Original source · versioned page text
Information Response - Email 1 of 2 MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (22.0 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
From: Ashleigh Goullet on behalf of Cameron Adams
Sent: 28 Mar 2017 16:26:13 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail;Patrick Murphy
Cc: Cameron Adams
Subject: MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041 - ADAMS + SPARKES Information Response (David
Low Way) - Email 1 of 2
Attachments: ADAMS + SPARKES Information Response (David Low Way) Reduced_Part1.pdf
Hi
Please see attached for your assessment.
Thankyou
Regards,
Ashleigh Goullet | DIRECTORS’ ASSISTANT
P 07 5313 7705 | [email protected] | astpd.com.au
This message may contain confidential information and/or attachments and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
distribute or copy this email.
Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system and destroy any hard copy. This communication is intended for
the recipient
only and should not be forwarded, distributed or otherwise read by others without express permission. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of ADAMS
SPARKES Pty Ltd.
STAY CONNECTED
Document Set ID: 20294766
Version: 1, Version Date: 29/03/2017
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of pages 2 to 102 (of 124)
Page 2
Our ref: 161107 Response to RFI 220317 cga
Council Ref: MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
28 March 2017
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Attention: Development Assessment – Patrick Murphy
Via Email: [email protected]
Dear Patrick,
Re: Proposed Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 29 Lots & Access Easement) and
Material Change of Use to establish Multiple Housing (26 x Type 4
Conventional Units), Visitor Accommodation (20 x Type 4 Conventional Units)
and Shared Multiple Housing & Visitor Accommodation (12 x Type 4
Conventional Units)
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Lot 77 on SP231615
Council Ref: MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
I refer to Council’s Information Request, dated 10 February 2017 in relation to the
abovementioned development.
On behalf of the applicant, Thomco No 2087 Pty Ltd, and in accordance with s278 of
the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), we provide a response to all the issues raised.
A response to each of the items raised in Councils Information Request is outlined
below:
ECONOMIC NEEDS ANALYSIS
1. An examination of the implications of the proposed development on campers and
RV users.
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics
(Attachment I), where it was concluded that approval of the proposed development
will have no impact on campers and RV users within Peregian and the greater Noosa
Shire, given the current and approved use of the site.
2. The likely price point of both short stay accommodation and permanent resident
housing as part of the development and how this compares to the current pricing in
the area.
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics
(Attachment I), which provides details on the potential price point for both the short
Page 3
stay and permeant accommodation component of the proposed development, in comparison to the existing
development within the Noosa Shire.
3. The specific trend at an SA2 level in terms of occupancy rates and an assessment of this trend.
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I).
4. The appropriateness of this site for the planned development in relation to the possibility to provide the
development on other sites within the region.
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I), where it was
concluded from an economic point of view that “there are no other sites available which are equally or more
appropriate than the subject site for the proposed development in Peregian Beach and indeed in the wider
Noosa region.” From a town planning point of view, it should also be noted that a review of the Peregian
Beach area has been undertaken, and no appropriately zoned sites have been identified that can accommodate
the proposed development.
It should be noted that the discussion paper for the new Noosa Shire Planning Scheme outlines the following
desired outcome for the Coastal Communities:
Ensure the planning scheme reflects the preferred use of land, for instance review the zoning of land to
the west of David Low Way at Peregian Beach and land developed with visitor resorts.
While no maps support this discussion paper at this stage, it is assumed the above statement is referring to
land that includes the subject site, given the historical approvals over the site do not reflect the current zoning.
This statement would also support Council’s intent for the Rufus Street Master Plan area, which adjoins the
subject site to the north, by creating further permanent housing options in close proximity to the Peregian
employment hub and permanently activate the connection to the Peregian Beach Village Centre via Rufus Lane.
Overall, from both an economic and a town planning point of view, the development of the subject site for the
proposed land use supports both the outcomes for the future planning scheme and the vision for the Rufus
Street precinct. Approval of the proposed development will deliver a mix of short‐term accommodation and
lifestyle facilities in close proximity to Peregian Beach and the Peregian Beach Village.
5. The ability for other sites within the region to provide additional permanent residential dwellings to cater
for projected population growth in Peregian Beach.
As detailed in the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I), the potential for
development of further short‐term accommodation and permanent residential dwellings within the Noosa
Shire is limited. It is concluded in the attached economic response that “the Queensland Government
Statistician’s Office (QGSO) Broadhectare Study for Noosa identifies no residential development areas within the
Shire’s Eastern Beaches, with the most proximate areas in Noosa including the existing Settler’s Cove
development and within areas of the Noosaville activity centre which are emerging as a business and enterprise
area.”
6. The demand for this type of short stay and permanent resident accommodation to be established and the
supply of existing facilities to be fully examined.
Page 4
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I), which further
explores the demand for this type of development in the Peregian Beach area, and further adds to the need
demonstrated in the existing Economic Impact Assessment lodged with the original application.
7. The differences that the Essence of Peregian Beach development will provide relative to existing
accommodation types.
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I), which details the
benefits of the proposed development, which offers a mix of short stay, dual purpose and permanent
residential accommodation integrated with event and meeting spaces.
8. To support the contention that there has been limited investment of visitor accommodation facilities over
the past decade across the Sunshine Coast Tourism Region (SCTR), ABS tourist accommodation figures
should be sourced to show the trend in different accommodation types (i.e. hotels and resorts; motels;
private hotels and guest houses; and serviced apartments) for the SCTR and the Peregian Beach SA2 over the
last decade.
Please refer to the detailed response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I).
9. An assessment of the increased diversity of residential three and four bedroom dwellings to be provided
as part of the development in terms of the number of current and future three and four bedroom dwellings
in the immediate area, the wider Sunshine Coast or at other similar SA2s. The supply and demand of three
and four bedroom dwellings, including number of sales should be included.
Please refer to the response to the above item prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I).
WATER QUANTITY
10. Further information is required to demonstrate how increased flow rates resulting from the additional
impervious areas will be mitigated to ensure a non‐worsening of peak flows discharging from the site.
Please refer to the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Covey and Associates (Attachment II), which
has been amended and a Stormwater Quantity section has been added. The proposed solution is to ensure
stormwater flows leave the site in a sheet flowing manner. This solution has been assessed by an Ecologist
(JWA Ecological Consultants) to ensure the receiving environment is satisfactorily protected. The proposed
solution is detailed in the attached amended Stormwater Management Plan.
WATER QUALITY
11. MUSIC file (.sqz)
A copy of the MUSIC file (.sqz) will be sent to Council under separate cover.
12. As per Appendix B of the WaterbyDesign MUSIC Modelling Guidelines critical elements required include:
a) What evapotranspiration data has been used;
b) How the surface area for the bio‐retention devices was calculated. Specifically, has it been
calculated using the median surface area method (not the surface area at the top of the
extended detention depth);
Page 5
c) Other general bio‐retention treatment node parameters including but not limited to TN
content, saturated hydraulic conductivity and orthophosphate content; and
d) Details in relation to how areas outside of the road reserve that are included within the MUSIC
catchments will be conveyed to the treatment systems.
Please refer to the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Covey and Associates (Attachment II),
additional information has been added to the Stormwater Management Plan, to address items (a), (b) and (c).
However, if further details regarding the water quality modelling are required, the supplied MUSIC file may be
interrogated or Peter Gintrac from Covey Associates may be contacted directly. In response to item (d),
surface flows outside of the road reserve areas will be collected in a pit and pipe network within the proposed
buildings and connected to the stormwater collection system, which is shown on the Preliminary Stormwater
Management Layout included within the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Covey and Associates
(Attachment II).
NOISE MONITORING OF IGA LOADING DOCK
13. Unattended noise monitoring shall be conducted at a location on the development site that has a clear
view of the loading dock and car park at a height representative of the façade of the first floor motel units
for a minimum period of one week. The noise logger is to have one‐third octave spectral data and audio
recording capabilities so that the source of noticeable dominant events may be confirmed and the
contribution of extraneous noise sources may be identified. The noise logger is to record levels continuously
with a sampling period no greater than 1 second and preferably one‐eighth of a second (FAST response). Of
particular interest are the times, durations and frequency spectra of trucks accessing the loading dock for
deliveries or waste collection prior to 7am daily and vehicle and patron noise after 10pm.
Please refer to the Acoustic response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III), which details the design
changes required to the proposed development, to ensure appropriate noise levels are achieved within the
proposed units. It is requested that Council condition the future decision notice to accommodate these
requirements in the final design.
NOISE MONITORING OF IGA ROOF PLANT
14. A SoundPLAN noise model of the IGA roof‐top mechanical plant shall be prepared based upon octave or
one‐third octave spectral noise data for the roof‐top mechanical plant. Noise levels shall be predicted which
show the predicted noise contours (1m grid) at the motel (first and second storeys), the four nearest
attached houses (first floor) and the nearest linea unit (first floor), with and without the proposed partial
enclosure around the mechanical plant. The noise contours shall demonstrate that the proposed partial
enclosure barrier (1m height above the height of the mechanical plant) around the sides of the mechanical
plant deck provides sufficient noise mitigation for all affected receptors to achieve compliance with the
external noise limits.
Please refer to the Acoustic response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III), which addressed the above
item in full and concludes that the internal noise levels can be appropriately achieved.
15. Noise calculations shall be conducted which predict the internal noise levels in the motel unit (first and
second levels), houses and linea units (upper levels) to confirm compliance with the internal noise criteria in
each type of habitable space. Calculations should demonstrate the transmission loss of the building envelope
of all affected habitable spaces provides sufficient noise attenuation to achieve compliance with the internal
noise limits for IGA mechanical plant noise emissions, including adverse noise character adjustments. The
building envelope noise intrusion calculations should be conducted in accordance with the method of
Page 6
AS3671 based upon octave spectral levels and the building envelope construction details. Building constructions details shall be confirmed for all building envelope constructions. Copies of calculations are to be provided for review by Council. Please refer to the Acoustic response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III), which addressed the above item in full and concludes that the internal noise levels can be appropriately achieved. 16. Similarly, maximum noise levels recorded prior to 7am shall be used to demonstrate compliance with sleep disturbance criteria in bedrooms for short duration noise events emanating from activities on the shopping village site prior to 7am and after 10pm. Building envelope noise intrusion calculations for maximum noise levels to demonstrate compliance with the sleep disturbance criteria shall be provided for review by Council (as for item 3 above). Please refer to the Acoustic response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III), which addressed the above item in full and concludes that the internal noise levels can be appropriately achieved. NOISE MONITORING OF PEREGIAN HOTEL 17. A detailed report of the hotel noise emissions having regard to the License, OLGR unreasonable noise criteria and Council conditions. The report is to indicate the noise mitigation plan required for the hotel to achieve compliance with all of the relevant criteria and development conditions, assuming that the proposed residential development is approved. The detailed report is to be based on source noise levels measured at the Peregian Beach hotel site. The noise mitigation plan is to be agreed between the hotel and the developer with a formal commitment by each party to implement the plan prior to commencement of construction of the proposed development if it is approved by Council. The implementation of the plan is to be certified by a suitably qualified and independent acoustic consultant. The detailed report is to confirm that the hotel building envelope, including windows, will achieve compliance with the unreasonable noise criteria when windows are closed, given the internal source levels stated in the License. The detailed report is to include consideration of all noise sources associated with the hotel operations on the site. As discussed in our recent meeting with Council, and agreed to in subsequent discussions with Council, any non‐compliance from the hotel is to be dealt with by the Office of Gamming, Liquor and Racing (OLGR) who administer the liquor license for the hotel. As detailed in the Acoustic response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III), the proposed development is not required to mitigate amplified music/entertainment/patron noise or mechanical plant noise emissions from the Peregian Beach Hotel. These noise emissions and their subsequent compliance are the responsibility of Hotel and OLGR. The Hotel has a duty of care to minimise noise nuisance at sensitive locations such as residential and commercial buildings. It should be noted that, when the liquor licence was provided to the Peregian Beach Hotel, the subject site would have been considered a sensitive location by OLGR and should have been considered as part of the Noise Assessment Report submitted to OLGR by the applicant. 18. Following preparation of the detailed report for the hotel noise emissions, the building envelope sound transmission loss specifications for the linea houses is to be confirmed. The acoustic specification of the building envelope constructions is to include sketches showing the construction details of glazing, walls and roof‐ceilings for each bedroom and living areas affected by the hotel noise emissions. The confirmation report is to indicate that the internal noise levels of all bedrooms and living areas will achieve satisfactory internal noise levels due to all noise sources associated with the operations of the hotel on the site.
Page 7
Please refer to the Acoustic response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III), which addressed the above item in full and concludes that the internal noise levels can be appropriately achieved with the inclusion of certain building materials in the final design of the Lineal Houses and the construction of the proposed 2.5 metre high noise barrier along the common boundary with the hotel. BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 19. Provide evidence of Council’s approval in October 2015 of the Bushfire Management Plan (DFS Group 2015) as described in dot point one of JWA Ecological Consultant letter dated 16 December 2017. Please see attached a copy of the Bushfire Management Plan dated February 2015 (Attachment IV) and a copy of the document sent to Council confirming that the development has been constructed in accordance with the above document (Attachment V). 20. Prepare a Bushfire Management Plan for the proposed use of the site that addresses the requirements of the Noosa Plan Natural Hazards Overlay Code for Bushfire Hazard Area. Please refer to the response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI). 21. Prepare a Bushfire Management Plan for the proposed use of the site that addresses the requirements of the Noosa Plan Natural Hazards Overlay Code for Bushfire Hazard Area. All bushfire management requirements/measures must be wholly contained and managed by the proposed development and not rely on or place liability on adjacent landholders. Please refer to the response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI) and the Bushfire Management Plan dated February 2015 (Attachment IV). BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT 22. Prepare a Bushfire Management Plan for the proposed use of the site that addresses the latest SPP Fireline Intensity Model (CSIRO) using an FFDI of 48 to derive the appropriate bushfire hazard class for the lot. Please refer to the response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI) and the Bushfire Management Plan dated February 2015 (Attachment IV). 23. Provide further detail on the safe access/egress of residents, visitors, vehicles and emergency personnel and equipment in the event of a bushfire within the proposed asset protection zone. It is recommended written assessment by QFES of the document is provided to assist with the appraisal. Please refer to the response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI). As discussed in the recent meeting with Council, obtaining written assessment from QFES at this stage of the application is considered premature and will be undertaken as part of the detail design phase of the development. It is requested that Council condition the final decision to ensure the end design satisfies all requirements of QFES. 24. Provide further information on the location of Unit 10 within the proposed asset protection zone or alternatively, provide information relating to the development that meets The Noosa Plan Outcome 4 of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code for Bushfire Hazard Area.
Page 8
Please refer to the response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI) and the Bushfire Management Plan dated February 2015 (Attachment IV). EFFECT OF LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN ON BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT 25. Provide an appraisal of the Landscape Concept Plan with relation to the Bushfire Management Plan and asset protection zones. Please refer to the response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI), which states that the preparation of JWA letter dated 16th December 2017 (lodged with the original application) included an assessment/appraisal of the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by Mark Baldock Landscape Architect (Drawing No. 1611‐ LCP1, ISSUE A). Any amendment/revisions to this Plan will need to be assessed for compliance with the BMP. TRAFFIC 26. Provide further information detailing the dimensions of all garages, car spaces and carports. Please note that all car parking must be in accordance with the relevant user class as defined in AS/NZS2890.1:2004 Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which now shows the dimensions of all car parking spaces. As shown on the attached plans, all residential bays have been designed as type 1A (2.4m x 5.4m), while the visitor spaces and the spaces for the short term accommodation have been designed as type 2 (2.5m x 5.4m). As part of all open car park areas, the isle widths have been maintained at 5.8m in width, while all single garages are designed to be at a minimum 3.0m x 6.0m and the double garages at a minimum 6.0m x 6.0m. 27. Amend the plans to clearly identify, by number, the car spaces associated with the free standing units. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which now have the numbering for all car parking spaces throughout the development. Refer to drawing SD28 within the attached package. 28. Modify the proposal to provide convenient pedestrian paths from the unit building to the existing path in Sandpiper Court, and to the existing path system at the shopping centre (running adjacent to the parallel visitor parking bays). Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which now includes convenient pedestrian paths through the development that connect the site to both Rufus Lane and Sandpiper Court through the existing Village Market Place. An additional pathway has been included along visitor parks 1 ‐2, which then enters the Peregian Village Market Place and follows an approved pedestrian path to Sandpiper Court. 29. Accurately identify where wheelie bins would be placed along the internal roadway for collection, for each dwelling, allowing for both general waste bins and recycle bins. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which now shows the location of the bin collection point within the road reserve for each dwelling. It is noted that the
Page 9
internal road has been designed to allow a garbage collection vehicle to circulate around the site without impacting on parked cars. 30. The proposed new roadway should be modified to achieve a satisfactory transition to the match the existing roadway width. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which includes a modified transition to the existing roadway width. 31. The parking spaces under the unit building should be increased in width to 2.5m (minimum). The visitor spaces at the unit building also need to be identified on the plan. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which show the width of all car parks under the unit building to be a minimum width of 2.5 metres. All visitor car parking spaces for the unit component are located outside of the security gate, in close proximity to the reception area for the units. 32. If the location of the wall has been included in error then the plans should be amended to remove the wall. If the wall is not an error then either an alternative car parking layout or evidence that the wall does not compromise vehicle movements must be provided. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which have clarified this issue, which was simply an error from printing. SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOUSE TYPE 3 33. Amended plans that detail access to the one bedroom units only through the main dwelling or alternatively the development application be amended to include the additional 10 dwelling units with the associated planning assessment amended to factor the impact of the additional 10 dwelling units on car parking, density etc. It is important to note that Council has preliminary concerns with the amount of permanent residents currently. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), with particular reference to the Reed Beach House Plans (Plan Reference SD12), which now shows an internal door connecting the 4th bedroom to the main dwelling. The room now forms part of the main dwelling, and no longer can be considered a dwelling, as defined within the scheme. PROPOSED USES AND DESIGN OUTCOMES 34. Calculation of density, site cover, gross floor area, planting area and plot ratio having regard to the limitations in the Specific Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality (Semi‐Attached Housing Zone). These calculations must be based on a site area which excludes the land dedication included in the Court Order approval (Appeal 25847 of 2008) and the land associated with the Shopping Centre approval. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which includes the calculation of site cover, gross Floor Area (GFA), and deep soil planting, which are all based on the site area, excluding the land dedication area and the approved Peregian Beach Market Place. Overall the, the proposed development includes a population density of 98.1 persons, which is based on the rates applied by Council in the definition for Population Density included in the Noosa Plan 2006. Based on a site area of
Page 10
11,578m2 or 1.15 ha, the proposed development provides an overall density of less than 100 persons per hectare, which satisfies the density requirements of the Semi‐Attached Housing zone. BUILDING DESIGN 35. Amended plans that detail the provision of minimum 600mm eaves to at least 75% of the permitter of the main roof of the buildings. Please refer to the amended architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which shows that this requirement has now been satisfied. BUILDING HEIGHT 36. A perspective of the development taken from David Low Way looking over the IGA car park towards the development, the National Park and Cooroy Mountain. Please refer to the architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which now include a perspective of the proposed development, when viewed from David Low Way. It is noted that the proposed development is lower than the existing IGA building and has minimal impact on the view of the national park and Cooroy Mountain when viewed from David Low Way, compared to the existing IGA building. EFFECT OF FILL 37. Elevation plans looking of the property boundaries from outside of the subject land which clearly detail the colour, materials and height of the concrete “fill walls” and any fencing that is proposed to be placed on top of these walls. It should be noted that walls and fencing that result in excessive bulk are unlikely to be supported and that the extent of filling of the site may need to be reduced. Please refer to the architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which now include sections for boundaries, showing the effect of fill the sites boundary fences. PROTECTION OF VEGETATION NEAR BUILDINGS ADJOINING RUFOUS STREET 38. An arborist report which assesses the trees adjacent to the Rufous Street boundary with recommendations of construction requirements for the retention of significant vegetation and other vegetation that contributes to the established character of the area. Please refer to the arborists report prepared by ETS Environmental Services (Attachment IIX), which concludes that all trees that adjoin the subject site are not significant to the area and do not need to be retained as part of the proposed development. SOLAR ACCESS TO HOUSE TYPE 3 39. Plans which detail the amount of solar access provided to north facing windows of the upper and lower levels and open spaces areas of House Type 3 – this should include shadow diagrams and that provide detail of the amount of hours of solar access that these windows and open space areas will receive. Please refer to the architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII), which better demonstrates the solar access provided north facing windows of the upper and lower levels and open spaces areas of House Type 3. Also included in the attached plans is a sun study showing the solar access to the upper windows and court yard during different times of the year.
