Re – Township Protection Plans (TPP) as required by the Royal Commission and are due by all Councils (mid November) that have a town ‘at risk” in their Shire. In our case I refer to Warrandyte and North Warrandyte.

I have sent the following request to Nillumbik Council as I believe the TPP

“I understand the Council and CFA are developing a Township Protection Plan due by the mid of Nov 2009.
Are you on target to complete this work?. If so how will residents be notified of the Draft TPP?
I can’t find any reference to this and other collaborative actions with Manningham, DSE, CFA etc on the Nillumbik website.

Can you please assist residents to locate this update information readily in the Bushfire Update or Emergency management section of the Website.

Thank you
Alan Burns
14 stony Creek rd
Warrandyte North
0418 555 705″

I make the following comments knowing it is not a full explanation or exploration of all the issues, but as much as can be elaborated here.

I agree with Joan Webster’s article that it is difficult to see how the Royal Commission can draw such sure conclusions about house defendability without first having all the research in from after the fires. I also agree that there seems to have been no interest so far in those people who did actively stay and defend. They seem to be seen as aberrations rather than the result of carful planning.

Also I strongly agree that the cost of leaving houses unattended is that more will burn, and while life is always more important than material things, there is a huge unseen cost in losing houses-finanacial, resources and also an emotional toll- that seems to be ignored at the moment.

I am also bemused by the suggestion of the Royal Commission that safer places may include ovals and car parks, dam walls etc. I would not like to be in an open exposed place during a bushfire, although I accept thaey would be better than nothing.

But where I would disagree with Joan Webster is that i think humans like to be together, especially in a crisis. In a bushfire this may be our undoing in that it (and the urge to flee) means we will evacuate our houses. But I also believe that when we are together we are stronger, more confident and much more able to protect each other and ourselves. And it is this tendency which I believe means we should always provide the option of a meeting place where together people can ride out the storm. i also think that together we can then work to protect our towns and houses and businesses after the main danger has passed, because we have not left the area, and we are more able with the comfort of company.

I think that we need to cater for a variety of responses that people will have and the various decisions they will make – go early, stay and defend being just two of several. I think it is not practical for everyone to stay and defend and it may just be that doesn’t suit them, but there can be other options apart from “you must leave early every high risk day”.

I also believe that it was the refuges on Ash Wednesday that meant that although the number of houses (over 3000 in Vic and Sth Aust) was much greater than the 2009 fires, the death toll was less than half.

Yes there are issues with refuges eg. who maintains, who has the key, will they be suitable at the time etc. but I don’t think they have to be perfect, there will always be some risk, and to say because we can’t make them 100% safe we shouldn’t have them seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They need to be set up to be able to do the job and have some water and equipment, but the resourcefulness of humans will have a much greater chance to carry the day if they are together.