1. Information Session
Great Lakes Council
4 May 2011
Lew Short
Group Manager Community
Resilience
Development Rural Fire ServicePlanning
NSW Assessment &

2. Outline
• Overview
• Legislation Changes
• Complying Development
• Process
• Development Standards
• Recognised Consultants
• Certificates
• Best Practice Guidelines and Supporting Documents
• 79BA
• Recognised Consultants
• Queries

3. The next steps for local
government
• What are the specific needs of Council and
Council staff
• How can the RFS assist?
• Mentoring by RFS
• Site assessment

4. Specific Issues
• Inconsistency with the requirements for ember protection between 100B and 79BA assessments. Example is DA-474/2010 for a boundary adjustment.
Bush Fire Safety Authority issued subject to condition requiring dwelling to be upgraded for ember protection. Dwelling is not located within part of land
mapped as bush fire prone. Based on slope, distance to vegetation and type of vegetation the dwelling would not require any specific construction
requirements (BAL 12.5) under AS 3959.
• 2. Ensuring appropriate conditions are applied to Bush Fire Safety Authority. Example is DA-116/2011. A condition was imposed requiring “Public road
access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. Clarification was sought in relation to the required outer radius of a
cul-de-sac and advice received that 12m required. Plans were clearly non-compliant (8.5m outer radius). Applicant is unable to comply with this condition
without substantial change to the form of the subdivision, therefore placing this requirement as a condition could invalidate the any consent and should
have been raised as an issue rather than placed as a condition.
• 3. Requiring APZ’s on newly created lots and associated roadways which are outside the extent of bush fire prone land (i.e. more than 100m to the
nearest bushfire hazard) to comply with PBP 2006. Only the residue lot contains bush fire prone land. Example is DA-69/2010
• I refer to DA 260/2010. A rural dwelling beyond the Council maintained section ( a distance of 5.15Klms) of Black Camp Road, Stroud. The maintained
section of Black Camp Road varies in width between 2.5 and 5m and also consists of a number of old timber bridges and culverts. To access the
property, a further distance of 500m was required to be travelled over a non maintained section of Black Camp Road also consisting of a poorly
constructed pipe crossing. The issues were as follows:-
• RFS required that only the internal access meet the requirements of 4.1.3 (2)
• The maintained section of Black Camp Road itself clearly did not meet RFS requirements in terms of height clearances, road width and dubious structural
adequacy of the existing bridges and culverts.
• The 500m of unmaintained road was in poor condition as was the pipe crossing within this section.
• In my mind this raises the following questions:
1. Does Council have any obligation to ensure that its' maintained or unmaintained rural road network complies with basic RFS requirements such as
width, height and load capacity? If so, given current and projected budget restraints, would achieving compliance with these requirements be unrealistic or
even unachievable task?
• 2. Why does the RFS condition for compliance with internal access requirements yet overlooks the condition of the public road itself?
• 3. In terms of liability would Council or the RFS be accountable in any way should it be proven that a fatality occurred due to RFS emergency services not
being able to negate the public road leading into the property?
• What is the standard of construction required for secondary access roads on rural properties?
• I am off work on Mon and at a DAP meeting on Tues so really can’t afford to be there on Weds – so sorry. I have a few issues with the RFS system but
most are to do with the unnecessary need to send DA’s to them with associated costs and time. Example 1 - house just approved for construction, we
then submit a DA for subn and we are required to supply RFS report and costs covering that same site?????? .
• Example 2 – subn approved for 3 lots – clients then request the subn be varied to 2 lots (same location for house sites as previously approved 3 months
prior) we are required to resubmit the DA to RFS???? Why?
• I have never liked how in the case of a minor boundary adjustment – RFS place conditions on the long standing existing dwellings (covering in openings,
covering windows, extra water tanks etc). In some cases it has meant the bdy adjustment is no longer viable so does not proceed. So houses remain the
same and the boundary stays in an inappropriate location. RFS in later years are becoming better on this issue but still room for improvement
• I can supply DA refs if needed
The four above are from a surveyor.
My specific issues relate to road access widths and turning circle requirements.
• Robyn Shelley

5. Legislative Changes
• The Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment
Act 2008 (the Amendment Act)
• s79BA EP&A Act 1979
• Codes SEPP 2008
– Exempt Provisions (unchanged)
– Complying Provisions
• Amendment to s733 of the Local Government Act 1919
• Protection of life and property is maintained through
rigorous assessment processes by suitably qualified
consultant or Council staff

6. Background - Complying
Development
• Exempt & Complying Codes SEPP has been in effect from
2008.
• Bush Fire was a land based exclusion which only allowed
minor exempt development such as class 10, fences etc
• Long period of negotiation with Dept of Planning and FPAA
• Maintains NSW strong position for new development in
Bush Fire Prone Areas.