Page 11
ELEVATIONS FOR HOUSE TYPE 3 (SD13)
40. Floor and elevation plans for House Type 3 that accurately depict proposed building styles for this house
type.
Please refer to the architectural plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII).
EARTHWORKS
41. Provide additional comment on:
a) the need for the proposed filling of the site and it’s impacts on the adjoining properties, and
b) a proposed retaining system (batters, walls and other structures) that is wholly contained
within the subject site
The proposed filling of the site is required to facilitate drainage to and provide fall through, the proposed
stormwater treatment devices. The proposed grading of the site generally will be required to provide
acceptable steps between the closely spaced driveways. The proposed extent of earthworks has been
amended to ensure that all retaining structures will be contained wholly within the development site. The
preliminary earthworks plan and Engineering Services Report prepared by Covey and Associates (Attachment
IX) has been amended to reflect this.
This response represents our complete response to the Information Request issued by the Noosa Shire Council,
and we will commence the Public Notification, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009.
As always, please feel free to contact me direct should you require any additional information or clarification.
Yours faithfully,
ADAMS + SPARKES
TOWN PLANNING + DEVELOPMENT
Cameron Adams
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Encl: Economic Response prepared by Urban Economics (Attachment I)
Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Covey and Associates (Attachment II)
Acoustic Response prepared by ASK Consulting (Attachment III),
Previously Approved Bushfire Management Plan dated February 2015 (Attachment IV)
Compliance assessment for Peregian Beach Market Place prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment V)
Bushfire response prepared by JWA Ecological Consultants (Attachment VI)
Architectural Plans prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment VII)
Arborist Report prepared by ETS Environmental Services (Attachment IIX)
Engineering Services Report prepared by Covey and Associates (Attachment IX)
Cc: Thomco No 2087 Pty Ltd
Page 12
Attachment I
Economic Response
Prepared by
Urban Economics
[OCR of page images]
Attachment |
Economic Response
Prepared by
Urban Economics
Page 13
Our Ref: 16075/170317.km
Level 10, 87 Wickham Tce
Spring Hill Brisbane 4000
March 22, 2017
Ph: 07 3839 1400
[email protected]
www.urbaneconomics.com.au
Scanlon Group
c/o Mr Mark Dunleavy
Dunleavy Holdings Pty Ltd
E: [email protected]
Dear Mark,
RE: Essence of Peregian Beach Needs Analysis
Introduction
Urban Economics is pleased to provide this response to the Information Request issued by Noosa Shire Council.
This response should be read in conjunction with the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) report dated December
2016, prepared by Urban Economics examining need for and potential impacts of the proposed Essence of
Peregian development in Peregian Beach.
As recommended by Noosa Shire Council, we have made contact with Council’s consultants Location IQ, and
sought clarification around some of the questions and issues identified within the Information Request relating to
the economic report. This Response provides further clarity around the issues and questions raised, and provides
additional information and research as appropriate.
RFI Response
1. An examination of the implications of the proposed development on campers and RV users.
1
Page 14
The subject site has not operated as caravan/camper/RV park since 2010 and has subsequently been
approved for Short Term Accommodation and Retail/supermarket uses with the Peregian Village Market
operating on the site. The proposed development will therefore have no impact on campers and RV users
within Peregian and Noosa Shire.
2. The likely price point of both short stay accommodation and permanent resident housing as part of the
development and how this compares to the current pricing in the area.
Although price points are not indicative of an economic need and only somewhat related to economic
impact, the client provides the following as a potential indicator of price.
$150/night 1-bedroom hotel room
$175/night 1-bed apartment
$200/night 2-bed apartment
Camden Homes - $700-750k
Linear - $725-775k
Cube - $650-700k
‘The Oasis’ release within Noosa Springs lists 800m2 residential allotments from $695,000; and 2-bedroom
apartments resales within ‘The Fairways’ from $450,000; highlighting the comparable affordability of the
proposed development. Three bedroom apartments at Settler’s Cove in Noosa Heads are comparatively
priced from $1.55million, positioning the Essence of Peregian product.
“Domain” currently lists 17 four bedroom homes for sale in Peregian Beach, only 2 of which were priced
less than $700,000 (March 2017 listing).
The EIA has provided more detail particular to the commercial accommodation within Peregian Beach and
relative price points for the short term accommodation ranging from $110/night to $336/night. We also
note that a single night stay within a 1-bedroom self-contained apartment at Noosa Springs starts from
$339/night (March 2017) and $215/night mid week at the RACV Noosa Resort, indicative that there are
opportunities for the proposed short term accommodation to be priced and positioned differently in
attracting new target markets to the Peregian Beach and broader Noosa area.
2
Page 15
3. The specific trend at an SA2 level in terms of occupancy rates and an assessment of this trend.
FIGURE 1 extends the trend analysis of occupancy rates at the Statistical Area 2 (SA2) level provided within
the Economic Needs Analysis (Section 4.1) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Survey of Tourist
Accommodation 2015-16. Specifically, the Peregian SA2 has exhibited a declining level of reported
occupancy compared to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Region, but also relative to the other key tourist
accommodation areas of Noosa Heads and Noosaville.
The level of occupancy at any particular facility can be impacted by numerous factors. Within Peregian,
some of these factors may include:
• Increasing and unchecked competition from other forms of accommodation such as holiday
rentals and industry disruptors like AirBnB, Stayz etc; The New Noosa Plan Discussion Paper
estimates that a significant proportion of dwellings in Noosa are used for shorter-term
accommodation;
• An ageing of existing stock; impacting upon visitor perceptions of quality and value; and
• Operational and management practices of existing facilities.
The injection of new stock can contribute to addressing falling occupancy rates, with improved marketing
and promotional strategies, capacity to attract new and underserviced target markets, and in particular,
the introduction of meeting spaces within the Essence of Peregian development that will encourage the
attraction of attendees at events and meetings.
Furthermore, the ABS Tourist Accommodation 2015/16 reports on three establishments in the Peregian
SA2 with 15 or more rooms available compared with 19 hotels, motels and serviced apartment facilities
in Noosa Heads, and comprising less than 1% of all the rooms within the Sunshine Coast Tourism Region
(June 2016).
The Peregian tourist accommodation market is a small market relative to the overall Sunshine Coast
market, and whilst the injection of new stock will contribute to arresting declining occupancy rates, the
performance of the local tourist accommodation market suggests that there is insufficient demand to
support large scale tourist accommodation facilities in Peregian.
During 2015/16, the reporting facilities in Peregian represented 0.7% of room nights occupied within the
Sunshine Coast Tourism Region. If this rate was maintained, demand for some 50 to 100 visitor
accommodation rooms in motels, hotels and serviced apartments (more than 15 rooms) would be
supported by 2020/21. However, with investment in new accommodation and facilities elsewhere on the
Sunshine Coast as well as impacts from other disrupters to the industry, this share is likely to continue to
decline.
3
Page 16
Therefore, it is considered that there is unlikely to be sufficient demand to support a large scale facility in
Peregian, however, boutique accommodation facilities will contribute to the role of Peregian as a visitor
destination without significantly impacting on existing accommodation facilities. More particularly, the
scale and boutique nature of the proposed development reflects the low density, informal village nature
of Peregian Beach and the Peregian Beach Village.
The potential to introduce facilities that offer short stay (1 to 2 nights) accommodation would also
differentiate from the longer stay, holiday home and apartment accommodation within Peregian and
contribute to the diversification of accommodation options to cater for visitors to Peregian.
FIGURE 1: Occupancy Rates by SA2 and Sunshine Coast (TR)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Peregian Sunshine Coast (TR) Total
Noosa Heads Noosaville
Linear (Peregian) Linear (Sunshine Coast (TR) Total)
Source: ABS Survey of Tourist Accommodation
4. The appropriateness of this site for the planned development in relation to the possibility to provide the
development on other sites within the region.
The subject site is some 11,520m2 (1.15ha) and adjoins an existing retail centre, the Peregian Beach Hotel,
residential uses, and future community precinct development (Rufous St Precinct). Excluding the unique
locational features of the subject site, developable sites of over one hectare within Peregian and the
Eastern Beaches of Noosa are extremely limited. The site is partly zoned Semi-attached housing.
4
Page 17
Utilising the planning zone maps of the Noosa Plan to identify other appropriate sites within the region
which may have the possibility to accommodate the proposed development, Urban Economics has had
consideration for the following sites:
• Lots 6 & 7 on SP178340 (Links Drv, Noosa Heads)
o 5.44ha
o Zoned Semi-attached housing
o Approved development for 44 residential dwellings
• Lot 71 on MCH2854 (2 David Low Way, Castaways Beach)
o 9,677m2
o Zoned Detached housing
Further to the identification of other sites, it is considered that the appropriateness of these sites should
also consider their availability and viability to support comparable development. It is Urban Economics’s
opinion that there are no sites that are readily available and would viably support the proposed
development in contributing to the development of affordable short term accommodation and in
delivering housing choice. The need to amalgamate multiple lots in order to create a development site is
also considered inappropriate for the identification of comparable sites.
The ‘New Noosa Shire Plan Discussion Paper’ indicates the intention to “Protect land for future visitor
accommodation at Noosa Springs and Settlers Cove”. Urban Economics recognises the trend for these
‘resort’ facilities to be absorbed by residents for permanent accommodation; particularly by downsizers
and retirees of the region indicative of the underlying demand for alternative housing forms. Whilst some
capacity for development is noted within these resorts, the type of short-term accommodation that would
be/is provided, the location of these facilities and the occupation by residents limits their comparability
to the proposed development and more particularly, the establishing sections of both Noosa Springs and
Settlers Cove in particular are targeted at permanent residents rather than the short stay market.
Essence of Peregian is intended to incorporate both short term and permanent resident dwellings in
delivering a mix of short term accommodation and lifestyle facilities proximate to Peregian Beach and the
Peregian Beach Village.
It is concluded that there are no other sites available which are equally or more appropriate than the
subject site for the proposed development in Peregian Beach and indeed in the wider Noosa region.
5
Page 18
5. The ability for other sites within the region to provide additional permanent residential dwellings to cater
for projected population growth in Peregian Beach.
The potential for development of short-term accommodation and residential dwellings within the Noosa
Shire is limited. This potential is linked to a range of factors such as the limited availability of developable
land and the planned ‘population cap’ of the Noosa Shire.
Urban Economics notes the outcomes of community consultation within The New Noosa Plan Discussion
Paper which outlines the intentions to limit urban sprawl, encourage increased housing choice and
diversity within ‘infill’ sites; and to better meet the needs of the ageing community. The proposed
development reflects these intentions by developing permanent residential within Peregian Beach,
proximate to the Peregian Beach Village Centre and offering opportunities for residents to downsize from
their homes but remaining close to lifestyle facilities and services.
The Noosa Plan includes the provision for more intense development within the ‘Semi-attached housing’
zone of Peregian Beach which focuses along David Low Way and within the Peregian Esplanade precinct.
As discussed in Item Four of this Response, the appropriateness and ability of these sites is limited by
availability, scale and viability to accommodate the proposed development in its entirety and with the
associated integration with the Peregian Beach Village, retailing and recreational facilities. More
particularly, there are a range of uses that have developed on semi-attached housing land to the west of
the David Low Way including offices, the Peregian Beach hotel and Community Centre reflecting a
disconnect between the intent and capacity to accommodate semi-attached housing opportunities such
as the proposed development. The subject site includes these semi-attached housing zone lands, which
are appropriate for permanent residential dwellings.
Similarly, the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office (QGSO) Broadhectare Study for Noosa
identifies no residential development areas within the Shire’s Eastern Beaches, with the most proximate
areas in Noosa including the existing Settler’s Cove development and within areas of the Noosaville
activity centre which are emerging as a business and enterprise area.
6. The demand for this type of short stay and permanent resident accommodation to be established and the
supply of existing facilities to be fully examined
The supply of existing commercial accommodation within Peregian Beach is listed within the Economic
Needs Analysis as well as the known provision of holiday rental and other casual short-stay facilities
(Section 3.3.1).
6
Page 19
As stated within the EIA, the boutique accommodation proposed within Essence of Peregian is a new
product that would be unique to the Noosa area and is considered to attract a new mix of short stay
accommodation visitors to the development. The proposed operator of the facility is an experienced
operator with other short term accommodation facilities in the northern Sunshine Coast and has
identified a need for additional boutique short stay accommodation options, linked with meeting facilities
to cater for emerging visitor markets. There is a gap in the provision of facilities in Peregian that are
particularly targeted at the short stay (1 to 2 nights) market. The proposed visitor accommodation within
Essence of Peregian will offer accommodation that will create a point of difference to existing
accommodation facilities in Peregian.
In particular, information from Tourism Research Australia’s National Visitor Survey (Feb 2016), reports
that between the year ending December 1998 and the year ending December 2015, the number of
overnight trips in Queensland by Australian residents increased a significant 36%. In comparison, the
number of overnight trips spent within the Sunshine Coast region only increased by 11%, and the Sunshine
Coast region demonstrated a declining share of the number of overnight trips in Queensland from 17.8%
to 14.6%.
A range of reasons are likely to have influenced this trend, including increasing choice of experiences in
other regions, increased accessibility of other regions as well as differing target markets accessing
different holiday experiences. Notable short stay markets that are appealing to the short break traveller
such as the Hunter Valley in NSW, have demonstrated an increase in the share of NSW overnight trips
during this same period, with shorter average length of stay of visitors (2.8 nights compared with 3.7).
There is a need for the Sunshine Coast to ensure diversity of choice in short stay accommodation facilities
in an increasingly competitive domestic market in catering for the overnight and short stay sector of the
market.
Section 5.2 of the EIA examines population and household growth. The QGSO population projections for
the Peregian SA2 anticipate a growth of some 2,700 persons between 2016 and 2036. Applying average
persons per household, this would represent potential demand for some 1,080 additional dwellings. With
399 lots within the Peregian Breeze Estate in the south of the SA2, there is ongoing demand for additional
residential dwellings to cater for the projected growth in the population of the Peregian SA2. The
proposed 26 permanent residential dwellings will provide a limited mix of housing to cater for this growth
in population.
As explored in Chapter 6.0 of the EIA, there is a need for the provision of housing choice including
opportunities for residents to downsize from their family home in maintaining access to their Peregian
lifestyle.
7
Page 20
7. The differences that the Essence of Peregian Beach development will provide relative to existing
accommodation types.
The proposed development at Essence of Peregian Beach is intended to offer a mix of short stay, dual
purpose and permanent residential accommodation integrated with event and meeting space that would:
• Appeal to the short stay market, including opportunities for single night stays relative to the
minimum night stays imposed by nearby accommodation facilities
• Appeal to business and event attendees
• Appeal to the self-catering market that prefers to rent short term accommodation within a
centralised facility with resort facilities including pool
• Appeal to visitors seeking access to the lifestyle facilities of the Peregian Beach Village and access
to the patrolled Peregian Beach all within walking distance
• Offer motel accommodation that would be positioned differently to self-catering options
• Provide opportunities for residents of Peregian and surrounding communities to downsize but
remain connected with their Peregian lifestyle
• Provide opportunities for residents to enjoy a low maintenance lifestyle with access to resort
facilities
• Provide opportunities for workers and business owners within the future Rufous Street Digital
Hub to live close to work
• Develop a mix of modern residential homes that would appeal to workers and entrepreneurs
within the creative and digital sector
• Provide meeting spaces and short term accommodation facilities that would complement and
support businesses in and visitors to the future Rufous Street Digital Hub.
