Fire authorities, planners, forestry officials and formal bushfire inquiries all identify land use planning as both cause of, and solution to, bushfire risk. However, in the development of strategic plans and their regulation, planners must consider bushfire risk in relation to multiple other economic, social, political and ecological priorities. That compromise is part of this process is evident in planning decisions that increase bushfire risk. Fire authorities are frustrated by the approval of properties and infrastructure next to bushfire prone landscapes, which then prompt the need for fuel reduction measures to protect assets. Yet, planners are also vexed by geographic, regulatory and other constraints in managing urban and peri-urban growth whilst also minimising bushfire risk. This paper will present on the results of focus groups held between planners, fire authorities and other public officials, across four case studies: Molonglo, Australian Capital Territory; Batemans Bay, New South Wales; Litchfield Shire Council, Northern Territory; and Mornington Peninsula, Victoria. The focus group participants were asked what they were doing well, what they were not doing well, and where the key challenges were in integrating bushfire risk in urban and regional planning. The growing complexity of the rural-urban interface; environmental consciousness and biodiversity conservation; community expectations; and inter-agency cooperation were recurrent themes that played out in different and similar ways across the case study locations. Whilst there is no simple formula that can match reducing bushfire risk with broader planning priorities, this research reveals the complexity faced and how people are strategising to address this land use challenge.

This research is being undertaken as part of the Bushfire CRC’s ‘Mainstreaming Fire and Emergency Management Across Policy Sectors: Joint Research and Policy Learning’ project, in the Urban and Regional Planning for Risk and Uncertainty theme.