7. Background - Complying
Development
• Exempt & Complying Codes SEPP has been in effect from
2008.
• Bush Fire was a land based exclusion which only allowed
minor exempt development such as class 10, fences etc
• Long period of negotiation with Dept of Planning and FPAA
• Maintains NSW strong position for new development in
Bush Fire Prone Areas.

8. The changes to complying development
• Bush fire prone land is no longer excluded from the Codes
SEPP
• New assessment process applies to the General Housing
Code and the Rural Housing Code
• Part 3 of Codes SEPP
– Development Standards eg. setbacks, building height & bush fire
prone land standards

11. • Cannot be carried out on BFP Land for State
Significant Development, Integrated
Development or Other development
• Can be applied to infill situations for alterations,
additions and new houses that meet the code
criteria (Development Standards)
• Development Standards are based on the
zoning of the land
– Rural zonings covered by Rural Housing Code RU1 – RU 6
– Residential or the General Housing R1 – R5

12. Part 3 General Housing Code
cl. 3.36B Development standards for bush fire prone land
(1) This clause applies:
(a) to all development specified for this code that is to be carried out on a lot that is wholly or
partly bush fire prone land (other than development that is the erection of non-habitable
ancillary development that is more than 10m from any dwelling house, landscaping, a
non-combustible fence or a swimming pool), and
(b) in addition to all other development standards specified for this code.
(2) The development may be carried out on the lot only if:
(a) the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the following that are
relevant to the development:
(i) Planning for Bush Fire Protection (ISBN 0 9751033 2 6) published by the NSW Rural Fire
Service in December 2006,
(ii) Addendum: Appendix 3 (ISBN 0 9751033 2 6, published by NSW Rural Fire Service in 2010)
to Planning for Bush Fire Protection (ISBN 0 9751033 2 6),
(iii) if another document is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of section 79BA of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979—that document, and

13. Part 3 General Housing Code
cl. 3.36B Development standards for bush fire prone land
(b) the part of the lot on which the development is to be carried out is not in bush fire
attack level-40 (BAL-40) or the flame zone (BAL-FZ), and
(c) the lot has direct access to a public road or a road vested in or maintained by the
council, and
(d) a reticulated water supply is connected to the lot, and
(e) a fire hydrant is located less than 60 metres from the location on the lot of the
proposed development, and
(f) mains electricity is connected to the lot, and
(g) reticulated or bottled gas on the lot is installed and maintained in accordance with
AS/NZS 1596:2008, The storage and handling of LP Gas and the requirements of
relevant authorities (metal piping must be used), and
(h) any gas cylinders on the lot that are within 10m of a dwelling house: (i) have the
release valves directed away from the dwelling house, and (ii) are enclosed on
the hazard side of the installation, and (iii) have metal connections to and from
the cylinders, and (i) there are no polymer sheathed flexible gas supply lines to
gas meters adjacent to the dwelling.

14. • 3) A standard specified in subclause (2) (b) is satisfied if one of
the following certifies that the development is not in bush fire
attack level-40 (BAL-40) or the flame zone (BAL-FZ):
• (a) until 25 February 2012—the NSW Rural Fire Service, or
• (b) a person who is recognised by the NSW Rural Fire Service as
a suitably qualified consultant in bush fire risk assessment, or
• (c) the council.
Note. More information about the categories of bush fire attack,
including the flame zone, can be found in Table A3.4.2 of
Addendum: Appendix 3 (ISBN 0 9751033 2 6 and published by
NSW Rural Fire Service in 2010) to the publication titled Planning
for Bush Fire Protection (ISBN 0 9751033 2 6) published by NSW
Rural Fire Service in 2006.

15. Bush fire prone land - CDC
AS3959 (2009)
BAL Level Description
BAL LOW Insufficient risk Council
assessment or
BAL 12.5 Ember attack BPAD Certification
BAL 19 Increased ember attack and
debris
BAL 29 Ember attack and radiant heat
BAL 40 Radiant heat, embers and flame DA Required
exposure
BAL FZ Direct exposure to flames and fire DA Required
front
BAL 40 & FZ - The distance from a bush fire at which there is significant
potential for sustained flame contact to a building.

16. RFS Submission Requirements
• Kit for applicants to determine their BAL when applying for
a BAL Risk Assessment Certificate.
• Identification of lot particulars
• Statement of proposed development
• A site plan with (reference number and dated) drawn to scale
that indicates building footprint
• BAL Risk Assessment fee (may be applicable).

17. BAL Risk Certificate < BAL 40

18. BAL Risk Certificate BAL 40 +

19. Suitably Qualified Consultants
• It is a requirement that a person who has suitable
qualifications and experience undertakes the
assessment. This could be either the local council or a
person identified as being a ‘suitably qualified
consultant’.