8. To support the contention that there has been limited investment of visitor accommodation facilities over
the past decade across the Sunshine Coast Tourism Region (SCTR), ABS tourist accommodation figures
should be sourced to show the trend in different accommodation types (i.e. hotels and resorts; motels;
private hotels and guest houses; and serviced apartments) for the SCTR and the Peregian Beach SA2 over
the last decade.
Statistical Area Level 2 data for accommodation facilities is not available over a time series before 2012
as the ABS Survey of Tourist Accommodation has been altered to match the Australian Standard
Geographical Classification (ASGS) standard.
8
Page 21
The attached TABLE 1 provides a comparison of accommodation facilities within the SCTR since 2006,
reiterating the contention that there has been limited investment in tourist accommodation (as defined
by the ABS) within the Sunshine Coast with approximately 130 facilities of 15 rooms or more noted in the
region over this period. Recent increases (since 2014/15) in the surveyed quantum of facilities are
attributable to changes in the Survey methodology including facilities in previously unsurveyed areas and
smaller facilities (less than 15 rooms); rather than any significant investment in new facilities.
9. An assessment of the increased diversity of residential three and four bedroom dwellings to be provided
as part of the development in terms of the number of current and future three and four bedroom dwellings
in the immediate area, the wider Sunshine Coast or at other similar SA2s. The supply and demand of three
and four bedroom dwellings, including number of sales should be included.
FIGURE 2 outlines the comparative proportion of dwellings by number of bedrooms as at the 2011 Census.
The Peregian Beach locality has been defined to exclude Peregian Springs; resulting in a residential
development profile which more closely reflects the adjoining Coolum SA2. This is attributed to the large
quantum of new 4-bedroom dwellings within Peregian Springs relative to the mix of housing in Peregian
Beach. Similarly, the Bokarina SA2 demonstrated almost 57% of dwellings as three bedroom at the time
of the Census, and a further 28.5% as four bedroom dwellings.
The 10 x 4-bedroom dwellings and 16 x 3-bedroom dwellings would represent just 1.2% of the available 3
and 4-bedroom dwellings recorded within the area at the time of the 2011 Census.
FIGURE 2: Number of Bedrooms by SA2 and Peregian Beach locality
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0-bed 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed 5-bed 6 or more Not stated
beds
Peregian SA2 Peregian Beach Coolum SA2
9
Page 22
For the Sunshine Coast LGA at the time of the 2011 Census (including Noosa Shire), some 28.7% of
dwellings included 4 bedrooms, and a further 42.2% were three bedrooms, and whilst more than 20% of
dwellings in Peregian Beach were two bedroom dwellings, only 17.6% of dwellings across the Sunshine
Coast LGA comprised two bedroom dwellings at the time of the Census.
The Need Analysis considered that there were limited opportunities for downsizing households to remain
within the Peregian Beach area. Again referencing “Domain”, we note that there are currently only 7 two
bedroom units available for sale and 1 three bedroom unit in Peregian Beach (March 2017 listings), with
limited opportunities to downsize maintenance and upkeep commitments and whilst maintaining a
Peregian Beach lifestyle.
In comparison, Domain currently lists 41 two bedroom units available for sale and 19 three bedroom units,
in Coolum Beach.
Concluding Comments
We maintain the opinion that there is economic and community need for the proposed Essence of Peregian Beach
and that there are no other sites that could accommodate the proposed development in meeting this need.
More particularly, the proposed development would cater to emerging and evolving tourism needs for the
Sunshine Coast and generate community and economic benefits for Peregian Beach and the Noosa community.
There is demand for choice in visitor accommodation with a focus on short stay/overnight stay facilities, however,
Peregian Beach’s commercial accommodation market represents a very small share of the overall Sunshine Coast
Tourism Region market, and demand is likely to continue to support boutique style and scale facilities in Peregian
Beach. The boutique nature of the short term accommodation facilities on site would create a point of difference
in the mix of overnight accommodation in Peregian, whilst maintaining the low-key Peregian Beach lifestyle.
Growth in the population of Peregian will generate ongoing demand for additional residential dwellings. The
proposed development of 26 permanent residential homes will contribute to the choice in housing for residents
seeking a Peregian lifestyle, the opportunity for residents to downsize but remain within the Peregian area, and
the opportunity for workers and business owners of the future Rufous Street Digital Hub to live and work within
Peregian.
I trust that this additional information meets your requirements at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you require any further clarification.
Yours faithfully
Urban Economics
Kerrianne Meulman
Managing Director
10
Page 23
TABLE 1: Small Area Accommodation Facilities
June Quarter June 2011 June 2012 June 2012 June 2013 June 2014 June 2015 June 2016
2006 SLA SLA SA2 SA2 SA2 SA2 SA2
Caloundra (C) -
9 Buderim 1 1 Buderim - North 1 1 1 1 1
Caloundra N.
Caloundra (C) - Caloundra
13 2 2 Mountain Creek 1
Caloundra S. Hinterland
Caloundra (C) - Caloundra
3 3 3 Buddina - Minyama 2 2 2 1 1
Hinterland North
Caloundra (C) - Caloundra
4 18 18 Caloundra - Kings Beach 13 13 13 14 15
Kawana South
Maroochy (S) - Coolum- Golden Beach - Pelican
1 12 12 5 5 5 5 5
Buderim Mudjimba Waters
Maroochy (S) - Coastal Moffat Beach - Battery
11 Kawana 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
North Hill
Maroochy (S) - Maroochy
12 2 2 Wurtulla - Birtinya 1 2
Maroochydore Hinterland
Maroochy (S) -
24 Maroochydore 12 12 Coolum Beach 7 8 7 10 10
Mooloolaba
Maroochy (S) -
1 Mooloolaba 24 23 Marcoola - Mudjimba 4 4 3 4 4
Nambour
Maroochy (S) Bal in S
1 Nambour 2 2 Maroochydore - Kuluin 16 17 17 14 14
C'st SSD
Noosa- Mooloolaba - Alexandra
Maroochy (S) Bal 2 36 36 19 19 19 27 27
Noosaville Headland
Noosa (S) - Noosa- Paynter-Petrie
32 1 1 Eumundi - Yandina 1 1 1
Noosaville Creek
Noosa (S) - Sunshine- Sunshine-
5 5 5 Diddillibah - Rosemount 1 1
Peregian Peregian
Cooloola (S) - Gympie Gympie (R) -
6 4 4 Nambour 3 4 4 3 3
only Cooloola
Cooloola (S) (excl. Gympie (R) -
4 6 6 Noosa Heads 17 17 17 19 19
Gympie) Gympie
Noosaville 17 17 17 23 23
Peregian 3 3 3 3 3
11
Page 24
Sunshine Beach 4 4 4 4 4
Caloundra Hinterland 2 2 2 2 2
Maroochy Hinterland 1 1
Palmwoods 2 2 2 2 2
Cooloola 4 4 4 5 5
Gympie - North 6 6 6 7 6
Sunshine Coast (TR)
128 130 129 129 132 130 151 151
Total
12
[OCR of page images]
urban economics
Sunshine Beach 4 4 4 4 4
Caloundra Hinterland 2 2 2 2 2
Maroochy Hinterland 1 1
Palmwoods 2 2 2 2 2
Cooloola 4 4 4 5 5
Gympie - North 6 6 6 7 6
Sunshine Coast (TR) 128 130 129 129 132 130 151 151
12
Page 25
Attachment II
Stormwater Management Plan
Prepared by
Covey and Associates
[OCR of page images]
Attachment II
Stormwater Management Plan
Prepared by
Covey and Associates
Page 26
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
AT
215 DAVID LOW WAY
PEREGIAN BEACH
FOR
THOMCO (NO 2087) PTY LTD
DATE: MARCH 2017
PROJECT NO: 162042
REPORT NO: 100494 RPT ISSUE B
Page 27
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
DOCUMENT ISSUE APPROVAL
Project No: 162042
Title: Stormwater Management Plan
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd
Date: March 2017
Issue: B
Distribution: Noosa Council – One (1) copy
Covey Associates – One (1) copy
Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd – One (1) copy
© Copyright Covey Associates Pty Ltd (2016).
This document is the property of Covey Associates Pty Ltd. This document and the information
contained in it are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used,
copies of reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by
Covey Associates Pty Ltd. Covey Associates Pty Ltd makes no representation, undertakes no
duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the
information contained in it.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Parts of this document contain material originally prepared by:
This material is the intellectual property and copyright of Covey Associates Pty Ltd.
Author: Peter Gintrac Reviewed: Chris Walker
Beng (Hons) BEnvSc, BSc (Hons), PhD,
CPESC
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 1 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 28
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4
2.1 Site Location 4
2.2 Land-use, Topography and Drainage 5
2.3 Proposed Land-use 5
3.0 WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT OBJECTIVES 5
3.1 Water Quality Objectives 5
3.2 Area of Treatment 6
4.0 WATER QUALITY MODELLING ASSESSMENT/APPROACH 6
4.1 Scenario Methodology 6
4.2 Proposed Stormwater Treatment Train 6
4.3 MUSIC Model Parameters 8
4.4 Land Use/Source Node Areas 8
4.5 Pollutant Reduction Results 9
5.0 STORMWATER QUANTITY 10
5.1 Receiving Environment 10
5.2 Pre/post Developed Flows 10
5.3 Incidental Detention 11
5.4 Stormwater Outlet Arrangement 11
5.5 Ecologist Feedback 11
5.6 Mitigation Recommendation 11
6.0 MAINTENANCE PERIOD 12
6.1 Maintenance During ‘Construction Period’ 12
6.2 Maintenance During ‘Maintenance Period’ 12
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12
8.0 REFERENCES 13
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 2 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 29
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Development Plan – Sprout Architects
APPENDIX B Stormwater Management Plans – Covey Associates Pty Ltd
APPENDIX C Ecologist Advice – JWA Pty Ltd Ecological Consultants
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 3 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 30
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document contains information regarding the stormwater quality and quantity management of
the proposed Essence of Peregian Beach development at 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach in
support of a Material Change of Use (MCU) application. The proposal consists of a total of 58
accommodation units.
Noosa Shire Council (NSC) requires that stormwater quality be appropriately managed and treated
prior to discharge from the site. The Queensland State Planning Policy (SPP, 2016) also requires
that urban development projects demonstrate how the potential impacts to receiving environments
are mitigated. The objective of this report is to outline the requirements for effective stormwater
quality management at the site.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location
The site is located at 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach and is described as Lot 77 on
SP2316115. Refer Figure 1 for the locality map.
Development
Area
Current RP
Boundary
(Lot 77 on
SP231615)
Figure 1 - Locality Map
(Image courtesy of Noosa Shire Council Public Mapping System, accessed 8 December 2016)
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 4 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 31
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
2.2 Land-use, Topography and Drainage
The development area is currently vacant land and represents the balance lot from the Peregian
Village Market. The lot is currently being reconfigured, as per application No. 152010.627.03. A plan
sealing application is currently with NSC (PS16/0034) and is expected to be released imminently.
The site is approximately 2.312 ha in area, with the development area being approximately 1.165
ha. The site slopes at approximately 5% from the east (David Low Way) to the west (Noosa National
Park). The site will ultimately drain to Lake Weyba.
2.3 Proposed Land-use
The proposal is for a residential development consisting of a total of 58 accommodation units
comprising the following:
20 one-bedroom motel units (visitor accommodation);
12 one and two-bedroom dual use units (visitor and/or residential accommodation); and,
26 three and four-bedroom detached dwellings.
The remainder of the development area will comprise service roads, parking and landscaped areas.
Refer to the Proposed Development Plan in Appendix A.
3.0 WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT OBJECTIVES
This section of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) will demonstrate how the proposed
stormwater quality management strategy complies with the requirements of the NSC and the SPP
(2016) in terms of demonstrating how the relevant stormwater pollutant reduction objectives will be
met.
Stormwater runoff generated from the site must achieve pollutant load reduction targets (Table 1)
and be demonstrated through the use of appropriate modelling software.
Table 1 – Pollutant Reduction Targets for South East Queensland
Pollutant Type Reduction Objective
Toal Suspended Solids (TSS) 80% reduction in average annual load of pollutants
Total Phosphorus (TP) 60% reduction in average annual load of pollutants
Total Nitrogen (TN) 45% reduction in average annual load of pollutants
Gross Pollutants (GP) 90% reduction in average annual load of pollutants
3.1 Water Quality Objectives
The site ultimately drains to Lake Weyba. Table 2 outlines the specific performance criteria required
within receiving waters for Lake Weyba as identified in ‘Noosa River Environmental Values and
Water Quality Objectives Basin No. 140 (part)’, including Kin Kin Creek, Teewah coastal creeks,
Lakes Cooroibah, Cootharaba, Doonella and Weyba (Environmental Protection Water Policy, 2009).
Lake Weyba is identified on Plan WQ1401 of the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (2009)
Southeast Queensland Map Series as being fresh water wallum tannin-stained Streams.
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 5 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 32
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Table 2 – Site stormwater quality objectives (as per WQO’s for Wallum Tannin-stained Streams)
Pollutant Water Quality Objectives
Turbidity <20 NTU
Suspended Solids (SS) <6 mg/L (annual mean concentration)
Chlorophyll a <5 µg/L
Total Nitrogen <500 µg/L (annual mean concentration)
Oxidised N <60 µg/L
Ammonia N <20 µg/L
Organic N <420 µg/L
Total Phosphorus <50 µg/L (annual mean concentration)
Filterable Reactive Phosphorous
<20 µg/L
(FRP)
Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) 85 – 110 % saturation
pH 5.0 - 7.0
Secchi Depth N/A
Conductivity 500 µS/cm
Aim for no visible oils, petrochemicals, films or
Hydrocarbons
odours
Litter Aim for no anthropogenic material greater
than 5 mm in any dimension.
3.2 Area of Treatment
The total area of the proposed development is approximately 1.165 ha consisting of groundcover,
roof area and road area. With the topography of the site and the proposed development layout, the
entire site can be treated for water quality purposes.
The treatable area of the site has been divided into three (3) catchments. The three (3) catchments
are discussed further in Section 4.2 and can be seen in the Preliminary Stormwater Management
Layout in Appendix B.
4.0 WATER QUALITY MODELLING ASSESSMENT/APPROACH
4.1 Scenario Methodology
The site was modelled using split catchment source nodes, comprised of roof area, road area and
groundcover nodes.
4.2 Proposed Stormwater Treatment Train
The following mitigation measures are proposed for the overall stormwater management at the site.
Stormwater runoff from the site will be treated by three (3) bioretention basins prior to discharge off
site.
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 6 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 33
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
The following mitigation measures are proposed for the overall stormwater management at the site.
All three (3) bioretention basins discussed below will have filter media established to a depth of 0.5
m depth, with a 0.1 m and 0.2 m transition and drainage layer respectively. The extended detention
depth is 0.3 m. Refer to the Preliminary Stormwater Management Layout in Appendix B for details.
Catchment A: This catchment includes runoff from the ‘entry’ portion of the road, the roof area of the
hotel building and associated ground area. The catchment is treated by Bioretention Basin A, which
has a surface area of 29 m2 and a filter area of 20 m2.
Catchment B: This catchment includes runoff from the roof areas and associated ground areas of
the units in the central island (1 to 9) and five (5) of the terrace units (22 to 26). The catchment is
treated by Bioretention Basin B, which has a surface area of 15 m2 and a filter area of 10 m2.
Catchment C: This catchment includes runoff from the roof areas and associated ground areas of
the units on the northern edge of the site (10 to 16) and five (5) of the terrace units (17 to 21). The
catchment is treated by Bioretention Basin C, which has a surface area of 71 m2 and a filter area of
50 m2.
Refer Figure 2 for the MUSIC model layout.
Figure 2 - MUSIC Model Layout
Table 3 identifies the catchments applicable to each of the treatment devices.
Table 3 – Type and Size of Proposed Stormwater Treatment Device
Stormwater Treatment
Detail
Device
Catchment A
Bioretention Basin A Surface area of 29 m2 and a Filter area of 20 m2
Catchment B
Bioretention Basin B Surface area of 15 m2 and a Filter area of 10 m2
Catchment C
Bioretention Basin C Surface area of 71 m2 and a Filter area of 50 m2
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 7 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 34
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Figure 3 presents the typical parameters adopted for the modelling of the bioretention basins
(Bioretention A shown). The surface area adopted in the model represents the mean water surface
area, assuming 1 in 3 batters at the edges of the bioretention basins.
Figure 3 - Typical Bioretention Parameters
4.3 MUSIC Model Parameters
The MUSIC Modelling Guidelines – South East Queensland Version 1.0 (2010) was used to source
base and storm flow concentrations and runoff generation. The model was calibrated using the
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) data from Nambour, 1989-1998 at a 6-minute time step. This is in
accordance with Water by Design’s MUSIC Modelling Guidelines – South East Queensland Version
1.0 (2010). For evapotranspiration values, the mean PET values for Sunshine Coast Regional
Council (central) from Table 3.1 of the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines – South East Queensland
Version 1.0 (2010) were adopted. All source nodes were set up in accordance with this guideline,
specifically for split catchments. No routing of drainage links was adopted for the purpose of taking
a conservative approach. This approach assumes that the flow through the drainage system takes
no time, which over estimates the likely pollutant load. MUSIC version 6.2.1 was used for this
assessment.
4.4 Land Use/Source Node Areas
The proposed development is comprised of short stay units, dual use accommodation apartments,
permanent residential dwellings, entrance and access roads and landscaped areas. Each catchment
has been divided into three (3) source nodes for MUSIC modelling purposes. These source nodes
include treated roof, groundcover and road/hardstand areas (Table 4).
Table 4 – MUSIC Source Node Characteristic
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 8 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 35
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Catchment Catchment Catchment
Source Node A B C
Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)
Treated Roof 0.123 0.142 0.138
Groundcover 0.051 0.142 0.100
Road 0.123 0.000 0.337
Total 0.297 0.284 0.584
4.5 Pollutant Reduction Results
MUSIC modelling of the proposed stormwater treatment strategy for the development was performed
to ensure the required load based pollutant load reduction objectives were achieved for the
development as a whole.
