of services and housing, that could potentially assist to create a different dynamic (socially and environmentally more sustainable).

While no one would disagree with some comments about obvious mistakes, cutting down the forest (so there is nothing tho burn) is not a 'clever' solution, plus is highly inappropriate in the long-term given climate change.

Banjo, while planners may have a role in prevention, further regulating the collecting of rubbish and cleaning the gutters or "maintaining public areas" alone will not prevent another tragedy. I agree with you on that developers have had "carte blanche". We need think and consider the bigger picture for a change. Having said that, I don't think the article is promoting and 'all or nothing' response. It proposes that discussion is needed before 'rebuilding' the same mistakes
Posted by saturnine, Friday, 27 March 2009 5:14:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I could not cover all the subject here, it is too extensive.

LB,
Loners, like me, have to make our our arrangements for fire protection. I have planned extensively. Gravity fed water supply, generator, sprinklers on roof, under verandah and around yard perimeter, removing most trees for 60 metres and hard grazing area between yard and bush. Insurers could encourage by giving premimum discounts to those who take adequate measures.

satarnine,
You will notice I said town planing was 'part' of the matter.

Part 1. Is the need for fire trails and access into large bush areas and programme for fuel reduction burning. Bushfire brigades are willing to help here as it is used for training, team work and equipment familularisation, and the local knowledge of members, especially new members.

Part 2. Is where town planners come in to ensure developers put in measures in and around village areas to reduce risk. Councils also need to act in relation to already established village areas.

Part 3. Is the responsibility of the home owners themselves to ensure their home is the least vunerable as possible. Look at building regulations. My home is my refuge and this should be the aim of all rural dwellers. My enjoyment of my lifestyle is not affected.

There is nothing new in this and it is all contained in a book by Joan Webster titled 'the complete australian bushfire book'. Joan wrote this after the Ash Wednesday fires. State fire authorities also publish bookletts with the same information.

There is no single answer to fire prevention measures needed.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 27 March 2009 7:28:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest that Beatriz has a look at the Australian psyche and ask the question that Macca on the ABC sometimes asks. "Why do I live where I live?"

Town planners also need to take a look at the current trend of designing subdivisions so that they are arranged in the form of a tree, or even of several trees so that there is only one way in or out. This means that if a fire approaches from an adverse direction, there is no escape. Settlements in the bush need to have ring road around them outside of which there is a "Green Zone" containing only non flammable vegetation for a hundred meters or more.

n cities, much more attention needs to made to keep blocks free of flammable material so that incidents such as happened in Bendigo are unable to happen.

In the country, the absurd regulation prohibiting removal of flammable trees should be rescinded. Roadsides should also be kept free of flammable material. In the Labertouche area, the fire ran straight down the rubbish on the roadside, while a couple of metres away, the adjoining paddocks on either side with short grass went unscathed.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 27 March 2009 9:28:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think there are some quite good thoughts here, especially about clearing the land around houses and towns, and roadsides, but the one thing that strikes me is the question of the houses themselves. We hear about fire-"resistant" houses, but surely it's not rocket science to build a fire-PROOF house?
Mud-brick, brick, packed-earth, none will burn, metal framing and roofs, or tiles or slate, plus recessed, metal-framed windows and doors with shutters just for starters.
A fire-proof dwelling in a cleared space would seem to me to be a safe way to go. Add winter burn-offs and we might be able to avoid the majority of dangers, or is there something I'm missing here?
Posted by Maximillion, Friday, 27 March 2009 11:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the major reasons people live in these places is to get away from the RatRace. Can you blame them . Lets face it some people love this enviro , if you like to invent , build things , or like to fiddle with agriculture or maybe a "Caperbility Brown", perhaps your noisey a Lanz Bulldog or a Dirt Track JAP or maybe just pasionate arguments with yourself , none of this would "do" in the city . What was Brian Nayler doing up there , enjoying simplicity and his Wife and dogs I suspect .

Some scribes now are suggesting Town Planners and Building Inspectors , Pigs in the Exhibition Gardens ? I was doing some work on my Home , some busybody called up the Council , What are you doing , you need a permit , What for , the mouldings are under spec . They have been there for 147 years the timber is Blackbutt nothing will eat it and it's all mortice and tennon jointed and is fastened with hand made iron nails . All I was doing was leveling up to replace hard Plaster . We need safty rules not mind numbing Beaurocrats .

Continued
Posted by ShazBaz001, Saturday, 28 March 2009 10:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont'd

Some scribes now are suggesting Town Planners and Building Inspectors , Pigs in the Exhibition Gardens ? I was doing some work on my Home , some busybody called up the Council , What are you doing , you need a permit , What for , the mouldings are under spec . They have been there for 147 years the timber is Blackbutt nothing will eat it and it's all mortice and tennon jointed and is fastened with hand made iron nails . All I was doing was leveling up to replace hard Plaster . We need safty rules not mind numbing Beaurocrats .

