0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
I have been watching the news tonight,It is now reported Fifty homes have been lost,fifty families displaced,terrible situation,as it is in any fire situation.
Quote from: Rick-without the P on January 13, 2014, 10:25:30I have been watching the news tonight,It is now reported Fifty homes have been lost,fifty families displaced,terrible situation,as it is in any fire situation.Full reinstatement for a loss of property must cost insurance companies $$$$$$$.So are people who live in high risk area for fires able to get insurance cover at a reasonable price or do they have to carry the cost?
Our council is implementing fines for plants too close to your home. In a residential area I think it's plain ridiculous, but in heavily timbered bush fire prone areas, a good idea. There are thousands of homes built in our picturesque hills that should never have been allowed to be built at all. To compound the problem, residents are blissfully unaware or reluctant to make any concessions to bush fire proofing their homes. When the fire comes through, you and I are expected to foot the bill.Tall trees are an invitation to loose your home and as nice as they might be, are not appropriate plants to have within 50 metres of your home. Every bush property should have a fire pump system with sprinklers AND ENOUGH WATER to feed them. Council planners here have adopted a park like scenario with gums and permanent wetland catchments which provide a lovely community area for picnics and wildlife observation, but we still have houses with gums far too close, unfortunately. We have shrubs and mains water, so we feel quite secure about fire now, not so in our last home though.
I hate to disagree, Phil, but I believe if you go down that path then you are getting more and more into the "nanny state". Inform people of what the consequences are, and let them make the choice. I believe it's the same with insurance, if you don't have it, don't expect the government and people that do have it to fork out for you. Also expect to pay more insurance if you are in a bushfire prone area.IIRC, Rick, didn't the CFA/RFS/etc used to say to block your gutters and fill them with water to protect against ember attack? By all means, ensure they are cleaned prior to the bushfire season.I have a friend who has a property in a bushfire prone area near Jervis Bay. He had his pool as a water supply with petrol powered pumps connected to sprinklers on the roof and around the property. It wasn't planned to last long, just protect during the worst of it. There was a property in WA that had all of the sprinklers and stuff connected, but to electric pumps. The power went out, they lost the pumps, and the house.
New South Wales, changed the laws, as councils made it hard for people to remove tree's that were a fire risk, the councils had big fines, if you got caught. but after the devastating fires late last year, the state government took over. now its ok to remove tree that are close to a house in fire risk area's.
Quote from: Lakes on January 14, 2014, 21:26:44New South Wales, changed the laws, as councils made it hard for people to remove tree's that were a fire risk, the councils had big fines, if you got caught. but after the devastating fires late last year, the state government took over. now its ok to remove tree that are close to a house in fire risk area's.When we lived in Castle Hill (Sydney) we had gums in the front yard and a massive one at the back of the house. It used to shed some pretty big branches in storms - and at other times, just to keep us on our toes.In those days you were allowed (after making application to the council) to remove about 1/3 of the tree.When we got permission, our neighbour suggested we remove the bottom third.