The target reductions in stormwater pollutants are based on a comparison of an unmitigated
scenario, having no treatment on site, and the mitigated scenario, which has stormwater treatment
measures incorporated onto the site. The results of the overall site MUSIC model can be found in
Table 5. Table 5 demonstrates that compliance has been met or exceeded for all of the required
pollutant load reduction objectives required by NSC and the SPP (2016).
Table 5 – MUSIC Results – Treatment Train Effectiveness for the Overall Site
Reduction Target
Unmitigated Mitigated
Pollutant Achieved Reduction Compliance
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
(%) (%)
TSS 2610 507 80.6 80 Y
TP 4.97 1.4 71.9 60 Y
TN 27.1 14.3 47.1 45 Y
GP 296 0 100 90 Y
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 9 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 36
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
5.0 STORMWATER QUANTITY
As the development proposes to increase the amount of impervious areas when compared to the
existing site condition, the development will result in an increase in stormwater peak flows.
The proposed stormwater quantity management for this site ensures no actionable nuisance occurs
due to development of the site. The proposed arrangement also ensures that the receiving
environment will not be detrimentally affected by the increased flows.
5.1 Receiving Environment
The site discharges directly to a Council Reserve to the west then to the Emu Swamp section of the
Noosa National Park beyond. The topography of the area would be described as extremely flat with
no defined creek within approximately 550m. Due to flat topography, heavy vegetation and the
distance from a defined creek, this environment is considered to be at very low risk of erosion.
In addition to the natural attributes of the receiving environment, the discharge point from the site is
approximately 1,000m upstream of the nearest drainage infrastructure. This infrastructure is a
culvert, of unknown size, under a gravel section of Woodland Dve which is not accessible to the
public (refer Figure 4). This infrastructure, considering the topography and being such a distance
downstream of the discharge point, would experience a negligible change in flows from the
development of this site.
Approximate Flow
Path From
Development Site
to Woodland Dve
Culvert
Development
Site
Figure 4 - Flow Path to Woodland Dve (source: Google Earth)
5.2 Pre/post Developed Flows
The proposed development will increase the impervious area of the site from 870m2 to 8,154m2. This
increase in impervious area will result in an increase in the peak stormwater runoff from the site.
Rational calculations have been carried out to provide an indication of the expected increase in peak
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 10 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 37
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
flow and to assist in design of an appropriate stormwater outlet from the site. Pre and Post Developed
peak flow rates are presented in Table 6 for the 39%, 10% and 1% AEP storm events
Table 6 - Rational Flow Calculations
Rainfall
Peak Flow
Scenario AEP ARI Tc (mins) C Factor Intensity
(m3/s)
(mm/hr)
39% 2yr 13 0.595 117 0.225
Existing
10% 10yr 13 0.7 157 0.356
Catchment
1% 100yr 13 0.84 223 0.606
39% 2yr 13 0.714 117 0.270
Developed
10% 10yr 13 0.84 157 0.427
Catchment
1% 100yr 13 1.0 223 0.722
It can be seen that the development will result in peak stormwater runoff increases of between
0.045m3/s (in a 39% AEP event) and 0.116m3s (in a 1% AEP event). This represents an
approximately 20% increase in peak flows from the existing scenario.
5.3 Incidental Detention
The inclusion of bioretention basins which capture the runoff from all impervious surfaces on the
site, does provide an incidental detention capacity during very small, frequent rain events. It is
generally accepted that the initial losses of rainfall falling on a pervious surface will be in the range
of 2mm to 10mm (depending on antecedent moisture conditions and soil profile), therefore in very
minor, frequent events it is expected that most rainfall runoff from a site will be from impervious
areas. With approximately 24m3 of storage provided within bioretention basins (at the extended
detention depth of 300mm), this equates to approximately 3mm of the initial rainfall, from impervious
areas, during a rain event being captured and slowly discharged through the filtration device.
5.4 Stormwater Outlet Arrangement
The primary concern for an increase in peak flows leaving this site would be localised scouring at
the stormwater outlet location. The outlet design needs to ensure that flow velocities at the outlet are
reduced and not significantly concentrated at the property boundary. Stormwater flows should be
returned to a ‘sheet flow’ scenario leaving the site. The stormwater outlets from this site have been
designed to satisfy this philosophy and preliminary design drawings can be found in Appendix B.
5.5 Ecologist Feedback
Advice from an Ecologist (JWA Ecological Consultants), was sought regarding discharge of
stormwater from the site in the manner described above. JWA were of the opinion that if stormwater
peak flows are increased but outlet treatment is provided which controls velocity and ensures sheet
flow from the site, the development is unlikely to represent a significant impact on the hydrology of
the receiving environment. The advice from JWA can be found in Appendix C.
5.6 Mitigation Recommendation
It is not recommended that any specific detention infrastructure be introduced to the development to
mitigate peak flows from the development site. The incidental detention capacity of the bioretention
and the proposed design of the stormwater outlets are believed to be sufficient treatment, from a
stormwater quantity perspective, to mitigate the effects of the increase in impervious area on the
receiving environment. This treatment will also ensure that an actionable nuisance is not created
with the development of the site.
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 11 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 38
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach 6.0 MAINTENANCE PERIOD The proposed bioretention basins will be installed at the end of the building construction phase when the site is stabilised. 6.1 Maintenance During ‘Construction Period’ Erosion and sediment control devices will be installed at the commencement of the works to capture and treat runoff during construction works. The sediment control devices should be cleaned out as required and at the end of the works. During the construction stage, all sediment control devices are to be inspected weekly, after runoff generating rain events and prior and after prolonged site shut downs (e.g. holiday periods). 6.2 Maintenance During ‘Maintenance Period’ In order to establish vegetation and treatment functions in bioretention systems, the filter media must be protected from pollutants commonly generated in the construction phases. It is therefore recommended that the filter media be protected via geofabric and turf during construction. Upon completion of the construction phase, the protective measures can be removed. During the operational phase, regular maintenance of the bioretention system is required to ensure comprehensive vegetation establishment, a critical component in stormwater pollutant uptake. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This SMP has provided detail regarding the proposed stormwater treatment strategy for the Essence of Peregian development. The strategy makes use of bioretention basins to treat surface runoff prior to discharge to the Council Reserve to the west of the site. The proposed strategy achieves the required pollutant reduction targets required by NSC and the SPP (2016). Stormwater detention infrastructure to mitigate stormwater flows to pre-developed values is not recommended for this site. The stormwater outlets from the development are proposed to be designed in a way that controls flow velocity and ensures that flows leave the site as sheet flow. In accordance with JWA, Ecological Consultant’s advice, this treatment will satisfactorily protect the receiving environment. Covey Associates Pty Ltd 12 Project No: 162042 Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 39
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Client: Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd Location: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
8.0 REFERENCES
Noosa Council (2006) The Noosa Plan.
Healthy Waterways (2006), Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Design Guidelines for South
East Queensland, Brisbane
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, Queensland Division Ltd (2013) Queensland Urban
Drainage Manual, Third Edition.
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (2016) State Planning Policy.
Brisbane, Queensland.
Department of Environment and Resource Management (2010) Urban Stormwater Quality Planning
Guidelines. Queensland, Australia.
Water by Design (2010) MUSIC Modelling Guidelines. SEQ Healthy Waterways Partnership.
Brisbane, Queensland. IBSN 978-0-9806278-4-8.
CSIRO, 1999, Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Management Guidelines
Water by Design (2012), Bioretention Technical Design Guidelines (Version 1), Healthy Waterways
Ltd, Brisbane.
Water by Design (2012), Maintaining Vegetated Stormwater Assets (Version 1), Healthy Waterways
Ltd, Brisbane.
Covey Associates Pty Ltd 13 Project No: 162042
Consulting Engineers 100949Rpt Issue B
Page 40
APPENDIX A SITE PLANS BY SPROUT ARCHITECTS [OCR of page images] APPENDIX A SITE PLANS BY SPROUT ARCHITECTS
Page 41
REV DESCRIPTION DRN DATE
a
A ISSUEFORMCUDAAPPROVAL = DDT = 20.12.16
B ISSUE FOR INFORMATION DDT 07.03.17
ISSUE FOR RFI RESPONSE DDT 21.03.17
i
bins bins
15, A
bins BV,
scanlon group
INTERNAL
PRIVATE
ROAD
bins
essence
of peregian beach
Scale 1:500
ZZzhlUlU$RCUCUTUUCU
Lx
0. ° "0 20
INTERNAL
PRIVATE
\S
\ws.
2.0
easement
Amenities. |
screened 10 x a/c
Pedestrian link to
‘condensers shops | [ : | reo
| 1
f — J ,—
| |
| | SPECIALTY I |
| SHOPS
parking — -
IGA | by architects
ip ’ SUNCOAST RESORT BUSINESS CENTRE
| L | { SUITE 2 CNR GARDAK ST & SURF RD
1 | { J ALEXANDRA HEADLAND Qld 4572
see | Reem Lt
— 1 storage | ABN 23 123 917 724
EMAIL: [email protected]
} Pp
5 A Lf project
§ Jf ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN BEACH
A DEVELOPMENT
i sR for
1 - | | Td ee | THOMCO (NO 2087) PTY LTD
capsirde ||] |€<—mere REREGIAN VILLAGE
units over | [ It to} f Fo do t fd VV : Lots 1 on SP286680
—- - 215 DAVID LOW WAY
. PEREGIAN BEACH
| — = drawing
7 | — — Lo} | non roy oy | SITE / FLOOR PLAN
| /
AS SHOWN
date 21/03/2017 drawn DDT scale @A3
drawing 0.16003 SDO4 revision €
i
5.277 6
gt fe ae ad
Access and service easement
ct er
| sper
' site prior to commencing. Report all discrepancies to
eee teasers
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DRAWINGS =
Page 42
APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS [OCR of page images] APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
Page 43
PEREGIAN BEACH
SPORTS GROUND
BIORETENTION C 17
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
NEW RESIDENTIAL
C 18
LEGEND
19
20 EXISTING PEREGIAN
BEACH HOTEL
BIORETENTION B
21
9 8 7 6 5 NEW RESIDENTIAL
B 22
23
1 2 3 4
NEW RESIDENTIAL 24 B
25
COUNCIL
RESERVE
C 26
A
NEW EXISTING PEREGIAN
MOTEL/RESIDENTIAL BEACH SHOPPING VILLAGE
BUILDING
BIORETENTION A
NOOSA NATIONAL PARK
TYPICAL BIORETENTION SECTION
SCALE 1:750 (A3)
Consulting Civil & PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL 162042 P200
Structural Engineers PRELIMINARY STORMWATER VILLAGE 215 DAVID LOW WAY, B
Project Management MANAGEMENT LAYOUT THOMCO (NO 2087) PTY PEREGIAN BEACH
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
PRELIMINARY & Planning LTD
Page 44
BIORETENTION C
10 11
BPL 3.9 BPL 4.4
BIORETENTION A
BPL 4.0
COUNCIL
A RESERVE
COUNCIL
RESERVE
BIORETENTION B
9
BPL 4.4 B
BIO-RETENTION B AND C DETAILS BIO-RETENTION A DETAILS
SCALE 1:250 (A3)
LEGEND
SCALE 1:50 (A3)
SECTION A SECTION B
Consulting Civil & PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL 162042 P201
Structural Engineers PRELIMINARY STORMWATER VILLAGE 215 DAVID LOW WAY, A
Project Management MANAGEMENT DETAILS THOMCO (NO 2087) PTY PEREGIAN BEACH
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
PRELIMINARY & Planning LTD
Page 45
APPENDIX C ECOLOGIST ADVICE [OCR of page images] APPENDIX C ECOLOGIST ADVICE
Page 46
Peter Gintrac
From: Adam McArthur <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017 10:02 AM
To: Peter Gintrac
Cc: Matthew Figg; Mark Dunleavy ([email protected])
Subject: 170321 AM to PG RE: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach (162042 gen)
Hi Peter,
As you are aware, from an ecological perspective the two main concerns with stormwater discharge are Quality and
Quantity. The site occurs adjacent to a low-lying area of wet heath vegetation known locally as Emu Swamp, which
forms part of the Lake Weyba sub-catchment of the Noosa River catchment.
It is understood from our discussions that stormwater will generally be discharged from the site after cycling
through a bioretention system. This should adequately deal with the issue of Quality.
In relation the Quantity, issues can arise at the point of discharge (i.e. scouring, erosion, deposition etc.) or in some
cases more broadly through elevated water levels in adjoining habitat areas through increased peak flows. It is
understood from our discussion and your email below that scour protection would be in place at the discharge point
and that the velocity of the discharge would be controlled to ensure sheet flows from the site. This should
adequately deal with issues at the discharge point and closely mimic natural flows from the site.
With consideration of potential changes to hydrology in Emu Swamp as a result of increased peak flows from the
development, it is likely that any increase in flow volume to Emu Swamp would be negligible. This is because the
area within the subject site that drains into Emu Swamp forms an extremely small portion (likely less than 0.01%) of
the local catchment. The small increases in peak volume predicted to be discharged from the subject site would
therefore not be likely to elevate the water level in the Emu Swamp by any more than a few millimetres during peak
flows. This is not considered to represent a significant impact on the hydrology of the Emu Swamp.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
Regards,
Adam McArthur
Principal Ecologist / Group Operations Manager
T: 07 3219 9436 | F: 07 3423 2076 |M: 0467 099 119 | E: [email protected]
Suite B, Building 11, Garden City Office Park, 2404 Logan Road, Eight Mile Plains QLD 4113
www.jwaec.com.au | ABN 18 862 767 739
From: Peter Gintrac [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Adam McArthur <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Figg <[email protected]>
Subject: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach (162042 gen)
Hi Adam,
As discussed, we would like your input with regards to the stormwater outlet from our development, in particular
the Stormwater Quantity aspect.
1
Page 47
There is no downstream stormwater infrastructure which would be impacted by the runoff from this development.
Council’s question is with regards to the effect of the peak flow increase which could occur from our development,
on the receiving environment. Velocity of flow would be controlled at the boundary of our development and the
council reserve to ensure the flows leave the site in a ‘sheet flow’ arrangement.
We would appreciate your opinion on whether increased peak flows from our outlet, discharged as described, could
pose an unacceptable risk to the ecology of the downstream environment.
If you could provide us with a response to the above at your earliest convenience it would be greatly appreciated.
Please don’t hesitate to give me a call if you need any further clarification.
Regards
Peter Gintrac
Civil Engineer
124 Duporth Ave | PO Box 16 | Maroochydore Qld 4558
T 07 5443 7777 | F 07 5443 7577 www.covey.com.au
Warning:
"The receiver of the attached data accepts the risk of using the data without checking against the original hard copy record. Use of the data
for any reason not agreed to by Covey Associates is prohibited. Virus scanning software is used by this organisation to prevent file and
system attacks, however, the recipient is responsible for their own virus protection. Covey Associates accepts no liability whatsoever for any
possible subsequent loss or damages arising from the use of this data or any part thereof".
Total Control Panel Login
To: [email protected] Remove this sender from my allow list
From: [email protected]
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
2
Page 48
Attachment III
Acoustic Response
Prepared by
ASK Consulting
[OCR of page images]
Attachment III
Acoustic Response
Prepared by
ASK Consulting
Page 49
Date: 22 March, 2017
Ref: 8816R02V01.docx
To: Mark Dunleavy
Company: Dunleavy Holdings
Email: [email protected]
Author: Stephen Lyons/SP
Subject: Essence of Peregian, 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach - Information Request Response
Noise Assessment
Pages: 1 of 14 and Attachments
Dear Mark,
1. Introduction
ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (ASK) was commissioned by Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd to provide acoustic
consultancy services for the proposed multi-unit and housing development to be constructed at 215 David
Low Way, Peregian Beach.
This acoustic report has previously prepared a noise impact assessment report (ref: 8816R01V01 dated:
14/12/2016) which was submitted as part of Development Application for consideration by Noosa Shire
Council. The application is made over land at 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach, and described as Lot 77
on SP231615.
The proposed development includes the following uses:
• Multi-storey short-stay accommodation and permanent residential unit building.
• 26 two-storey house lots.
Council has since issued an Information Request (ref: MCU16/0153 dated: 10/02/2017) stating the
following in relation to noise:
Issue – Noise monitoring of IGA loading dock
The acoustic report makes some assumptions regarding the number, timing and noise levels of trucks
that access the IGA loading dock but does not verify the assumptions by attended observations or by
noise monitoring on the subject site at representative façade locations near the loading dock. The
acoustic report assumes that there will only be a limited number of delivery vehicles that will access
the loading dock or shopping village and only after 7am.
Information Required
13. Unattended noise monitoring shall be conducted at a location on the development site that has a
clear view of the loading dock and car park at a height representative of the façade of the first floor
motel units for a minimum period of one week. The noise logger is to have one-third octave spectral
ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
ABN: 55 622 586 522 ACN: 128 491 967
PO Box 3901 South Brisbane QLD 4101
P: 07 3255 3355 F: 07 3844 7180
www.askconsulting.com.au [email protected] 1
Page 50
data and audio recording capabilities so that the source of noticeable dominant events may be
confirmed and the contribution of extraneous noise sources may be identified. The noise logger is to
record levels continuously with a sampling period no greater than 1 second and preferably one-eighth
of a second (FAST response). Of particular interest are the times, durations and frequency spectra of
trucks accessing the loading dock for deliveries or waste collection prior to 7am daily and vehicle and
patron noise after 10pm.
Issue – Noise monitoring of IGA roof plant
The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the IGA are mounted on the roof of the IGA store. The
noise emissions are stated in the acoustic report to have been previously measured by ASK on the roof
of the IGA store. Plant noise levels but no acoustic spectral information is provided in the acoustic
report. The acoustic report does not state whether the propagated noise at the receptor locations is
likely to be predominantly low frequency, or whether it has low frequency tonal components.
