DEAR News Of The Area,

IN response to MidCoast Council’s (MCC) comments in the article on page 3 of the NOTA on 26 December (‘Concern over lack of bushfire strategies’), I suggest your advice from MCC is flawed.

I raise the following facts:

1. MCC states that it is not the “lead agency in relation to bushfire risk”.

I suggest that the Mayor and Councillors undertake their own research on the responsibility of MCC for Council owned land/administered lands under the Rural Fires Act.

The MCC spokesman has brushed over the responsibility of Councils, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Crown Lands etc in the case of fires on their properties.

The spokesman says: “MCC participate in hazard reduction actions identified by the Bushfire Risk Management Committee” (BFMC).

According to the BFMC it is MCC’s responsibility to respond to and manage risk.

The article also states that “community members are reminded to always follow the direction of emergency services in times of bushfire and evacuate as early as possible”.

It is the Pindimar Bundabah Community Association Non Urban (PBCA Non-Uban) Committee’s opinion that preparation and prevention is the most desirable action and that MCC has been and is reticent in its action and responses to its constituents.

The NSW Bushfire Inquiry Report (31/7/2020) clearly states that “Central to the way forward must be by improving local preparedness and resilience”.

What is the MCC Evacuation Plan for its Pindimar/Bundabah constituents?

2. The spokesman said “MCC actively manages risks for operational facilities by maintaining fuel free and fuel reduced zones around infrastructure”.

It is MCC’s responsibility to prevent bushfires on verges and along roadsides in its control according to the Rural Fire Service Act 1997.

There are areas along MCC roads in the Pindimar and Bundabah areas where these risks have not been mitigated.

3. According to the MCC spokesperson there are a large number of communities in the region that have “one road in and one road out” and that “this is not a situation that will change as it is impractical and unaffordable”.

Yet MCC has managed to meet the need for a public second ingress/egress road at Smiths Lake.

Therefore why is MCC totally abandoning these other communities?

Pindimar and Bundabah has been identified as being in an ‘extreme’ bush fire danger area with the possibility of a ‘catastrophic’ event resulting in loss of life as stated by the RFS and BFMC report.

MCC’s inaction by not ‘responding to’ or ‘acting upon’ these reports is potentially endangering these communities.

These issues were raised in the MCC ‘Village Fire Plan’ 2006 which clearly states that the mitigation strategies should be reviewed.

In 2015 the RFS produced a Community Protection Plan for the region.

It appears nothing is being done to address these findings taking into consideration MCC’s response to our questions regarding ingress/egress roads as ‘impractical and unaffordable’.

According to the final report of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry (31/7/2020), and within the 76 recommendations from that enquiry, Recommendation 19 states that “regionally based approaches to planning and co-ordinating hazard reduction activities across all tenures through BFMC ensure it is actually being implemented at a high level of quality across NSW”.

The report also states “loss of life is never acceptable and firefighters’ lives should not be put at risk to defend property” and that “it is clear that we should expect fire seasons like 2019-20 or potentially worse to happen again”.

According to the above and considering the March 2024 bushfire in the Pindimar area it is clear evidence that another bushfire in the area is not only inevitable but if conditions prevail it could in fact end in a ‘catastrophic’ event, i.e. loss of life.

As per the above report residents and fire fighters could be at risk through MCC’s inaction.

4. We were surprised by MCC’s statement that it is “not specifically obligated to protect residents from bushfire” and states “MCC provides the infrastructure and services that the community requires and needs to do so within the limits of funding and resources available”.

Recommendation 24 of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry Report (31/7/2020) states that “Government agencies managing land (at all levels through all agencies) be the best possible neighbours by considering their neighbours when undertaking bush fire preparation and having clear, two way communication about these activities, with the aspiration that Government landholders will be seen as highly desirable neighbours”.

The PBCA Non Urban land holders understand that it is their responsibility to maintain their own land, clear boundaries, and clear rubbish to prevent bush fires.

There are two issues here:

(a) Non Urban Landholders find it difficult to find out through MCC information about their adjoining neighbours to enable legal clearing and the PBCA Non Urban committee is unable to gain contact information because of Freedom of Information laws.

(b) MCC is also an adjoining neighbour to many non urban blocks but fails to communicate with their neighbours and undertake bush fire preparation/prevention of their own blocks.

Finally, the Mayor states that the $381 million in cash and investments is inaccurate.

These are quotes from MCC and its own records.

Under various circumstances Council can re-allocate and re-use their funds if Council’s priorities and strategies dictate.

They are not necessarily sacrosanct.

Regards,
Allan THORLEY,
Chairperson,
PBCA Non-Urban Committee.