2014-11-17 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   17 NOVEMBER 2014




                                        Page 14 of 49

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                                17 NOVEMBER 2014

                The only option regulators have is to define their meaning of ‘no worsening’, or to nominate the
                test conditions for assessing a ‘no worsening’ outcome. This is in fact what the water
                engineering profession has indirectly done; it has assumed that the ‘no worsening’ outcome
                applies only to the normal design storms operating under average catchment conditions.
                General comments on the quality of the ‘engineering design’ and the ‘fit for purpose’
                design outcomes of this road upgrade
                The following are general comments that outline my assessment of the ‘design and review’
                process adopted for this proposed road upgrade, and the design standards set for the road by
                the council. These comments are provided for your benefit so you can obtain an understanding
                of the degree of effort placed in the design of this road upgrade relative to the numerous other
                designs | have observed and reviewed over the past 20 years. In making these comments | note
                that | have not conducted a detailed engineering review, nor have | been able to read all the
                relevant correspondence between the council and the developer/designers.
                e   In general, the quality of the hydraulic engineering appears better than | have often
                    observed. Even though some mistakes and possible poor design choices have been made,
                    the overall quality of the design and technical review appears high.
                e   The degree of hydraulic modelling and model checking appears to be greater than | would
                    normally have expected for such works.
                e   The Q100 (1% AEP) design standard initially set by council appears suitable as an initial
                    target. The later lowering of this design standard to a Q10 trafficable road appears to be an
                    appropriate council decision given the expense and design difficulties of applying a Q100
                    standard to this road.
                e   Based on my limited knowledge of this residential area, | believe the Q10 design standard
                    is ‘fit for purpose’. | agree with council that it would be undesirable to lower this standard
                    below Q10.
                e   | believe that the design and construction of this road upgrade will place a significant (though
                    not necessarily unreasonable) financial burden on the land developer (I note that this is a
                    ‘planning’ issue that is not my area of expertise). | do not believe that society should
                    consider councils and land developers as having an open cheque book. In the real world
                    there is no such thing as a ‘no worsening’ development. All developments in some small
                    way cause adverse impacts on existing residents. It is all about finding the right balance,
                    and the current design proposal appears (to me) to be very close to the right balance,
                    though possibly needing some fine-tuning with regards to traffic control barriers.
                e   If the community’s expectations on land developers are too high, then this ultimately places
                    unreasonable pressures on the cost of living, including the price of land, and the cost of
                    building homes. | believe that it is appropriate for councils to seek contributions from land
                    developers for the upgrading of associated services, but it is also appropriate for councils
                    to control the extent of this expenditure. In the case of the Garnet Street upgrade, it would
                    appear to me that Noosa Council has taken appropriate steps to find a balance between
                    council/developer expenditure and community outcomes.

                Grant M Witheridge
                Director
                RPEQ 3591

                Printed: 06 November 2014        CREEKS: CORRIDORS OF OPPORTUNITY                   Page 6.

                                                                                                         Page 14 of 49