14. A SoundPLAN noise model of the IGA roof-top mechanical plant shall be prepared based upon
octave or one-third octave spectral noise data for the roof-top mechanical plant. Noise levels shall be
predicted which show the predicted noise contours (1m grid) at the motel (first and second storeys),
the four nearest attached houses (first floor) and the nearest linea unit (first floor), with and without
the proposed partial enclosure around the mechanical plant. The noise contours shall demonstrate
that the proposed partial enclosure barrier (1m height above the height of the mechanical plant)
around the sides of the mechanical plant deck provides sufficient noise mitigation for all affected
receptors to achieve compliance with the external noise limit.
15. Noise calculations shall be conducted which predict the internal noise levels in the motel unit (first
and second levels), houses and linea units (upper levels) to confirm compliance with the internal noise
criteria in each type of habitable space. Calculations should demonstrate the transmission loss of the
building envelope of all affected habitable spaces provides sufficient noise attenuation to achieve
compliance with the internal noise limits for IGA mechanical plant noise emissions, including adverse
noise character adjustments. The building envelope noise intrusion calculations should be conducted
in accordance with the method of AS3671 based upon octave spectral levels and the building
envelope construction details. Building constructions details shall be confirmed for all building
envelope constructions. Copies of calculations are to be provided for review by Council.
16. Similarly, maximum noise levels recorded prior to 7am shall be used to demonstrate compliance
with sleep disturbance criteria in bedrooms for short duration noise events emanating from activities
on the shopping village site prior to 7am and after 10pm. Building envelope noise intrusion
calculations for maximum noise levels to demonstrate compliance with the sleep disturbance criteria
shall be provided for review by Council (as for item 3 above).
Issue - Noise Monitoring of Peregian Hotel
The acoustic report has not referenced the hotel license, or the unreasonable noise criteria, or Council
conditions in its assessment of the noise impact of the hotel approval conditions and operations upon
the proposed development, in particular, the linea houses along the eastern boundary of the
development site.
Information Required
17. A detailed report of the hotel noise emissions having regard to the License, OLGR unreasonable
noise criteria and Council conditions. The report is to indicate the noise mitigation plan required for
the hotel to achieve compliance with all of the relevant criteria and development conditions,
assuming that the proposed residential development is approved. The detailed report is to be based
on source noise levels measured at the Peregian Beach hotel site. The noise mitigation plan is to be
agreed between the hotel and the developer with a formal commitment by each party to implement
the plan prior to commencement of construction of the proposed development if it is approved by
8816R02V01.docx 2
Page 51
Council. The implementation of the plan is to be certified by a suitably qualified and independent
acoustic consultant.
The detailed report is to confirm that the hotel building envelope, including windows, will achieve
compliance with the unreasonable noise criteria when windows are closed, given the internal source
levels stated in the License. The detailed report is to include consideration of all noise sources
associated with the hotel operations on the site.
Issue - Noise Monitoring of Peregian Hotel
The acoustic report recommends upgrades to the building envelope constructions of the linea houses.
The report does not state whether the recommendation includes both levels of the houses or only the
upper level, or only some of the upper level constructions, or upper level constructions for all of the
houses.
Information Required
18. Following preparation of the detailed report for the hotel noise emissions, the building envelope
sound transmission loss specifications for the linea houses is to be confirmed. The acoustic
specification of the building envelope constructions is to include sketches showing the construction
details of glazing, walls and roof-ceilings for each bedroom and living areas affected by the hotel
noise emissions. The confirmation report is to indicate that the internal noise levels of all bedrooms
and living areas will achieve satisfactory internal noise levels due to all noise sources associated with
the operations of the hotel on the site.
2. Response to Item 13 – IGA Loading Dock Noise Emissions
In response to the raised item, unattended noise logging has been undertaken adjacent the loading dock.
The monitoring has been undertaken between Tuesday 7/03/2017 and Tuesday 14/03/2017, using an ARL
NGARA environmental noise logger. The monitoring was undertaken at a height of 3.4m above the
hardstand height for the loading dock area. The monitoring location is presented in Figure 2.1 and Figure
2.2. The typical distance to the loading area is 8m, however the microphone is still located in close
proximity to the nearest carpark. Due to the large height differential of the existing terrain, the potential
first floor receptor height and the loading area, the noise monitoring was undertaken at this location as it
had clear line of sight to the loading area.
8816R02V01.docx 3
Page 52
Approximate
Monitoring
Location
David Low Way
Figure 2.1 Noise Monitoring Location
8816R02V01.docx 4
Page 53
Microphone
Figure 2.2 Photo of Noise Logger Placement (Looking North)
The noise logging results have confirmed that the IGA loading area is operational between 6am and 7am on
a daily basis. The noise logging results have been summarised and are presented in Table 2.1. The noise
levels during this early morning period (6am to 7am) have been reviewed and summarised for each day of
logging as an LA1,1hour, which is considered to be consistent with an average maximum noise level.
Table 2.1 Daily Noise Measurement Results Between 6am to 7am
Day Measured Noise Levels
LA1, 1hour dBA
Wednesday 08/03/2017 72
Thursday 09/03/2017 72
Friday 10/03/2017 73
Saturday 11/03/2017 74
Sunday 12/03/2017 68
Monday 13/03/2017 78
Tuesday 14/03/2017 67
The measured noise levels indicated an LA1,1hour in the range of 67dBA to 78dBA. The noise monitoring result
indicate that a variety noise events can occur within the loading area. These events included delivery
trucks, staff voices, rubbish disposal, garbage truck rubbish collection and yard maintenance with a leaf
blower. The elevated noise levels measured on Monday 13/03/2017 are attributable to a garbage truck
undertaking rubbish collection.
8816R02V01.docx 5
Page 54
Allowing for an additional separation distance of 8m to 16m, from the loading area to the facade of the
nearest proposed units a 6dB reduction is expected to the measured noise levels. Therefore the predicted
noise levels range between 61dBA and 72dBA LA1,1hour at the nearest facade in the proposed unit building.
The proposed internal noise criteria adopted for the night-time period for the assessment is the Acoustic
Quality Objective of 40dBA LA1,1hour.
Noise intrusion calculations have been undertaken for the units nearest the loading dock area and are
presented in Attachment A. The calculated noise levels have been based on the measured L1 spectrum
associated with 6am to 7am period obtained on Monday 13/03/2017. All other days had lower noise levels
and therefore would also result in lower internal noise levels.
Based on achieving the internal noise goal of 40dBA L1,1hour, the recommended facade upgrade
requirements are as follows:
• Units 06-10:
○ Glazing: The external facade of the unit is fully glazed, the facade is required to be upgraded with
an Rw43 glazing system. The calculations indicate that a twin slider glazing system (such as a
6.38mm laminate, 100mm air gap and 5mm toughened) is likely required.
○ Infill wall: Required to be upgraded to be Rw50. The calculations indicate that the following wall
system is suitable(9mm fibre cement (FC), 92mm steel stud with 75mm thick insulation(11kg/m3)
and 1x13mm sound-rated plasterboard).
• Units 14-16:
○ Glazing: The glazing is required to be upgraded with an Rw43 glazing system. The calculations
indicate that a twin slider glazing system (such as a 6.38mm laminate, 100mm air gap and 5mm
toughened) is likely required.
○ Infill wall: Required to be upgraded to be Rw52. The calculations indicate that the following wall
system is suitable(9mm thick FC, 92mm steel stud with 75mm thick insulation(11kg/m3) and
1x13mm sound-rated plasterboard).
• Units 22-26:
○ Glazing: The external facade of the unit is fully glazed, the facade is required to be upgraded with
an Rw43 glazing system. The calculations indicate that a twin slider glazing system (such as a
6.38mm laminate, 100mm air gap and 5mm toughened) is likely required.
○ Infill wall: Required to be upgraded to be Rw50. The calculations indicate that the following wall
system is suitable(9mm FC, 92mm steel stud with 75mm thick insulation(11kg/m3) and 1x13mm
sound-rated plasterboard).
○ Roof/Ceiling: Sheet metal roof with internal 13mm sound-rated plasterboard sheeting for the
ceiling and 60mm thick Anticon glasswool insulation in the cavity.
• Units 30-32:
○ Glazing: The glazing is required to be upgraded with an Rw43 glazing system. The calculations
indicate that a twin slider glazing system (such as a 6.38mm laminate, 100mm air gap and 5mm
toughened) is likely required.
○ Infill wall: Required to be upgraded to be Rw50. The calculations indicate that the following wall
system is suitable(9mm FC, 92mm steel stud with 75mm thick insulation(11kg/m3) and 1x13mm
sound-rated plasterboard).
○ Roof/Ceiling: Sheet metal roof with internal 13mm sound-rated plasterboard sheeting for the
ceiling and 60mm thick Anticon glasswool insulation in the cavity.
It is recommended that calculations are undertaken at a later stage of the project to confirm the suitability
of the selected glazing system. As the windows can be closed to mitigate the potential noise intrusion,
ventilation requirements may need to be considered.
8816R02V01.docx 6
Page 55
3. Response to Items 14 to 16 – IGA Mechanical Plant Noise
Emissions
Noise calculations were initially undertaken within a spreadsheet format and incorporated distance
attenuation and Fresnel barrier effect algorithms. The noise modelling of the IGA rooftop plant has been
undertaken within Soundplan (Version 7.4). The source noise level data has been reviewed and a tonality
penalty of +2dB has been applied for a potential tonal component in the 200Hz one-third octave band.
The noise levels have been predicted at the nearby sensitive locations with and without the proposed noise
screen. The calculations undertaken with Soundplan indicate that with a 1.0m high screen above the top of
the A/C plant located around the root-top platform the 37dBA Leq,adj,1hour external noise goal is still
exceeded. However, the internal noise goal 30dBA Leq,adj,1hour can be achieved with the windows closed, the
internal noise level calculations are presented in Attachment B. As the windows can be closed to mitigate
the potential noise intrusion, ventilation requirements may need to be considered.
Table 3.1 Predicted Mechanical Plant Noise Levels
Day Level/Floor Predicted Noise Predicted Noise Levels with an Acoustic Screen
Levels without 1.0m Higher than the top of the A/C Plant
Acoustic Screen
LAeq,1hour dBA LAeq,1hour dBA Tonality LAeq,adj,1hour dBA
Penalty dB
House 1 Upper 44 33 2 35
House 2 Upper 46 35 2 37
House 3 Upper 48 36 2 38
House 4 Upper 48 37 2 39
Linea House 25 Upper 47 37 2 39
Linea House 26 Upper 48 38 2 40
Unit 06 1st floor 46 36 2 38
Unit 07 1st floor 46 36 2 38
Unit 08 1st floor 47 36 2 38
Unit 09 1st floor 47 36 2 38
Unit 10 1st floor 48 36 2 38
Unit 14 1st floor 45 32 2 34
Unit 15 1st floor 46 37 2 39
Unit 16 1st floor 46 37 2 39
Unit 22 2nd floor 46 36 2 38
Unit 23 2nd floor 46 37 2 39
Unit 24 2nd floor 47 37 2 39
Unit 25 2nd floor 48 37 2 39
Unit 26 2nd floor 49 37 2 39
Unit 30 2nd floor 51 39 2 41
Unit 31 2nd floor 50 38 2 40
Unit 32 2nd floor 50 38 2 40
The recommended noise barrier is required to have a minimum surface density of 12.5kg/m2 and an
absorptive lining on the plant side of the barrier.
Referring to Item 16 of the Information Request, the existing IGA shopping centre building provides a
significant barrier for emissions from the loading dock area to the nearest proposed houses (Houses 1-4)
8816R02V01.docx 7
Page 56
and therefore noise impacts from activities in the loading area are not anticipated. Based on the measured
noise levels (67dBA – 78dBA L1,1hour) adjacent the loading area, allowing for an additional separation
distance of 8m to 44m and barrier shielding for the existing IGA building, from the loading area to the
facade of the nearest proposed units a 26dBA reduction is expected to the measured noise levels.
Therefore the predicted noise levels range between 41dBA and 52dBA LA1,1hour at the nearest facade in the
proposed unit building.
Table 3.2 Predicted Loading Area Noise Levels at Houses
L1,1hour L1,1hour Octave Band Noise Levels dBA
dBA
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
Measured LA1,1hour 78 51 60 68 70 70 75 66
Distance atten.
(8m to 44m) -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15
Barrier effect -11 -7 -7 -8 -9 -11 -13 -16
Predicted LA1,1hour 52 30 38 45 46 44 46 36
Based on the predicted external noise level of 52dBA LA1,1hour, the internal noise goal 40dBA L1,adj,1hour can be
achieved with the windows closed, the internal noise level calculations are presented in Attachment C. As
the windows can be closed to mitigate the potential noise intrusion, ventilation requirements may need to
be considered.
4. Response to Items 17 and 18 – Peregian Beach Hotel
Noise Emissions
The proposed development is not required to mitigate amplified music/entertainment/patron noise or
mechanical plant noise emissions from the Peregian Beach Hotel. These noise emissions and their
subsequent compliance are the responsibility of Hotel and OLGR. The Hotel has a duty of care to minimise
noise nuisance at sensitive locations such as residential and commercial buildings.
In the event that OLGR were to investigate a complaint, they would undertake noise tests with the
doors/windows open, and therefore any mitigation treatments incorporated into the facade would not
have any bearing on the compliance of the Hotel with the Hotel’s OLGR noise limits.
Further to this, the subject site would have been considered a sensitive location by OLGR and should have
been considered as part of the OLGR Noise Assessment Report.
Therefore the amplified music/entertainment/patron noise or mechanical plant noise emissions from the
Hotel should be compliant at the boundary interface with the subject site, and therefore it is not the
responsibility of the proposed development to mitigate these noise impacts.
The noise emissions from the vehicles using the drive-thru and carpark areas should be assessed in
accordance with noise limits, as such a 2.5m high (above the carpark level) noise barrier and upgrade
glazing has been proposed along the interface boundary to reduce the potential noise impacts onto the
subject development.
Calculations have been undertaken for the Linea Houses located adjacent the Hotel boundary. The
calculations have been based on a typical Lmax source noise level of a car door/ engine start event of 93dBA
Lmax sound power level. Incorporation of the proposed 2.5m high noise barrier indicates that compliance
with the 47dBA L1,adj,1hour noise limit is predicted to be achieved at approximately 12m from the Hotel
boundary. Internal noise level calculations indicate that the external windows/doors are closed, to reduce
the potential noise impacts from the Hotel carpark during the night-time period. The internal noise level
8816R02V01.docx 8
Page 57
calculations are presented in Attachment D. To achieve the internal acoustic quality objective of 40 dBA
LA1,adj,1hour, upgrades to the external facade of the Linea Houses would include the following:
• Bedroom 1:
○ External Walls: Lightweight external walls (Rw 41): 6mm fibre cement sheeting over minimum
76mm wide steel studwork (or 90mm wide timber studwork), lined internally with 10mm
plasterboard sheeting and 50mm glasswool insulation in the cavity.
○ Roof (Rw 41): Pitched metal roof with internal 10mm plasterboard sheeting for the ceiling and
50mm glasswool insulation in the cavity.
○ External Glazing (Rw 33): Acoustically rated glazing system including frame and seals, which may
entail 10mm think laminated glass.
• Living Room:
○ External Walls: Lightweight external walls (Rw 41): 6mm fibre cement sheeting over minimum
76mm wide steel studwork (or 90mm wide timber studwork), lined internally with 10mm
plasterboard sheeting and 50mm glasswool insulation in the cavity.
○ External Glazing (Rw 23): Standard glazing.
• Bedroom 2:
○ External Walls: Lightweight external walls (Rw 41): 6mm fibre cement sheeting over minimum
76mm wide steel studwork (or 90mm wide timber studwork), lined internally with 10mm
plasterboard sheeting and 50mm glasswool insulation in the cavity.
○ Roof (Rw 41): Pitched metal roof with internal 10mm plasterboard sheeting for the ceiling and
50mm glasswool insulation in the cavity.
○ External Glazing (Rw 23): Standard glazing.
The recommended glazing upgrades are presented in Figure 4.1 (note the Hotel is located to the right-hand
side of this plan).