Attitudes subtly crafted by the Greens are to blame for this catastrophy not arson or global warming , I remember about the time Kevin Hennessy suggests Global warming started , we had to move out of our home in the Mallee I think it was 129 deg F , Mum was panniking about my two younger brothers , the batteries in the phone had melted , Dad lashed a 12 Gal drum of water to the running board a styrip pump conveyed water to the radiator of the Dodge Flying Four and we set off for Lake Coomeroop engine boiling all the way , I had shoes on but the red sand was so hot my feet were burning , Mum wrapped my feet with towels that made opening the gates easier .Arriving at the lake we found everybody else there to . I have only suffered that heat once since that was at White Cliffs .A lot of old people died .
Higher temp clearly increases the risk of bushfires .........keep going Kevin say it ;..........combustable load on the forrest floor turns a bushfire into a catastrophy
Posted by ShazBaz001, Saturday, 28 March 2009 10:23:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Beatriz says makes sense on one level - i.e. irrespective of settlement size (shadow minister take note), low density sprawl through potentially combustible woodland is asking for trouble, as well as forcing dependence on private motorised transport and high roading and utilities provision costs. But, she also touched on the emotive subject of preferred lifestyle. Across continental Europe, people commonly live in apartments, even in quite small rural towns, which can be amazingly compact in relation to their population size as a result. But, their whole way of life is substantially different to those of Australia's acreage block dwellers (as Little Brother attests to). On reflection, I would suggest all that should change is that it is made clear to acreage lifestylers that in opting for the secluded bush lifestyle, they take responsibility for the costs and risks that result. The extra lengths of roading and utilities provison to these outlying properties should be paid for by those who want to live there, and, if they choose to keep eucalypts, long grass etc within fire-catching distance of their dwellings, the risk of complete loss is their conscious choice.

David (VK3 AUU) also makes a very good point that the currently favoured branching cul-de-sac tree with a single entryway road to a substantial number of houses is a foolhardy arrangement in combustible terrain. It was invented in other parts of the world, with avoidance of through-traffic in mind (for environmental noise, safety and security reasons) - but apparently adopted without any further thought into southern Australia's fire prone landscape.
Posted by Rubberneck, Saturday, 28 March 2009 9:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saturnine et al,

I said that rural towns exist primarily for local farmers and foresters and not OF farmers and foresters.

They generally consist of merchants, teachers, doctors, mechanics etc to service the community for kilometers around.

Comparing the 300m population who live in a cold wet area not much bigger than NSW to the Australian rural areas is to say the least a bit of a stretch. Comparing it to the USA would be more appropriate and hey, it is not much different.

So short of compressing rural Aus into small corner, the article is well intentioned, but somewhat trite.

Most of these small holdings come from farms that are subdivided, and the additional infrastructure is paid for by the land holders, and short of the big brother approach of forbidding the owners from rebuilding their houses (political suicide) the best that councils can do is to enable the development of the land so as to ensure the safety of the residents.

Many of the present bylaws are so anti fuel reduction that they do quite the opposite. The sub text of the article that the residents chose to live on large properties and thus have only themselves to blame and the municipalities can't do much is a thinly veiled defense of the bureaucratic pin heads that devise the red tape that prevents those residents from defending themselves.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 29 March 2009 2:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rubberneck said.... "if they choose to keep eucalypts, long grass etc within fire-catching distance of their dwellings, the risk of complete loss is their conscious choice."

Rubberneck, don't you get it!! Shire's will NOT let you remove trees or what they call "native vegetation" at will, or in most cases, not at all. I desperately want to remove the trees surrounding my home for a distance of at least 50 meters, but unless I'm removing "native vegetation" in order to actually build something, I've been told that my planning permit ( for which I have to pay a fee of $99) will not be granted!

I don't know who to blame for this ridiculous stance on council failure to ensure a fire buffer zone around homes in bush settings, but one thing is constantly on my mind and it's this...... If shire councils continue with the outrageous practice of forbidding 'safe zones' around these homes, then next time we see fire danger conditions similar to 'Black Saturday', I only hope that we don't see an increase in fatalities.
Aime.
Posted by Aime, Monday, 30 March 2009 10:52:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime, and anyone else in a similar position, my advice to you is "Just do it."

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 30 March 2009 11:48:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These narrow left wing planners can't stop marginalizing public housing and therefore any other type of housing outside their failed models. Its funny that these planners have only built homes for themselves and if they put their own money on the line would fail miserably.
Posted by Dallas, Monday, 30 March 2009 10:27:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alme,
Out of frustation you, and others, may be tempted to take David's advice and 'just do it'. However I would not recomend that as the council can make life difficult and expensive for you. No planning permit, no building permit and refusal to occupy your dwelling. Court action is also a distimct possibility.

The only way to fight this is through public pressure and if neccessary through the ballot box. Garner what support you can and lobby your councilors, letters to local papers, public meetings and submissions to the Royal commission. Talk to your local MPs and maybe either you or someone else stand for council at next election. Seek the policies of all council candidates and so on and so forth.

Now is the time to do all this, while it is fresh in everyones mind and a topical issue. The green brigade is now on the back foot.

Good luck in this endeavour. One would hope that sanity will prevail.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 9:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy