The short answer to the Kalkarri Estate issue is most probably YES and NO. Of course they knew there was forest close by, and the real estate agents will use that as a unique selling proposition, just as they use evocative phrases to tempt city based people into remote and dangerous places, "nestling in the bush", "your secret little hide-away", "tucked away at the end of a private road" are a just a few of them. What most of them will not know is that the block they are being sold is on an estate that only has a single way out and would be a death trap if a fire occurred in the wrong location.
Our shire allow these estates and clusters of houses to be developed and until recently there was no authority figure drawing attention to the issue. When Mick Keelty produced his report "A Shared Responsibility", after the Perth Hills fires, he suggested local authorities were too focused on getting subdivision of land to generate more rate income to worry about safety. Hopefully we will see properties receiving a fire rating in the future, similar to that given to vehicles.
Our local planning officers have contributed considerably to the risks by insisting large trees were left on blocks and only the smallest possible building envelope is cleared. Mary E had that problem in Chardonnay Avenue, they wanted to remove trees before the house was built but the shire would not allow it. At the time they were so enchanted by their purchase that they had no idea of the thousands of dollars it would cost them to have contractors clear the leaf litter every year. A person retiring from the city just cannot comprehend the amount of work involved in maintaining such a property.
Many of the special rural subdivisions around Jane Road, not sure if this applies specifically to Kalkarri, have been blighted as far as safety is concerned by not being allowed to have any grazing animals on the property. Crash grazing was one of the most effective ways of removing leaves and grasses before they had a chance to dry off and become the flammable fuel loads we see throughout the shire today. The government movement of livestock restrictions impacts on this process for those of us on rural properties. Used to be that when a farmer retired he would often subdivide say 2-3 acres for his own use and sell the rest of the farm. Then he could have the new farmer’s livestock in for a few weeks throughout the year to graze off any fuels. Not any more. Grazing animals are not allowed to step hoof on the neighbour’s block, and as for letting the stock graze the “long paddock” well the shire would find that an appalling proposition. The tourists wouldn’t like it. All those “No Birds” that fall off the corner of Glenarty would have a fit if they had to wait behind sheep or cows. This waiting behind sheep or cows is still very much what you will find in the UK, but then the Brits are more keen on queuing and it gives the locals a frisson of pleasure to see tourists delayed and slowed to a stop rather than racing through their picturesque countryside. In some places the locals sell ice creams and drinks to the frustrated motorists and the livestock are actually just being used to assist retail sales.
So back to the question, YES, they knew there was a forest there, but they imagines it to be enchanting, and a place for gentle rambles and pottering amongst the native flora and fauna; NO mostly they had no idea how dangerous the area is because most of them did not grow up in an area of high bush fire risk, NO idea how time consuming and difficult it is to remove all the fuel load, and many of them have never seen Cam Gilmour’s amazing demonstrations of just how quickly the volatile oils in eucalypts will burn, even when wet; and finally most of them have NO idea how they will cope psychologically when confronted by a terrifying life threatening event such as a rapidly approaching bush fire with flames 20 or 30 metres high and radiant heat that melts their car. Remember that until only a few decades ago the only people who had been able to live in this environment had been our ANZACS. Until very recently, in terms of social development, there had been two waves of migrants coming here directly from active war service. After they arrived many of the Group Settlers and WWII returning service men could not cope, and left for the city. Those that remained could cope, they developed strategies for coping that did not require huge financial investment but did require a respect for nature and the harsh environment that we have here.
As a final comment, most people would not believe that we live in a shire where the planning officers are prepared to increase the bush fire risk just to “soften the visual impact”. Would you sacrifice aesthetic appeal for safety? Did the people moving to Prevelly realise the risk they were being sold? Maybe not, but more on the Prevelly connection later.
1 comment:
Like.
Post a Comment