8816R02V01.docx 9
Page 58
Rw33
Rw33
Bed 2
Bed 1
Standard Construction
Standard
Construction
Standard
Standard
Construction
Construction
Figure 4.1 Recommended Glazing Upgrades for Linea Houses
8816R02V01.docx 10
Page 59
5. Attachment A - Internal Noise Level Calculations IGA
Loading Area
8816R02V01.docx 11
[OCR of page images]
asl¢
ACOUSTICS & AIR QUALITY
5. Attachment A - Internal Noise Level Calculations IGA
Loading Area
8816R02V01.docx 11
Page 60
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment A1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Night
Maximum outside Level : 67.4 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 5 Unit 30
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Bed 1
Floor area, Sf : 15.12 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 East window 3.24 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 67.4 0.0 30 0.2 31 37 33 15 22 34 41 44 45 46 43 26 27 23 18 15 19 10 31 27
2 East wall 6.48 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 67.4 0.0 30 0.4 34 40 33 14 25 43 53 59 60 58 52 30 28 17 9 3 7 1 32 21
3 South window 4.41 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 67.4 0.0 30 0.3 32 38 33 15 22 34 41 44 45 46 43 27 29 24 19 16 21 11 33 28
4 south wall 2.88 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 67.4 0.0 30 0.2 30 36 33 14 25 43 53 59 60 58 52 26 24 14 6 0 4 -3 29 17
5 roof 15.12 33 42 49 51 52 56 48 59.4 22 1.0 29 35 33 16 30 38 46 51 41 43 46 24 18 18 12 7 22 12 27 22
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 32.1 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
40 34 33 28 22 19 26 16 38 32
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 2 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 East window Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2 East wall RW52 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
3 South window 3 Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
4 south wall 3 RW52 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
5 roof 2 sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Loading Dock to Unit 30 Bed Page 1 1:56 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment A1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Night
Maximum outside Level : 67.4 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 5 Unit 30
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Bed1
Floor area, Sf: 15.12 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1|East window 3.24 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 674] 00 30 | 02 | 34 37 33 15 22 34 41 44 45 46/43/26 27 23 18 15 19 10] 31 27
2)East wall 6.48 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 674] 0.0 30 | 04 | 34 40 33 14 25 43 53 59 60 58/52/30 28 17 9 3 7 1/ 32 21
3]South window 441 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 674] 0.0 30 | 03 | 32 38 33 15 22 34 41 44 45 46| 43) 27 29 24 19 16 21 11| 33 28
4|south wall 2.88 41 50 57 59 60 64 56 674] 0.0 30 | 02 | 30 36 33 14 25 43 53 59 60 58/52/26 24 14 6 0 4 -3] 29 7
5|roof 15.12 33 42 49 51 52 56 48 594 22 | 10 | 29 35 33 16 30 38 46 51 41 43/46/24 18 18 12 7 22 12/ 27 22
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
343328 +22 «19 ~«226 «16
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1|East window Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2)East wall RW52 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
3]South window 3 Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
4|south wall 3 RW82 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
5|roof 2 sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator SMPv6.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Page 1 1:56 PM
Loading Dock to Unit 30 Bed
Page 61
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment A2
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Night
Maximum outside Level : 71.7 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit 32
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Bed
Floor area, Sf : 17.00 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 windows 3.20 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 71.7 0.0 34 0.2 32 38 35 15 22 34 41 44 45 46 43 30 31 27 22 19 23 14 35 30
2 external walls 2.20 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 71.7 0.0 34 0.1 31 37 35 14 25 43 53 59 60 58 52 29 27 16 8 2 6 0 31 20
3 roof 17.00 37 46 54 56 56 60 52 63.7 0.0 26 1.0 31 37 35 16 30 38 46 51 41 43 46 28 23 22 16 11 26 16 32 27
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 22.4 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
40 34 33 28 23 20 28 18 38 32
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 2 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 windows Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2 external walls RW52 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
3 roof sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Loading Dock to Unit 32-Bed Page 1 1:56 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment A2
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Night
Maximum outside Level : TAT dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit 32
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Bed
Floor area, Sf : 17.00 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 windows 3.20 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 717 | 00 34 | 02 | 32 38 35 15 22 34 41 44 45 46/43/30 31 27 22 19 23 14] 35 30
2|external walls 2.20 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 717 | 0.0 34 | 04 | 34 37 35 14 25 43 53 59 60 58/52/29 27 16 8 2 6 O| 31 20
3|roof 17.00 37 46 54 56 56 60 52 637] 0.0 26 | 1.0 | 31 37 35 16 30 38 46 51 41 43/46/28 23 22 16 11 26 16] 32 27
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
3433 2028 18
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 windows Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2\external walls RW82 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
3|roof sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm
Loading Dock to Unit 32-Bed
Page 1
21/03/2017
1:56 PM
Page 62
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment A3
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 45.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Day/Evening
Maximum outside Level : 71.7 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit 32
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Living
Floor area, Sf : 21.00 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.85 0.6 0.65 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.9 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 windows 4.41 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 71.7 0.0 29 0.2 30 36 40 15 22 34 41 44 45 46 43 31 33 29 25 22 26 17 37 33
2 external walls 8.93 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 71.7 0.0 29 0.4 33 39 40 14 25 43 53 59 60 58 52 35 33 23 16 11 14 8 37 27
3 roof 21.00 37 46 54 56 56 60 52 63.7 0.0 21 1.0 29 35 40 16 30 38 46 51 41 43 46 29 24 24 19 14 28 18 33 29
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 34.3 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
45 37 36 31 26 23 31 21 41 35
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 4 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 windows Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2 external walls RW50 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
3 roof sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 22/03/2017
Loading Dock to Unit 32_liv Page 1 4:04 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & OtherCales_=———SS( Write inyellowareas only. =—#####
External to Internal: Leathr->teqin [+]
L Indudes Facade Reflection
Correction: 0 Attachment A3
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 45.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Day/Evening
Maximum outside Level : 717 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit 32
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Living
Floor area, Sf : 21.00 m? I I I I I I ]
.[__ Overall 63 [125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 0.85 0.6 [0.65/08] 1 | 1 [09] 09 |secs
NR > Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125[250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500[ 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM [Rw method
1 [windows 441 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 717 | 00 29 | 02 | 30 36 40 15 22 34 41 44 45 46/43/31 33 29 25 22 26 17| 37 33
2|external walls 8.93 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 717 | 0.0 29 | 04 | 33 39 40 14 25 43 53 59 60 58/52/35 33 23 16 11 14 8 | 37 27
3|roof 21.00 37 46 54 56 56 60 52 637] 0.0 21 | 10 | 29 35 40 16 30 38 46 51 41 43/46/29 24 24 19 14 28 18] 33 29
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
5 36 2623 21
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is [4 | better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 [windows Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2|external walls RW50 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plaster board soundchek
3|roof Isheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xism
Loading Dock to Unit 32_liv
Page 1
22/03/2017
4:04 PM
Page 63
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment A4
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Night
Maximum outside Level : 71.7 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit 26
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Studio
Floor area, Sf : 28.40 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.85 0.6 0.65 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.9 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 windows 8.40 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 71.7 0.0 34 0.3 36 42 35 15 22 34 41 44 45 46 43 32 34 31 27 24 28 18 38 35
2 external walls 2.40 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 71.7 0.0 34 0.1 31 37 35 14 25 43 53 59 60 58 52 28 26 16 9 4 7 1 30 20
3 roof 28.40 37 46 54 56 56 60 52 63.7 0.0 26 1.0 34 40 35 16 30 38 46 51 41 43 46 29 24 24 19 14 28 18 33 29
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 39.2 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
40 35 35 32 27 24 31 21 40 36
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 0 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 windows Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2 external walls RW52 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 11kg/m3,1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
3 roof sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 22/03/2017
Loading Dock to Unit 26 Page 1 4:06 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment A4
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, from Acoustic Quality Objective - Night
Maximum outside Level : TAT dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit 26
Height, h : 2.7 m Room Studio
Floor area, Sf : 28.40 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 0.85 0.6 [0.65/08] 1 | 1 [09] 0.9 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 ABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 windows 8.40 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 717 | 00 34 | 03 | 36 42 35 15 22 34 41 44 45 46/43/32 34 31 27 24 28 18] 38 35
2|external walls 2.40 45 54 62 64 64 68 60 717 | 0.0 34 | 014 | 34 37 35 14 25 43 53 59 60 58/52/28 2 16 9 4 #7 1! 30 20
3|roof 28.40 37 46 54 56 56 60 52 637] 0.0 26 | 1.0 | 34 40 35 16 30 38 46 51 41 43/46/29 24 24 19 14 28 18] 33 29
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
3535 243121
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 windows Bradnams RW43 - twin slider - 6.38mm laminate, 100mm gap, 5mm toughened, QLON seals
2\external walls RW82 Infill wall 9mm FC 90mm stud with 75mm thick insulation 1 1kg/m3,1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
3|roof sheetmetal, cavity anticon insulation, 1x13mm plasterboard soundchek
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm
Loading Dock to Unit 26
Page 1
22/03/2017
4:06 PM
Page 64
6. Attachment B - Internal Noise Level Calculations From IGA
Mechanical Plant
8816R02V01.docx 12
Page 65
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment B1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 39.7 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House 26
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed
Floor area, Sf : 9.60 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 5.04 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 39.7 0.0 12 0.5 15 21 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 12 19 10 0 -5 -13 -20 20 5
2 windows 2.16 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 39.7 0.0 12 0.2 11 17 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 10 19 19 10 7 1 -8 22 20
3 roof 9.60 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 39.7 0.0 12 1.0 18 24 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 12 19 11 2 -9 -17 -33 21 8
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 16.8 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 16 24 20 11 7 1 -8 26 20
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 4 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows 2 3mm glass
3 roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to Linea Bed Page 1 1:57 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment B1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 39.7 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House 26
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed
Floor area, Sf : 9.60 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 5.04 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 397 | 00 12 | 05 | 15 21 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/12 19 10 0 -5 -13 -20] 20 5
2|windows 2.16 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 397 | 0.0 12 | 02 | 11 7 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24/23/10 19 19 10 7 1 -8] 22 20
3|roof 9.60 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 397] 0.0 12 | 1.0 | 18 24 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/12 19 11 2 -9 -17 -33] 21 8
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 24 TH 8
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows 2 3mm glass
3|roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator SMPv6.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to Linea Bed Page 1 1:57 PM
Page 66
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment B2
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 39.7 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House 26
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Living
Floor area, Sf : 15.50 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.85 0.6 0.65 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.9 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 12.00 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 39.7 0.0 12 0.8 19 25 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 14 22 14 5 -1 -9 -16 23 9
2 windows 5.67 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 39.7 0.0 12 0.4 16 22 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 13 22 23 16 12 6 -3 26 24
3 roof 15.50 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 39.7 0.0 12 1.0 20 26 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 13 20 13 5 -6 -14 -30 22 10
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 33.2 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 18 26 24 16 12 6 -3 29 25
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 1 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows 2 3mm glass
3 roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to Linea Liv Page 1 1:57 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment B2
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 39.7 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House 26
Height, h : 24 m Room Living
Floor area, Sf : 15.50 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 0.85 0.6 [0.65/08] 1 | 1 [09] 0.9 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 ABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 12.00 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 397 | 00 12 | 08 | 19 25 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/14 22 14 5 71 9 -16/ 23 9
2|windows 5.67 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 397] 0.0 12 | 04 | 16 22 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24/23/13 22 23 16 12 6 -3| 26 24
3|roof 15.50 20 32 36 33 30 25 15 397] 0.0 12 | 1.0 | 20 26 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/13 20 13 5 6 -14 -30] 22 10
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 26 1612 ES
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows 2 3mm glass
3|roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator SMPv6.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to Linea Liv Page 1 1:57 PM
Page 67
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment B3
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 38.5 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit House 4
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed 3
Floor area, Sf : 10.80 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 15.27 19 31 35 32 29 23 14 38.5 0.0 11 1.4 18 24 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 15 23 14 3 -2 -10 -17 24 9
2 windows 2.97 19 31 35 32 29 23 14 38.5 0.0 11 0.3 11 17 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 10 18 18 10 6 1 -8 22 19
3 roof 10.80 19 31 35 32 29 23 14 38.5 0.0 11 1.0 17 23 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 12 18 10 1 -10 -18 -34 20 7
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 29.0 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 18 25 20 11 7 1 -8 27 20
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 3 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows 2 3mm glass
3 roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to House Type1 Page 1 1:58 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment B3
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 38.5 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit House 4
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed 3
Floor area, Sf : 10.80 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 15.27 19 31 35 32 29 23 14 385] 00 1 | 14 | 18 24 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/15 23 14 3 -2 -10 -17/ 24 9
2|windows 2.97 19 31 35 32 29 23 14 385] 00 11 | 03 | 14 7 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24/23/10 18 18 10 6 1 -8] 22 19
3|roof 10.80 19 31 35 32 29 23 14 385] 0.0 11 | 1.0 | 17 23 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/12 18 10 1 -10 -18 -34] 20 7
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 1825 20-11 8
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows 2 3mm glass
3|roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm
Mech to House Type1
Page 1
21/03/2017
1:58 PM
Page 68
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment B4
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 38.2 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit House 3
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed 3
Floor area, Sf : 10.54 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 12.48 18 31 35 31 29 23 14 38.2 0.0 11 1.2 17 23 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 14 22 13 2 -4 -12 -18 23 7
2 windows 2.88 18 31 35 31 29 23 14 38.2 0.0 11 0.3 11 17 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 10 18 18 10 6 0 -9 22 19
3 roof 10.54 18 31 35 31 29 23 14 38.2 0.0 11 1.0 16 22 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 11 18 10 0 -10 -18 -34 19 7
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 25.9 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 17 24 20 11 7 0 -8 26 20
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 4 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows 2 3mm glass
3 roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to House Type2 Page 1 1:58 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment B4
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 38.2 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit House 3
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed 3
Floor area, Sf : 10.54 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 12.48 18 31 35 31 29 23 14 382] 00 mW | 12 | 17 23 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/14 22 13 2 4 -12 18] 23 7
2|windows 2.88 18 31 35 31 29 23 14 382] 00 11 | 03 | 11 17 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24/23/10 18 18 10 6 O -9] 22 19
3|roof 10.54 18 31 35 31 29 23 14 382] 00 11 | 1.0 | 16 22 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/11 18 10 0 -10 -18 -34] 19 7
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 24 TH 8
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows 2 3mm glass
3|roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator SMPv6.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Mech to House Type2 Page 1 1:58 PM
Page 69
7. Attachment C - Internal Noise Level Calculations From IGA
Loading Area to Houses
8816R02V01.docx 13
Page 70
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment C1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 51.7 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit House 3
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed 3
Floor area, Sf : 10.54 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 12.48 30 38 45 46 44 46 36 51.7 0.0 24 1.2 31 37 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 26 29 23 16 12 12 3 32 21
2 windows 2.88 30 38 45 46 44 46 36 51.7 0.0 24 0.3 24 30 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 21 26 28 24 21 24 13 33 33
3 roof 10.54 30 38 45 46 44 46 36 51.7 0.0 24 1.0 30 36 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 23 25 20 15 5 5 -12 28 20
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 25.9 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 28 32 30 25 22 24 13 36 33
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is -6 worse
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows 2 3mm glass
3 roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Loading Dock to House Type2 Page 1 1:58 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lealhr -> Leq,Lhr Correction: 0 Attachment C1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 30.0 dBA
Maximum outside Level : 517 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit House 3
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed 3
Floor area, Sf : 10.54 m? I I I I I I ]
[Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 12.48 30 38 45 46 44 46 36 517 | 00 24 | 12 | 31 37 25 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/26 29 23 16 12 12 3] 32 21
2|windows 2.88 30 38 45 46 44 46 36 517 | 0.0 24 | 03 | 24 30 25 10 14 18 23 24 24 24] 23/21 26 28 24 21 24 13] 33 33
3|roof 10.54 30 38 45 46 44 46 36 517] 0.0 24 | 10 | 30 36 25 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/23 25 20 15 5 5 -12] 28 20
4 8.5 0.0 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
30 32 22 13.
