I’ve
been approached for assistance with the preparation of a Bushfire Management
Overlay Bushfire Management Statement to support an application for a planning permit
to erect a shed in a residential backyard — in this case approximately 30
metres from the family home. I doubt anyone well-prepared for bushfire would
choose the shed when the house is so close, but surely that’s a matter for the
family to plan.
The request
for a BMO Statement for a backyard shed seems unreasonable, so I provided the
inquirers with information on the BMO as I understand it and recommended they
approach the shire planner to query the validity of the request.
The
following extract from Clause 44.06 Bushfire Management Overlay in the Planning
Scheme (NOTE: VC 83 of 18 November 2011 replaced by VC 109 of 31 July 2014) (click here)
concerning “buildings and works” permit requirements states:
A permit is required to construct
a building or construct or carry out works associated with the following uses:
- Accommodation (including a Dependent person's unit)
- Child care centre
- Education centre
- Hospital
- Industry
- Leisure and Recreation
- Office
- Place of assembly
- Retail premises
- Timber production
This does not apply to any of the
following:
- If a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required.
- A building or works consistent with an agreement under Section 173 of the Act prepared in accordance with a condition of permit issued under the requirements of Clause 44.06-4.
- An alteration or extension to an existing building used for a dwelling or a dependent person’s unit that is less than 50 percent of the floor area of the existing building
Clause
44.06 in turn calls up Clause 52.47 Bushfire
Protection: Planning Requirements in the Planning Scheme (click here).
While
some may argue that a “leisure and recreation” facility covers the back shed, sub-clause 52.47-6
refers to defendable space for
“dwellings and dependant person’s units”, sub-clause 52.47-7 refers to defendable space for “industry, office
and retail premises” and subclause 52.47-8 refers to defendable space, etc for “other occupied buildings”. In my opinion
a back shed is not within any of these categories of occupancies.
To
explain the BMO and assist permit applicants the Victorian Government
Department of Planning and Community Development Melbourne published “Practice
Note 65, November 2011, Bushfire Management Overlay and bushfire protection: planning
requirements”(click here).
On page
two of Practice Note 65 under the heading “How does the BMO regulate new
development?” the first paragraph:
Where the BMO applies to land, a
planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out
works associated with land uses that are likely to
increase the number of people in the overlay area.
I don’t
claim to be a complete expert on planning matters, but before anyone begins to
prepare a BMO Bushfire Management Statement for a shed in the backyard they should first query the
validity of the request with the Planning Manager of the municipality involved.
Hi, We have been informed that the current BMO will stop us from building all together! Not even a shed. What is your opinion on stopping development? We cannot meet current guidelines for defendable space so cannot even obtain a BAL rating. We have a 1 acre block long and narrow and odd shaped. There are houses to the back (up a hill) to the side and across the road (a function centre!)
ReplyDeleteJacqui
Hello Jacqui and thanks for your response. I'll try to provide meaningful responses to the issues you've raised.
ReplyDelete1. Concerning the shed, I refer you to the red text in the second last paragraph of my posting. If you've actually had a formal refusal to an application for a permit to erect a shed without any dwelling on the land, then there's probably a suspicion that you want to use the shed as a dwelling. But only an assumption on the part of the planner in my view, as the shed could have been required to house equipment to maintain your land and not increase the number of people on the land on a permanent basis.
2. Concerning not being able to meet "current [BMO] guidelines", how did you learn that, did you have a permit application with BMO statement formally refused? Or did someone tell you that without actually responding to a draft BMO statement e.g. council planner, CFA representative or well-meaning neighbour? There are two (2) methods to achieving the defendable space/BAL; refer to Mandatory Standard BF6.1 in clause 52.47 ... there's a link to clause 52.47 in the fourth paragraph of my posting. Appendix 1:Bushfire Site Assessment, page 6 in Practice Note 65 (there's a link to PN 65 in the sixth paragraph of my posting) explains both assessment options. Unfortunately, CFA representatives across Victoria, including the CFA head office element, vary in their acceptance of the use of the "alternative method". I'll leave it to your imagination as to why.
I'll also use this matter as the basis for a future posting, as a refusal to accept the "alternative method" allowed in BF6.1 may be denying approval where a site specific approach could see an acceptable BAL achieved, where defendable space according to Table 1 in clause 52.47 (page9) cannot be achieved.
I suspect that some of the criticism Minister Guy is receiving is due to the refusal by some within CFA to accept the "alternative method".
And the defendable space dimensions is matter needing an airing.
3. Finally, concerning your question on "stopping development". My personal views on this are not important, but I will say that in the context of the BMO I don't support stopping development per se provided it conforms to reasonable standards or conditions that address a reasonable level of risk. Another matter for a posting and I commenced to address this in my first posting on Sunday, 16 February 2014.
I hope the above helps.
John Nicholson
And on regulating applications covered by a BMO, I'm aware of people now camping on their land in 'flimsy accommodation' at the height of the bushfire season, surely more risky than a permanent dwelling constructed to the appropriate BAL. I wonder what a Coroner would have to say about that.
ReplyDelete