21. http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?CAT_ID=904

22. Suitably Qualified Consultants
Recognised by NSW Rural Fire Service
– Fire Protection Association Australia
• BPAD-A and BPAD-D
• Or other equivalent BPAD qualification/scheme

24. Certificate particulars
• Duration of Certificate - 12 months
• Must identify BAL level in the certificate – Site assessment is
critical
• Amendments – There are no provisions to do amendments to
the certificate.
• Conditioning – Conditioning cannot be applied. The proposal
meets the DTS or it does not.
• Based on the hazard at the time of inspection
• No approval for vegetation clearing or establishing APZ’s.
• Multiples assessments for certificates can be undertaken.
However, only a final certificate can be provided with the
CDC.

25. Residential
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Construction requirements
Bushfire Attack Level Low-29
Public road access
Reticulated water supply
A fire hydrant less than 60 metres
Mains electricity
Reticulated or bottled gas installation
Gas cylinder location
Gas supply lines

26. Best Practice Guidelines
• New works to comply with Development Standards
ie. AS3959 2009 ‘Construction of Buildings in
Bushfire Prone Areas’
• Most homes in NSW pre-date bush fire legislation.
• Unable to achieve increased bush fire protection.
• NSW RFS has produced the Best Practice
Guidelines to assist existing houses to upgrade.

27. Is Upgrading Mandatory?
• No, however compliance with the Best Practice
Guide is strongly recommended as a minimum
• In addition to any other bush fire protection
measures
– Site management
– Landscaping
– Construction standards
– Services

28. Auditing
• Following issue of CDC, required to be forwarded to
RFS
• The RFS will carry out an auditing process to ensure
accuracy of BAL Risk Assessment Certificates
• Will also be used by RFS for operational purposes
• Breaches will be forwarded to the accredited body

29. s.79BA

30. Hansard
• S79BA originally intended councils undertake the majority
of bushfire risk assessment
– “This will be a general referral requirement although
councils, as consent authorities, should be able to
determine whether developments meet the guidelines
specifications” (Parliament Hansard May 2002)

31. 79BA
(1) Development consent cannot be granted for the carrying out of
development for any purpose (other than a subdivision of land that
could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes
or development for a special fire protection purpose) on bush fire
prone land unless the consent authority:
(a) is satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications
and requirements of the document entitled Planning for Bush Fire
Protection, ISBN 0 9751033 2 6, prepared by the NSW Rural Fire
Service in co-operation with the Department of Planning (or, if
another document is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes
of this paragraph, that document) that are relevant to the
development (the relevant specifications and requirements), or

32. 79BA
(b) has been provided with a certificate by a person who is
recognised by the NSW Rural Fire Service as a qualified
consultant in bush fire risk assessment stating that the
development conforms to the relevant specifications and
requirements
• “relevant specifications” DTS provisions of Planning for
Bush Fire Protection
• “requirements” documentation provided to Council in
support of the certificate. Documentation includes that
detailed in Appendix 4 of PBP.
• “Certificate” means to provide documented evidence to
Council as the consent authority as to your
recommendations to be incorporated into the conditions of
consent. This should include the DTS requirements of
PBP and the appropriate level of construction in
accordance with AS3959.

33. 79BA
• (1A) If the consent authority is satisfied that
the development does not conform to the
relevant specifications and requirements, the
consent authority may, despite subsection (1),
grant consent to the carrying out of the
development but only if it has consulted with
the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire
Service concerning measures to be taken with
respect to the development to protect
persons, property and the environment from
danger that may arise from a bush fire.

34. 79BA
• is satisfied that the development does not conform =
demonstration that there is some form of non-compliance.
• DoP and the RFS will be pushing for this to be done and after the 12
months transition will be working with councils (training/ mentoring) to
ensure they are comfortable in the assessment of applications.
• It is envisaged that DAs referred to the RFS will not be accepted
unless they can demonstrate the non-compliance with PBP.
• Assessment sheets/checklists will be developed to assist councils.
• IMPORTANT – The changes are designed to allow the RFS to focus
resources on higher risk developments.

35. In Summary
• Council shall assess compliance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire
Protection 2006’ (PBP) for all developments under section 79BA
• Onus on councils to undertake assessments
• Referral to RFS only where proposal does not comply with PBP
• Reduce assessment timeframes and allow RFS to focus upon high
risk developments
• Enable recognised consultants to certify developments compliance

36. Further Information
• NSW Department of Planning website
– Fact Sheet November 2010
– Fact Sheet 3 – General Housing Code
– Fact Sheet 10 Complying Development on Bushfire Prone Land
• RFS Website
– Fast Fact 5/10 Recognised/Qualified Consultants
– Practice Note 1/10 Requirements for Recognised/Qualified
Consultants
– BAL Risk Self Assessment Tool
– BAL Risk Assessment User Guide
– BAL Risk Assessment Application Kit
– Best Practice Guideline

37. Questions
Lew Short
Group Manager Community Resilience
NSW Rural Fire Service
8741 5454
Lew.short@rfs.nsw.gov.au
Lew Short
lewshort14