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is worse
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows 2 3mm glass
3|roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm
Loading Dock to House Type2
Page 1
21/03/2017
1:58 PM
Page 71
8. Attachment D - Internal Noise Level Calculations From
Hotel Carpark to Linea Houses
8816R02V01.docx 14
Page 72
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment D1
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, L1
Maximum outside Level : 55.4 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 4 Unit Linea House
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed 1
Floor area, Sf : 11.84 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 14.50 34 38 49 51 49 43 35 55.4 0.0 18 1.2 26 32 34 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 30 29 27 22 17 9 3 34 25
2 windows east 5.67 34 38 49 51 49 43 35 55.4 0.0 18 0.5 22 28 34 18 22 26 29 29 32 40 33 20 20 27 26 24 15 -1 32 29
3 roof 11.84 34 38 49 51 49 43 35 55.4 0.0 18 1.0 25 31 34 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 27 25 24 20 10 2 -13 31 24
4 windows north 4.07 29 33 44 46 44 38 30 50.4 0.0 13 0.3 15 21 34 18 22 26 29 29 32 40 33 14 14 21 20 18 9 -8 25 22
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 36.1 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
40 32 31 32 29 26 17 5 38 32
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 2 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows east 2 10mm glass
3 roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4 windows north 2 10mm glass
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Hotel Carpark to Linea Bed 1 Page 1 1:59 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :
Leg, thr
Leq, hr
Correction: 0
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Attachment D1
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, L1
Maximum outside Level : 55.4 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 4 Unit Linea House
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed 1
Floor area, Sf : 11.84 m? I I I I I I ]
|—overail 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 14.50 3438 49 «51 49 43 35 554 |] 0.0 18 | 1.2 | 26 32 34 12.17 30 37 40 42 40/41/30 29 27 22 17 9 3] 34 25
2|windows east 5.67 34 38 «49 51 49 43 35 554] 0.0 18 | 05 | 22 28 34 18 22 26 29 29 32 40/33] 20 20 27 26 24 15 -1| 32 29
3|roof 11.84 34 38 49 51 49 43 35 554] 0.0 18 | 1.0 | 25 31 34 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/27 25 24 20 10 2 -13| 31 24
4|windows north 4.07 29 33 44 46 44 38 30 504] 0.0 13 | 03 | 15 21 34 18 22 26 29 29 32 40/33/14 14 21 20 18 9 25 22
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
32__31 226 7 ~=5
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 2 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows east 2 40mm glass
3|roof 2 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4|windows north 2 40mm glass
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator SMPv6.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Hotel Carpark to Linea Bed 1 Page 1 1:59 PM
Page 73
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment D2
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, L1
Maximum outside Level : 46.9 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed 2
Floor area, Sf : 8.70 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 4.68 27 30 41 43 40 34 28 46.9 0.0 9 0.5 12 18 35 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 19 17 16 10 5 -4 -8 23 13
2 windows south 2.52 27 30 41 43 40 34 28 46.9 0.0 9 0.3 10 16 35 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 18 18 25 22 18 12 5 28 28
3 roof 8.70 27 30 41 43 40 34 28 46.9 0.0 9 1.0 15 21 35 14 20 32 38 46 48 55 41 20 17 16 12 1 -7 -20 23 15
4 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 15.9 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
40 24 22 26 22 18 12 5 30 28
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 10 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 1 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows south 1 10mm glass
3 roof 1 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Hotel Carpark to Linea Bed 2 Page 1 2:00 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment D2
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, L1
Maximum outside Level : 46.9 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed 2
Floor area, Sf : 8.70 m? I I I I I I ]
.[_ Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 05 051051051051 05| 0.5] 0.5 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 JABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 468 2730 41 +43 40 34 28 469 | 0.0 9 05 | 12 18 35 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/19 17 16 10 5 4 8/| 23 13
2|windows south 2.52 27 30 41 43 40 34 28 469] 0.0 9 0.3 | 10 16 35 10 14 18 23 24 24 24) 23/18 18 25 22 18 12 5 | 28 28
3|roof 8.70 27 30 41 43 40 34 28 469] 0.0 9 10 | 15 21 35 14 20 32 38 46 48 55/41/20 17 16 12 1 -7 -20] 23 15
4 8.5 o | 00 | o 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 o | 00 | o 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
22 22 25
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is [10 ]better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 1 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows south 1 40mm glass
3|roof 1 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm
Hotel Carpark to Linea Bed 2
Page 1
21/03/2017
2:00 PM
Page 74
Determine façade TL & Rw's using AS3671 & Other Calcs Write in yellow areas only. ####
External to Internal : Leq,1hr -> Leq,1hr2 Correction : 0 Includes Façade Reflection
FALSE Attachment D3
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, L1
Maximum outside Level : 47.0 dBA ID 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House
Height, h : 2.4 m Room Bed
Floor area, Sf : 59.16 m2
Overall 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Reverb time, T :
0.85 0.6 0.65 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.9 secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 dBA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K Value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area (sqm) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM (AS2021) TNR Sc/Sf TNAc Rw Internal Level 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k Rw 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k SUM Rw method
1 external walls 74.10 29 31 41 42 40 37 32 47.0 0.0 10 1.3 19 25 35 12 17 30 37 40 42 40 41 25 23 21 16 11 6 3 29 19
2 windows east 8.40 29 31 41 42 40 37 32 47.0 0.0 10 0.1 9 15 35 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 18 17 24 21 18 14 9 28 27
3 windows north 22.32 24 26 36 37 35 32 27 42.0 0.0 5 0.4 8 14 35 10 14 18 23 24 24 24 23 17 16 23 20 17 13 8 27 27
4 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
10 8.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -91 0
Total Area : 104.8 Overall Internal Noise Level : Overall Internal Noise Level :
40 27 25 28 24 21 17 12 33 30
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is 7 better
Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 1 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2 windows east 1 3mm glass
3 windows north 1 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm 21/03/2017
Hotel Carpark to Linea Living Page 1 2:00 PM
[OCR of page images]
Determine facade TL & Rw’s using AS3671&OtherCales -—=—=—=Write inyellowareasonly. = ####
External to Internal :_Lea-1hr -> Leg, Ihr Correction: 0 Attachment D3
leaved ticked for AS2021 calcs
Desired Inside Level : 40.0 dBA, L1
Maximum outside Level : 47.0 dBA 1D 8816
Total number of elements : 3 Unit Linea House
Height, h : 24 m Room Bed
Floor area, Sf : 59.16 m? I I I I I I ]
.[_ Overall 63 | 125] 250] 500] 1k | 2k | 4k
Reverb time, T: 0.85 0.6 [0.65/08] 1 | 1 [09] 0.9 |secs
NR -> Rw correction: 6 ABA (cars = 6, aircraft = 5, rail = 6, 8 or 12)
Proposed
External Level dBA *K value Calculated TL of Element dB Internal Level dBA
# Element Name Area(sqm) | 63 | 125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM |(AS2021)| TNR | Sc/Sf|TNAc| Rw Internal Level__| 63 [125] 250/500 1k | 2k | 4k [ Rw| 63 [125] 250[500| 1k | 2k | 4k | SUM | Rwmethod
1 external walls 74.10 29 31 41 +42 40 37 32 470 / 00 to | 13 | 19 25 35 12 17 30 37 40 42 40/41/25 23 21 16 11 6 3 29 19
2|windows east 8.40 29 31 41 42 40 37 32 47.0] 00 10 | 01 | 9 15 35 10 14 18 23 24 24 24/23/18 17 24 21 18 14 9 | 28 27
3|windows north 22.32 24 26 36 37 35 32 27 420] 00 5 | 04] 8 14 35 10 14 18 23 24 24 24/23/17 16 23 20 17 13 8 | 27 27
4 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
5 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
6 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
7 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
8 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
9 8.5 0 0.0 | 0 0 0 99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99] -91 0
10 8.5 0 oo | 0 0 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99| -91 0
Total Area : Overall Internal Noise Level Overall Internal Noise Level :
2725 242117 ~12
with proposed system
Internal Noise Level is better
[Element Category Details on Element Construction and Shielding Effects
1 external walls 1 FC sheet + studs + plasterboard
2|windows east 1 3mm glass
3|windows north 1 metal roof, insulation cavity, plasterboard
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8816_AS3671 and AS2021 Facade Calculator_SMPv5.1.xlsm
Hotel Carpark to Linea Living
Page 1
21/03/2017
2:00 PM
Page 75
Attachment IV
Previously Approved Bushfire Management Plan
dated February 2015
[OCR of page images]
Attachment IV
Previously Approved Bushfire Management Plan
dated February 2015
Page 76
• TOWN PLANNING
• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
• ENVIRONMENTAL
(07) 5443 5566 • LIQUOR LICENSING
[email protected]
Bushfire Management Plan
Prepared for:
Peregian Village Market Scanlon Property Group
215 David Low Way
c/o - PO Box 38
Peregian Beach, QLD
Nundah, QLD 4012
Lot 77 on RP231615
T: 0435 769 060
DFS Ref: 15013
February 2015
Page 77
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 3
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................. 5
3.0 SUBJECT SITE ........................................................................ 7
3.1 Property Description ............................................................................... 7
3.2 Topography ............................................................................................. 7
3.3 Site Access ............................................................................................... 7
3.4 Vegetation communities ....................................................................... 7
4.0 BUSHFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT ......................................... 9
4.1 Current Hazard classification ................................................................ 9
4.2 On-site Hazard Assessment ................................................................... 9
4.3 Qualitative Hazard Assessment .......................................................... 15
4.4 Quantitative Risk Modelling................................................................. 18
5.0 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................ 21
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 21
5.2 Asset Protection Zones (APZs) ............................................................. 21
5.3 Bushfire Attack Levels and Construction Standards ....................... 24
5.4 Water supply and Utilities ..................................................................... 25
5.5 Access and Egress Management ...................................................... 25
5.6 Fire Breaks ............................................................................................... 25
6.0 ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL AGAINST THE NATURAL
HAZARDS OVERLAY CODE .............................................................. 26
7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 30
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 1
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 78
TABLES
Table 1 - Hazard scores and associated fire behaviours for various vegetation
communities (Table A3.1 App 3 SPP1/03) ......................................................................... 11
Table 2 - Hazard Score Vs Severity of Bushfire Hazard (Table A3.2 App 3 SPP1/03) . 12
Table 3 - Hazard Score Vs Severity of Bushfire Hazard (Table A3.4 App 3 SPP1/03) . 13
Table 4 – Results of hazard assessment for Sub-unit 1 ..................................................... 13
Table 5 – Results of hazard assessment for Sub-unit 2 ..................................................... 15
Table 6 – Potential Bushfire Intensity Classifications (Leonard et al. 2014) .................. 19
Table 7 – Anticipated severity of bushfire attack ............................................................ 20
Table 8 – APZ setback recommendations ........................................................................ 22
Table 9 – Description of Bushfire Attack Levels (BALs) (AS3959- 2009) ......................... 24
Table 10 – Compliance with the Natural hazards overlay code .................................. 27
Table 11 – Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................... 30
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Locality plan ............................................................................................................4
Figure 2 – Proposed development layout ............................................................................6
Figure 3 – Natural Hazards Overlay Mapping .................................................................. 10
Figure 4 – Hazard Score for Aspect (Figure A3.1 App 3 SPP1/03) ................................. 12
Figure 5 – Hazard Assessment Sub-units ............................................................................. 14
Figure 6 – Revised Hazard Assessment Mapping ............................................................. 16
Figure 7 – Potential flammable pathways......................................................................... 17
Figure 8 – Components of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) ........................................... 21
Figure 9 – Recommended Asset Protection Zones (APZs) ............................................. 23
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 2
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 79
1.0 INTRODUCTION
DFS Group (DFS) has been commissioned by Scanlon Property Group to prepare a
Bushfire Management Plan for land at 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach (hereafter
referred to as the ‘subject site’) (Figure 1).
The subject site covers approximately 2.313ha of land and is formally described as Lot 77
on RP231615. The landowner has a development permit from Noosa Shire Council
(MCU13/0251) to develop a 5,800m2 portion of the subject site for the purposes of a retail
centre.
The Noosa Plan (2006) maps the subject site as containing areas of Medium Bushfire
Hazard and therefore any development of the site requires the preparation of a compliant
Bushfire Management Plan which demonstrates that bushfire risk management has been
comprehensively addressed.
This Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) assesses the nature and proximity of the potential
bushfire hazard to the subject site with reference to the State Planning Policy 1/03
Guideline – Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and Landslide (SPP 1/03
Guideline).
Bushfire protection measures to be undertaken are compared against the requirements of
the Natural hazards overlay code within the Noosa Plan (2006). These measures relate to
construction and maintenance of asset protection zones and landscaping areas, site
access arrangements and water supply.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 3
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 80
FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION Scanlon Property Group Lot 77 RP231615 February 2015 / Our Ref: 15013 [OCR of page images] Le £ we nan % e 2 Weyba Downs @ 5 os } @ Verrierdale @ Peregian Springs 0 2km 4km Experimental Farm Yandina Creek Google Sunrise Beach Marcus Beach 9 ? 215 David Low Way 9 Coolum Beach Point Arkwright FIGURE 1 — SITE LOCATION Scanlon Property Group Lot 77 RP231615 February 2015 / Our Ref: 15013 a DFS GROUP INTEGRITY + EXCELLENCE * SUCCESS
Page 81
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The landowner has a development permit from Noosa Shire Council to develop a 5,800m2
area in the south-eastern potion of the subject site for the purposes of a retail centre. The
development will be accessed from an existing unnamed road adjacent to the southern
site boundary.
The proposed development layout is shown in Figure 2.
As part of the approval, 0.53ha of land in the western portion of the site and bordering the
Noosa National Park will be rehabilitated in accordance with an Ecological Restoration
Plan (Gondwana Ecology Group 2015) and dedicated to the Crown (with Council as
Trustee) for parkland for environmental protection purposes pursuant to the Land Act 1994.
The balance area of the subject site (1.203ha) will remain in an undeveloped state and
maintained as lawns/gardens for the foreseeable future. However, the balance area may
be subject to future development. This BMP therefore considers the approved
development as well as potential impacts on the balance land.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 5
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 82
LEGEND mmm SITE BOUNDARY memomme = RETAIL CENTRE BOUNDARY mm mm = DEDICATION AREA ae SA Pi INTEGRITY - EXCELLENCE « SUCCESS T 07 5443 5566 F 07 5443 9977 me Figure 2 - Development Layout PROIECT Peregian Village Market Scanlon Property Group 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach sone 000 @ AS Hp
Page 83
3.0 SUBJECT SITE
3.1 Property Description
Site ID: Lot 77 RP231615
Address of property: 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Local Government Area: Noosa Shire Council
Total Area: approx. 23,130m2
Current use: Residential & Undeveloped (Previously a Caravan
Park)
Zoning: Semi-detached housing & Open space recreation
The subject land has a total area of approx. 23,130m2, is roughly rectangular in shape with
a front boundary width of approx. 145m, including a frontage of about 65 metres to David
Low Way, and a rear boundary width of about 155 metres. The site is about 150 metres
deep measured along its southern boundary, and about 185 metres deep measured
along its northern boundary.
The approved commercial development will cover a total area of 5,800m2 (Figure 2) and
is proposed to include a supermarket, specialty retail stores and up to 85 car parking
spaces.
3.2 Topography
The topography of the subject is generally flat (<5%) with a gentle fall towards Noosa
National Park which occurs immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the site.
Land in the western portion of the site and in the adjacent National Park is low-lying,
comprised of sedgeland/fernland and closed wet heath vegetation. Low-lying areas were
partially inundated during the site inspection and are considered likely to contain areas of
standing water for large portions of the year.
3.3 Site Access
Access to the site is currently directly from an unnamed road adjacent to the southern site
boundary. The proposed development and the balance lot will maintain access to this
unnamed road. The balance lot will likely have a gate, chain or removable bollards
installed to prevent unauthorised access.
3.4 Vegetation communities
3.4.1 On-site Vegetation
The area to be dedicated to council is currently vegetated by a mixture of Broad-leaved
paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Closed wet heath species, particularly ferns,
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 7
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 84
sedges and grass trees (Xanthorrhoea sp.).The balance area of the subject site is
comprised of scattered trees, predominately Broad-leaved paperbark within a maintained
lawn setting.
An aerial photograph of the subject site is provided in Figure 2.
3.4.2 Surrounding Vegetation
In accordance with the SPP 1/03 Guideline, all vegetated areas within 100m of the
proposed development were also assessed during the site investigations.
The site occurs immediately adjacent and to the east of a section of the Noosa National
Park. This portion of the National Park is comprised of a large expanse of low-lying and
partially inundated sedgeland/fernland and closed wet heath communities (Figure 2). This
low-lying area is fringed by a thin (10-20m wide) strip of Paperbark forest along the eastern
edge.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 8
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 85
4.0 BUSHFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT
4.1 Current Hazard classification
The Natural Hazard Overlay Mapping within the Noosa Shire Plan (2006) maps a portion of
the site as a “Medium Bushfire Hazard” (Figure 3).
4.2 On-site Hazard Assessment
4.2.1 Introduction
The State Planning Policy 1/03 Guideline – Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood,
Bushfire and Landslide (SPP 1/03 Guideline) can be used to determine appropriate
bushfire hazard classifications for different sectors of the site and its immediate vicinity. The
SPP 1/03 Guideline identifies three features of the landscape that strongly contribute
towards the behaviour of bushfires:
1. vegetation community structure/composition;
2. slope; and
3. aspect.
4.2.2 Methodology
Appendix 3 of State Planning Policy: Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and
Landslide (2003), utilises a scoring system to assess bushfire risk based on the three loading
factors of vegetation type, slope and site aspect.
4.2.2.1 Vegetation Type
The structure and composition of vegetation communities determine the rate at which dry
fuel accumulates. Some vegetation communities protect fuel from drying out in all but
extreme bushfire seasons, making the vegetation susceptible to very destructive bushfires,
whilst other vegetation communities may expose fuels to drying and therefore be
frequently available for burning.
The characteristics of different vegetation communities are reflected in Table 1. This table
also presents the hazard scores for a range of vegetation communities.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 9
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 86
FIGURE 3 – NATURAL HAZARD OVERLAY MAPPING
(NOOSA PLAN 2006)
Scanlon Property Group
Lot 77 RP231615
February 2015 / DFS Ref: 15013
Page 87
Table 1 - Hazard scores and associated fire behaviours for various vegetation communities (Table
A3.1 App 3 SPP1/03)
Vegetation communities1 Fire behaviour Hazard score
Wet sclerophyll forest, tall Infrequent fires under severe conditions, 10
eucalypts (>30 m), with grass flame lengths may exceed 40 m, floating
and mixed shrub understorey. embers attack structures for 1 hour,
radiant heat and direct flame are
destructive for 30 minutes.
Paperbark heath and Fire intensity depends on fuel 8
swamps, eucalypt forest with accumulation, but can be severe, with
dry-shrub ladder fuels. flame lengths to 20 m, spot fires frequent
across firebreaks, radiant heat and direct
flame for 15 minutes.
Grassy eucalypt and acacia Fire intensity may be severe with flame 6
forest, exotic pine plantations, lengths to 20 m, but less attack from
cypress pine forests, wallum embers.
heath.
Native grasslands (ungrazed), Fast moving fires, available to fire annually 5
open woodlands, canefields. to 4 years. Usually no ember attack,
radiant heat for >10m, duration <2
minutes.
Intact acacia forests, with Fires infrequent, usually burn only under 4
light grass to leaf litter, severe conditions, relatively slow fires,
disturbed rainforest. usually little ember attack.
Orchards, farmlands, kikuyu Fires very infrequent, slow moving, may be 2
pastures. difficult to extinguish, frequent fire breaks.
Grazed grasslands, slashed Grazing reduces intensity and rate of 2
grass. spread of fire, duration <2 minutes.
Desert lands (sparse fuels), Gaps in fuel, usually slow fire spread. 1
mowed grass.
Intact rainforest, mangrove Virtually fireproof. 0
forest, intact riverine
rainforest.
1 Vegetation assessment should be based upon examination of the vegetation on the subject site and surrounding the subject site.
Narrow strips of vegetation may be flammable; however, bushfires will not generally reach their full intensity where bushfire fronts
are less than 100 metres wide. For this reason the following examples may be viewed as having the next lower hazard score (i.e.
paperbark heath would have a score of 6 not 8, cypress pine forest 5 not 6):
areas with a linear shape (e.g. roadside vegetation beside a cleared paddock); and
units of vegetation less than 50 hectares in area and more than one kilometre from the nearest extensive vegetation.
4.2.2.2 Slope
As a general rule, bushfire intensity and the rate of spread of bushfires rises in proportion to
slope, with bushfires burning faster uphill and slower downhill. Studies have shown that the
speed and intensity of fires moving up slopes generally doubles every 10 degrees of slope
(SPP1/03). Steeper slopes also increase the difficulty of constructing ring roads and
firebreaks and limit the access for emergency crews.
Table 2 presents the hazard scores for different categories of slope.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 11
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 88
Table 2 - Hazard Score Vs Severity of Bushfire Hazard (Table A3.2 App 3 SPP1/03)
Slope Hazard Score
Gorges and mountains (>30%) 5
Steep hills (>20% to 30%) 4
Rolling hills (>10% to 20%) 3
Undulating (>5% to 10%) 2
Plain (0% to 5%) 1
4.2.2.3 Aspect
Aspect affects bushfire hazard due to the effects that exposure to direct sunlight has on
different vegetation communities, including the drying rates of fuels. Aspect also correlates
closely with exposure to low humidity winds that increase bushfire intensity. The intensity
and rate of spread of bushfires tends to be greater on slopes with north to westerly
aspects, although this influence is not considered to be discernible on land with a slope
less than 5%.
