Dear Editor,
There has been significant coverage given to this important issue over the past year. However, our experience in dealing with the various state agencies over fire risk issues on land adjoining our property has been somewhat mixed and rather frustrating. Incidentally, the owner of the land lives elsewhere.
There was little/no maintenance of the land adjoining our property. As a result, a solid bank of trees, creepers and undergrowth had developed over a period of years which was overhanging our perimeter wall and, in places, within 10 metres of our house.
Last year in our area a fire prevention event was publicised in Paderne which we attended. This enabled us to have initial contact with the Forestry Authority (ICNF), Civil Protection and the GNR. Subsequently, we have had at least six visits to the Civil Protection office in Albufeira (who, incidentally, have been very pleasant and helpful).
The GNR phoned the landowner, on our behalf, who then came out and made a token effort to strim the smaller shrubs in the field in question. An ICNF representative (accompanied by the GNR) then made a site visit.
The ICNF representative said that the heavy undergrowth along our boundary wall needed to be removed to create fire breaks of circa. 5 metres between the trees.
The GNR officer then phoned the landowner to instruct him to undertake this action. Subsequently, the landowner sent someone with a bulldozer to undertake the clearance – everything was ripped up – including all the trees and left in three large piles – each about 5 metres wide and 2-3 metres high. The closest pile, in particular, is close to the boundary wall/house and well within the 50 metre statutory limit.
Subsequently, we have had further visits to the Civil Protection office and to the GNR and exchanges of emails with the ICNF to try and deal with the issue of the large piles of deadwood (which incidentally will burn more readily than live growth) that have replaced the earlier tangled mess of trees, creepers and undergrowth. However, this action has been abortive, to date.
Contact with the landowner is not straightforward and we cannot go on the land ourselves, without permission, to either remove or burn off the piles of dead material. In any case, before any burning could take place a bulldozer would need to come back on site to move the materials to a safer location and probably smaller piles.
We find it difficult to understand why, after ICNF guidance, the GNR were able to instruct the landowner to undertake clearance activity but seem unable to force him to move/burn the resultant large piles of debris.
We seem to be at an impasse having expended a lot of time and effort to act on all the published guidance about fire prevention. There is now a very short time before burning off the piles is not an option until next winter – so, in our view, the fire risk remains despite our best efforts. We are, therefore, curious whether we are the only people affected in this way and would be grateful for the views of the readers.
John Hunt
Paderne
