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.

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.

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.

Aime, and anyone else in a similar position, my advice to you is "Just do it."

David

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.

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.