Figure 4 illustrates the compass degree ranges and corresponding hazard scores for each
aspect category.
Figure 4 – Hazard Score for Aspect (Figure A3.1 App 3 SPP1/03)
4.2.2.4 Combined Scores
The cumulative total of all three loading factors is used to determine a specific site’s
severity of bushfire hazard. Table 3 describes the range of SPP1/03 bushfire hazard levels
and their respective total hazard scores.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 12
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 89
Table 3 - Hazard Score Vs Severity of Bushfire Hazard (Table A3.4 App 3 SPP1/03)
Total Hazard Score Severity of Bushfire Hazard
13 or greater High
6 to 12.5 Medium
1 to 5.5 Low
Note – Land within 50m of an identified Medium severity bushfire hazard area is included within that
identified Medium severity bushfire hazard area and land within 100m of an identified High severity bushfire
hazard area is included within that identified High severity bushfire hazard area.
4.2.3 Site Assessment
Several investigative tools were utilised to determine the site specific bushfire hazard risk
including:
A review of local aerial photography;
A review of site and local topography;
A review of DERM Remnant Regional Ecosystem Mapping; and
An inspection of the site on the 12th February 2015.
The risk assessment comprised an analysis of the site and the surrounding lands (i.e. within
100m) characteristic bushfire risk loading factors in accordance with the Appendix 3 SPP
1/03 scoring system.
The area of interest was divided into a number of sub-units, based on variances in
vegetation communities, slope or aspect (Figure 5). Total hazard scores were then
determined for each sub-unit to identify areas of High, Medium and Low bushfire hazard
within the site locality (Tables 4 & 5 below). Existing cleared areas, roadways, lawns and
gardens were not considered to have a significant influence in increasing bushfire risk and
were automatically allocated low bushfire hazard rating.
4.2.3.1 Sub-unit 1 (SU1)
Table 4 – Results of hazard assessment for Sub-unit 1
Characteristic Description Hazard Score
Vegetation Paperbark heath/swamp 61
Slope <5% 1
Aspect North-west to west 3
Total 10
Bushfire Hazard Rating Medium
1 Narrow strips of vegetation may be flammable; however, bushfires will not generally reach their full intensity where bushfire fronts are less than 100
metres wide. For this reason the following examples may be viewed as having the next lower hazard score:
areas with a linear shape (e.g. roadside vegetation beside a cleared paddock); and
units of vegetation less than 50 hectares in area and more than one kilometre from the nearest extensive vegetation.
As Sub-unit 1 occurs as a thin strip of swamp forest (i.e. <100m wide) it has been allocated the next lower hazard score.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 13
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 90
LEGEND mmm mm STE BOUNDARY mmm mmm = RETAIL CENTRE BOUNDARY mmm mmm =DEDICATION AREA mmm mem = EXTENT OF HAZARD ASSESSMENT IF LZ, SUBUNIT 4 (SU1) G6 ALL TD EZ, JZ, SUBUNIT 2 (SU2) GEE OLE DI A FORCLENT REMEW 17400-2015 AM AM ISSUE AMENDMENT DATE ORWNGHKD SAE DoS ILLUSTRATED FV THESE DOCUMENTS fS THE EXCLLSWE mOPEATY INTEGRITY - EXCELLENCE « SUCCESS T 07 5443 5566 F 07 5443 9977 [email protected] dfs.com.au me Figure 5 - Hazard Assessment Sub-units PROIECT Peregian Village Market Scanlon Property Group 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach SCALE 1:2000 @ A3 (DRAWING NO’ Figure 5 PROJECT NO. _ 15013
Page 91
4.2.3.2 Sub-unit 2 (SU2)
Table 5 – Results of hazard assessment for Sub-unit 2
Characteristic Description Hazard Score
Vegetation Wallum heath 6
Slope <5% 1
Aspect North-west to west 3
Total 10
Bushfire Hazard Rating Medium
4.2.4 Results
Paperbark and wallum heath vegetation in the western portion of the subject site, and
large expanses of similar vegetation in the adjacent Noosa National Park have been
assigned a Medium bushfire hazard in accordance with the Appendix 3 SPP 1/03 scoring
system. After factoring in standard 50m safety buffers adjacent to Medium bushfire hazard
areas, a large portion of the site is captured within a Medium bushfire hazard area (Figure
6).
4.3 Qualitative Hazard Assessment
In Queensland, wildfires can occur at any time of the year, however the fire season usually
coincides with progressive drying following the autumn rain season, peaking during the
spring months of more severe fire weather, and concluding with the arrival of more regular
storm events and rain in late spring and summer. On the east coast, this peak fire season is
characterised by frequent dry northerly to westerly winds and lower humidity.
It is also important to assess the length of fire run to grasp an understanding of the scale of
fires that may be able to eventuate in a particular area. The length of fire run influences
the area in which a fire has to develop and reach its potential maximum intensity for the
conditions prevailing at the time of the fire. Fire runs less than 1km in length may be safely
regarded as having a lesser risk than longer fire runs.
Fire runs may be modified by natural features such as creeks, swampy wet areas, rock
formation or wet vegetation types depending on weather conditions and how dry fuel is.
Fire runs may also be limited by roads, firebreaks or active intervention of fire suppression
techniques such as lighting of backing fires from control lines.
The fire runs to the site are >1km, and under predominant regional fire weather winds from
the north to west, there are continuous flammable pathways to the subject site (Figure 7).
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 15
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 92
LEGEND mmm SITE BOUNDARY mmm mmm = RETAIL CENTRE BOUNDARY mmm = DEDICATION AREA mem = EXTENT OF HAZARD ASSESSMENT. | MEDIUM BUSHFIRE HAZARD LITE; MEDIUM HAZARD BUFFER WY, VEGETA Soo Saas” See DeSION ILLUSTRATED FV THESE DOCUMENTS THE EXCLUS POF INTEGRITY - EXCELLENCE « SUCCESS T 07 5443 5566 F 07 5443 9977 [email protected] dfs.com.au me Figure 6 - Revised Bushfire Hazard Mapping PROIECT Peregian Village Market Scanlon Property Group 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach SCALE 1:2000 @ A3 (DRAWING NO: Figure 6 PROJECT NO. _ 15013
Page 93
Legend
Higher Risk Flammable Pathways
Lower Risk Flammable Pathways
FIGURE 7 – POTENTIAL FLAMMABLE PATHWAYS
Scanlon Property Group
Lot 77 RP231615
February 2015 / DFS Ref: 15013
Page 94
The site is contiguous with hazardous vegetation to the west (i.e. based on the results of
the above hazard assessment completed in accordance with the SPP 1/03 Guideline),
and although this vegetation occurs in a low-lying area and was partially inundated
during the site inspection, it was considered that during extended drought periods this
vegetation may pose a bushfire risk to the site.
Based on the above, it is considered that although the Noosa Plan (2006) bushfire hazard
mapping assigns a Moderate bushfire hazard to a portion of the site, the site specific
hazard assessment completed in accordance with the SPP 1/03 Guideline determined
that vegetation within Noosa National Park to the immediate west of the site also has a
Moderate Bushfire Hazard rating, and there is a risk that a severe bushfire impacting on the
site.
Quantitative modelling has therefore been completed below to determine the potential
impacts of a bushfire in the event of a fire head impacting on the site from hazardous
vegetation to the west.
4.4 Quantitative Risk Modelling
4.4.1 Background
Modelling of the potential bushfire conditions that may be experienced at the subject site
was undertaken. The models used comprise industry standard bushfire equations.
Modelled scenarios comprised bushfire encroachment through existing vegetation from
the west towards the site.
This modelling objectively calculates and determines the potential nature and severity of
bushfire attack more thoroughly than described by SPP 1/03 above and serves as a basis
for determining the construction and other bushfire protection measures detailed in the
Bushfire Management Plan (Section 5.0).
4.4.2 Site Specific Input Parameters
The modelling utilises the slope and aspect parameters collected during the SPP 1/03
assessment above combined with a Fire Danger Index1 for the Sunshine Coast region
sourced from the Australian Standard AS 3959- 2009 - Construction of buildings in bushfire
prone areas, and potential fuel loads derived from Leonard et al. (2014).
The following industry standard bushfire equations were utilised:
1 The Australian Standard AS3959: 2009 defines Fire Danger Index as the chance of a fire starting, its rate of
spread, its intensity and the difficulty of its suppression, according to various combinations of air temperature,
relative humidity, wind speed and both the long and short term drought effects.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 18
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 95
4.4.2.1 Rate of Spread
Shrub and heath – R = 0.023 *V1.21*VH0.54 (Catchpole et al. 1998)
Where
R = rate of spread (km/hr)
V = Average wind speed at 10m above the ground (km/h)
(Note: for heath vegetation, a nominal value of 45km/h shall be used)
VH = average height of classified vegetation (m)
4.4.2.2 Fire Intensity
I = H*W*R/36 (Byram 1959)
Where
I = fire intensity (kW/m)
H = heat of combustion (kJ/kg) - approximated as 18,600 kJ/kg
W = overall fuel loads (t/ha)
Potential bushfire intensity was then classified according to the categories outlines in Table
6 below.
Table 6 – Potential Bushfire Intensity Classifications (Leonard et al. 2014)
Potential Bushfire Intensity Class Potential Fire-line Intensity
Very High (potential intensity) 40,000+ kW/m
High (potential intensity) 20,000 – 40,000 kW/m
Medium (potential intensity) 4,000 – 20,000 kW/m
4.4.2.3 Flame Length
Shrub and heath – Lf = 0.0775I0.46
Where
Lf = flame length (m)
I = fire intensity (kW/m)
4.4.3 Results – Anticipated severity of bushfire attack
The calculated values for potential bushfire characteristics at the site are provided in Table
7 below.
The modelling predicts slow moving, but very high potential intensity fires from the west
with predicted maximum flame lengths of approx. 10.5m.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 19
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 96
Table 7 – Anticipated severity of bushfire attack
Direction of Rate of Spread (R) Fire Intensity (I) Flame length (Lf)
Approach
R = 0.023 *
I = 18,600 *25 43,271 kW/m
West 100.089 * 3.35km/hr Lf = 0.0775I0.46 Lf = 10.52m
*3.35/36 (very high)
1.454
It is worth noting that the results of the modelling are for a credible worst case fire scenario
impacting on the property. The results could be equated to a 1 in 50 year event which is
the recognised level of planning recognised as being appropriate by the Australian
Bushfire Council. The majority of fires occurring within a 50 year timeframe would not reach
the intensity predicted in this worst case scenario, and would likely be contained and
extinguished by fire authorities before it reached its maximum potential intensity and rate
of spread.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 20
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 97
5.0 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
5.1 Introduction
The following section describes bushfire risk reduction measures to be utilised at the subject
site to reduce the risk of bushfire impact to people and property. The scope of referenced
bushfire mitigation measures have been derived from:
Appendix 8 of State Planning Policy 1/03 ‘Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood,
Bushfire and Landslide (2003);
Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas (AS3959-1999);
Bushfire Hazard Planning in Queensland. QFRA, Brisbane (1993); and
Planning Scheme Policy No. 13: Preparation of a Bushfire Management Plan,
Maroochy Plan (2000).
5.2 Asset Protection Zones (APZs)
APZs provide a defensive tool to assist in the reduction of potential bushfire impact to
people and property situated in bushfire prone areas. For illustrative purposes Figure 8
depicts the concept of protection zones about dwellings in bushfire prone areas.
Figure 8 – Components of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ)
Asset protection zones are the most strategically valuable defence against radiant heat
and flame, and to a lesser extent, embers.
Table 8 describes the recommended Asset Protection Zones to be provided at the subject
site. Determination of the recommended Asset Protection Zone widths has been derived
from the results of flame length modelling presented previously in combination with
consideration of the practical bushfire risk acting on the site.
Whilst these APZ should prevent buildings from being subjected to direct contact from
flames, and reduced levels of radiant heat in the event of a bushfire, building construction
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 21
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 98
standards will also be key to ensuring the performance of buildings subjected to ember
attack (refer Section 5.3).
Table 8 – APZ setback recommendations
Direction Inner Protection Area (IPA) Outer Protection Area (OPA)
West 10m1 5m1
1 The combined nominated IPA and OPA is approx. 1.5x the modelled flame length distance.
The Inner Protection Area (IPA) should either be fully cleared and regularly maintained (i.e.
lawn) or retain trees as clumps or islands and provide a tree canopy cover of less than 15%
and tree canopies should be located greater than 2 metres from any part of the roofline
of a building. Any trees should have lower limbs removed up to a height of 2 metres above
the ground.
Any landscaping performed on site shall maintain the IPA effectively free of available fuel.
Landscaping plants may be used in this area so long as they are selected for their low
combustibility, by virtue of high moisture content, low volatile oil content, high leaf mineral
levels, large fleshy leaves, and absence of shedding bark. They should be placed so as to
not provide either vertical or horizontal connectedness of plant material, and avoid
overhanging rooflines or contact with flammable parts of buildings. Any planted trees
should be of species which grow to over 2m, to maintain separation between lower
canopy and the ground.
An Outer Protection Area involves removal of the understorey, so as to deprive an
advancing fire front of its fuel continuity, and thereby collapsing the fire front. The OPA
serves to reduce the potential length of flames by slowing the rate of spread, filtering
embers and reducing the likelihood of crown fire. The OPA should have understorey
managed (mowed) to treat all shrubs and grasses on an annual basis, with the exception
of the 1m wide revegetation strip (Gondwana Ecology Group 2015), in advance of the
commencement of the fire season (i.e. September).
The recommended Asset Protection Zones are shown in Figure 9.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 22
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 99
LEGEND wm SITE BOUNDARY RETAIL CENTRE BOUNDARY DEDICATION AREA INNER PROTECTION AREA OUTER PROTECTION AREA (CIENT REMEW 17-02-2015 AM AMENDMENT DAE Pi INTEGRITY - EXCELLENCE « SUCCESS T 07 5443 5566 F 07 5443 9977 me Figure 9 - Recommended Asset Protection Zones PROIECT Peregian Village Market Scanlon Property Group 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach gone 1:2000 @ A3 Hp o
Page 100
5.3 Bushfire Attack Levels and Construction Standards
5.3.1 Background
Australian Standard 3959 (2009) Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas provides
minimum construction standards for new dwellings in designated Bushfire Prone Areas. The
construction standards are intended to improve the performance of buildings subjected
to burning debris, radiant heat or flame contact. The AS3959- 2009 methodology
prescribes Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL’s) to the facades of proposed buildings to which
corresponding construction safety standards are applied. AS3959-2009 defines Bushfire
Attack Levels as:
‘A means of measuring the severity of a building’s potential exposure to ember
attack, radiant heat and direct flame contact, using increments of radiant heat
expressed in kilowatts per metre squared, which is the basis for establishing the
requirements for construction to improve protection of building elements from
attack by bushfire.’
Table 9 describes the range of available BAL’s and their related degree of potential
severity.
Table 9 – Description of Bushfire Attack Levels (BALs) (AS3959- 2009)
Heat flux exposure thresholds of Description of predicted Construction Section
Bushfire Attack
classified vegetation within bushfire attack and levels of
Level (BAL)
100m of the site exposure
There is insufficient risk to
BAL- LOW See Clause 2.2.3.2 warrant specific construction 4
requirements
BAL – 12.5 <12.5kW/m2 Ember attack 3 and 5
Increasing levels of ember
>12.5kW/ m2 attack and burning debris
BAL - 19 ignited by windborne embers 3 and 6
<19kW/m2 together with increasing heat
flux
Increasing levels of ember
>19kW/ m2 attack and burning debris
BAL - 29 ignited by windborne embers 3 and 7
<29kW/m2 together with increasing heat
flux
Increasing levels of ember
attack and burning debris
>29kW/ m2 ignited by windborne embers
BAL - 40 together with increasing heat 3 and 8
<40kW/m2 flux with the increased
likelihood of exposure to
flames
Direct exposure to flames
BAL - FZ >40kW/m2 from fire front in addition to 3 and 9
heat flux and ember attack
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 24
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 101
5.3.2 Determination of Site BAL
An assessment of the required construction standards for the approved retail centre and
any future development within the balance area of the site should be completed by an
experienced consultant/designer at the time of detailed building design, in accordance
with AS 3959-2009.
5.4 Water supply and Utilities
The availability of a reliable water supply for firefighting purposes is a vital tool in the
defence of bushfire impact. The proposed development will be connected to a
pressurised municipal town water supply and hence will be provided with a readily
accessible emergency water supply.
5.5 Access and Egress Management
Development layouts in Bushfire Prone Areas should seek to provide firefighting services
with efficient vehicular access to buildings in the event of an emergency. The proposed
development will be provided with rapid and efficient vehicular access directly from the
existing unnamed road adjacent to the southern site boundary.
New developments in bushfire prone areas should be serviced by safe access/exit points
for both residents and emergency services personnel. It is generally advocated that new
roads should have a maximum gradient of 12.5% and exclude cul-de-sacs. The
development proposal requires no new roads as the retail centre will be directly accessed
via the unnamed road.
Furthermore, in accordance with development approval conditions, a 5 metre wide
easement for access purposes will be registered against the title of the property in favour
of Council over the land area from the stub road to the park dedication area on the
subject site.
5.6 Fire Breaks
The provision of fire breaks and trails about and within a site located in a bushfire prone
area can offer an important bushfire defence measure to assist in reducing the risk and
severity of bushfire ingress to a site.
The construction of fire breaks is not considered practical or necessary in this instance.
Adequate access for firefighting purposes will be available from the proposed APZ without
the provision of specific fire trails.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 25
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
Page 102
6.0 ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL AGAINST THE NATURAL HAZARDS
OVERLAY CODE
The proposed development is assessable development for the purposes of the Natural
hazards overlay code within the Noosa Plan (2006). Assessment of compliance with the
relevant Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions of the code is provided in Table 10
below.
The proposed development was determined to be fully compliant with all Specific
Outcomes of the Natural hazards overlay code.
Bushfire Management Plan
February 2015 Page 26
215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Scanlon Property Group
The text continues on page 103.