Given the evidence of the result of the breakout that finding by the IGEM is nonsensical. I'm reminded of a saying associated with the American forces in the Vietnam conflict, “the village had to be destroyed to save it”.
In understanding what happened at Wye River–Separation Creek on Christmas Day, there are a number of issues needing consideration that extend much broader than the IGEM’s very limited coverage of his review. Raises an important question, how can we learn from the experience when Minister Garrett sent such a limited brief to the IGEM? Maybe the government knew from the outset that a full exposure could be very embarrassing and selfishly was more concerned to protect itself than allow all of us to learn from the experience.
And the government should be very embarrassed, as it failed the people of Wye River-Separation Creek and continues to fail Victorians in falling far short of efficient and effective bushfire management to minimise all forms of loss.
For a start, I’ve already learned from discussion with three Wye River property owners that certain insurers are imposing bushfire attack level assessments of BAL–40 within the township area. I’m certain of one of those assessments, due to a client of mine requesting that I challenge the insurer, in this case for a dwelling designed and constructed to BAL–29 on the high side of Karingal Drive, Wye River that is still there and virtually unaffected by the fire — despite the close-by adjoining dwelling burning to the ground.
Above is a BAL–29 dwelling on the uphill side of Karingal Drive that survived the fire due to the meticulous approach of the architect and builders in complying with the requirements of ASA 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire–prone areas, and the diligence of the owner in maintaining the land around the dwelling according to a defendable space specification to support BAL–29.
The remains of the dwelling next door on the northern side that burned to the ground — note the unburnt tree canopies in the background.
A polyethylene water tank melted to the water line by the heat from the burning dwelling next door, but the building remained intact.
"Melted to the water line" is a significant observation of the performance of polyethylene water tanks that I'll expand on in a future posting, as the CFA's one-size-fits-all approach to the Bushfire Management Overlay excludes polyethylene water tanks, apparently with any consideration of how they actually perform in a bushfire situation. One example of unnecessary additional cost imposed on people already hard pressed with the cost of building a new home that deserves an individualised performance-based analysis of the actual bushfire threat.
If the council met its township protection responsibilities there should be no need for a bushfire attack level to exceed BAL–29 and probably be lower further inside the town boundary, where ignitions from ember attack will be the predominant cause of new outbreaks of fire. More about how fire entered Wye River–Separation Creek in a future posting.
Bushfire attack level assessments
Coming back to the bushfire attack assessment at BAL–40, and I'm aware of BAL–FZ assessments prior to the fire, and "windfall gains".
My earlier reference to a BAL–40 assessment on my client’s dwelling that survived the fire was done by a consultant based in Sydney who was commissioned by a building consultant based further north in NSW.
Examination of the photos with the assessment certificate suggests that the assessor did not visit the land, but relied on photographs taken from Karingal Drive and downhill from the land involved.
It is to be hoped that the Wye River–Separation Creek Resettlement Leadership Group is bringing some common sense and integrity to bushfire protection requirements for rebuilds and new dwellings, given earlier work commissioned by the Colac Otway Shire and funded by the Victorian government that "painted Wye River–Separation Creek residential areas red" in the draft report issued in February 2014. Fond hope?
Financial gain
It can be argued that the Colac Otway Shire Council failing to meet its township bushfire protection responsibilities substantially led to the fire entering and spreading within Wye River-Separation Creek and the resulting loss of homes and other assets.
Who benefits from the loss, the Victorian government through an increase in the fire services levy and the Colac Otway Shire Council through an increase in council rates, both based on an increase in the “capital improved value" (CIV) of the land?
Then there will be the architects, builders and building materials suppliers. Maybe there will be others in on the potential for gain not mentioned here.
Examination of the Fire Services Levy document reveals how the levy is calculated and what the levy funds. By now people reading my blog postings should be aware of my strong advocacy for a proper risk assessment based PPRR approach to minimising loss due to bushfire.
Concerning the levy, questions needs to be asked, are we receiving full value for the impost or is it being squandered by the government? The Fire Services Levy affects all Victorians and any increase will further hurt those citizens already experiencing financial hardship.
I wonder if the bureaucrats responsible for the Wye River–Separation Creek debacle have performance bonuses in their contracts and if so how performance is measured.
Opinion on how the fire actually entered and spread within Wye River–Separation Creek is the subject of future post. This knowledge is important in determining the bushfire attack levels for replacement or new buildings, rather than someone "counting trees".
Impact on citizens
What will be the increased costs and other hardships faced by citizens wanting to live in Wye River–Separation Creek, some of whom had retired there and lost their homes in the fire? Will they have the wherewith all to reestablish or will they be forced out?
While the government boasts that no lives were lost, the loss of 116 homes and other assets is inexcusable and an appalling failure of bushfire management in Victoria.
No comments:
Post a Comment