Original source · versioned page text
Reference Documents - MCU23 0070
Very large file (15.2 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU23/0070 12 JAN 2024
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
36-38 Duke Street, Sunshine Beach
Prepared for:
Faris Cosic
Cambooya Pty Ltd
Level 14, 131 Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Report Number: J001873-001-R-Rev1
August 2023
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
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.
Full text of pages 2 to 72 (of 73)
Page 2
Cambooya Pty Ltd Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Fieldwork................................................................................................................................................. 3 5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 4 5.1 Geology & Landslide Hazard Mapping ................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Ground Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 4 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 5 6.1 Earthworks .............................................................................................................................................. 5 6.1.1 Site Preparation & Filling .................................................................................................................... 5 6.1.2 Temporary Batter slopes .................................................................................................................... 6 6.1.3 Excavatability ...................................................................................................................................... 6 6.2 Foundations ............................................................................................................................................ 6 6.2.1 Footing Design .................................................................................................................................... 6 6.2.2 Site Classification ............................................................................................................................... 7 6.3 Retaining Wall Design ............................................................................................................................ 7 6.4 Drainage & Erosion Control .................................................................................................................... 8 7.0 STABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 8 7.1 General Foundation Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 9 8.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Tables Table 1: Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients. .................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Stability Risk Levels. ............................................................................................................................ 8 Table 3: Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (Based on AGS 2007)....................................................... 8 Appendices Appendix A Site Plan Appendix B Reports of Boreholes and Explanatory Notes Appendix C Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property (AGS 2007) Appendix D A Guide to Preventing Structural Damage V3 (QBCC 2015) Appendix E Limitations J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page ii
Page 3
Cambooya Pty Ltd 1.0 INTRODUCTION As requested by JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd, on behalf of Cambooya Pty Ltd, Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) has carried out a geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment for a proposed mixed-use development at 36-38 Duke Road, Sunshine Beach. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand that the proposed development is to comprise a three to four-storey building that is to be terraced up the sloping ground surface, as shown on Image 1. The lower level on the southern two thirds of the site is anticipated to require excavations of up to about 3 m depth and retention of the upslope ground. The construction of the development will require the demolition of the existing structure and will need to be constructed so as to not impact the adjacent structures. The existing building to the east is believed to have a basement level at or close to the basement level of the proposed building on the subject site. Design drawings and foundation loads have not been provided at the time of writing; however, it is anticipated from similar type developments that foundation working loads for a four-level building will be in the order of about 1,500 kN to 2,500 kN under columns (depending on the column/wall spacing configuration). Image 1: Section view of proposed development (refer Blackburne Jackson Dwg. No. 7252-DA15) 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site has frontage to Duke Street along the southern end of the property boundary, with Douglas Lane along the northern property boundary. Mixed-use retail and residential buildings are situated to the east and west. The existing building is positioned on the southern half of the site. The topography on the northern half of the site generally comprises two breaks in slope, with measured slope angles of between 3° and 19° towards the south-east. A small retaining wall is located just to the north of the existing building. Photographs 1 to 3 show the general site conditions at the time of our investigation. Figure 1 in Appendix A displays the site layout. J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 1
Page 4
Cambooya Pty Ltd Photograph 1: Looking approximately south-east along the eastern site boundary, from Douglas Lane. Photograph 2: Looking approximately south over the centre of the site. J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 2
Page 5
Cambooya Pty Ltd
BH2
Photograph 3: Looking approximately north over the centre of the site from the western corer of the existing
building.
4.0 METHODOLOGY
Our investigation and assessment included the following:
A review of geological and landslide hazard overlay plans.
Subsurface investigation at two borehole locations.
A slope stability risk assessment in accordance with the Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS)
Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (March 2007).
4.1 Fieldwork
Fieldwork was carried out on 9 February 2023. The subsurface investigation comprised two boreholes
(designated BH1 and BH2). Borehole BH1 was drilled with a 4WD-mounted auger rig to 6 m below ground
level (BGL), and borehole BH2 was hand-augered to 1.6 m BGL.
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was undertaken adjacent to/within the boreholes to assess soil
consistency/density.
The borehole locations are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A, and Reports of Boreholes are presented in
Appendix B, together with explanatory notes. The ground conditions are discussed in Section 5.2.
The fieldwork was carried out by a geotechnical engineer from Core who logged subsurface conditions in
accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical site investigations.
J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 3
Page 6
Cambooya Pty Ltd
5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
5.1 Geology & Landslide Hazard Mapping
The Gympie Special Geology map 1 indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary aged dune quartz sand,
as shown on the extract in Image 2.
Approximate site location
Image 2: Site geology from the Gympie Special Geology Map.
The Noosa Council Landslide Hazard overlay mapping, refer Image 3, indicates that the site is within an area
of moderate to high landslide hazard (susceptibility).
Location of subject site
Image 3: Extract from Noosa Council Landslide Hazard Overlay Map.
5.2 Ground Conditions
The natural subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally comprised:
Topsoil between 0.2 m and 0.4 m thick, overlying
1
GYMPIE SPECIAL 100K 1:100,000 Geological Series. Map Sheet 9445 and Part 9545, First Edition, Department of Mines and Energy, Brisbane, 1999.
J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 4
Page 7
Cambooya Pty Ltd
Loose grading to very dense dune sand (aeolian) with layers of weakly cemented indurated sand (i.e.,
‘coffee rock’; refer below for description of coffee rock formation).
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes.
Coffee rock on the Sunshine Coast: what, where and why?
Coffee rock is the colloquial term for cemented (indurated) sand, that often has the physical characteristics of
weathered rock.
It comprises ancient alluvial / aeolian sands of the Pleistocene age (2 million to 10,000 years ago). Coffee
rock is typically dark brown in colour, and when disturbed breaks up into dark brown silty sand (hence the
colloquial name ‘coffee rock’).
Cementation in these sands is thought to have occurred as a result of the interaction of organic matter and
mineral-rich sand, e.g., flocculation at the interface of a fluctuating groundwater level.
Coffee rock can be weakly or strongly cemented and is often discontinuous and of variable strength and
thickness. It is generally of low permeability, and often associated with high ‘perched’ groundwater.
On the Sunshine Coast, coffee rock is common at many locations along the coastline, generally buried under
younger alluvial soils (e.g., dune or beach sand). Coffee rock is often exposed and re-buried in the intertidal
zone by cycles of natural sand movement.
Previous investigations have found the coffee rock to be underlain by dense, non-cemented sand in most
areas, or soft alluvial clay in some instances.
Coffee rock presents geotechnical constraints and opportunities to infrastructure development and
maintenance, e.g., excavatability, groundwater management, and foundations. It is considered a key element
in the stability of the region’s coastline, likely providing protection from erosion and storm events.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earthworks
6.1.1 Site Preparation & Filling
Prior to construction at-grade, the following works are recommended:
Strip the surface of existing vegetation and root affected soils and loose disturbed material likely to be
present following the demolition of the existing building. Localised deeper stripping/excavation may
also be required where larger tree root systems need to be removed and/or beneath the existing
building if any debris or remnant building items remain. Any organic rich topsoil must not be used as
fill in proposed building areas, however it may be used for non-structural purposes (i.e., landscaping).
‘Proof roll’ the stripped surface by several passes of a minimum 10 tonne smooth drum roller to
identify loose areas.
A suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer should carry out inspections of the
subgrade to help identify any areas of unsuitable material or weak subgrade that may be present
following stripping. Loose and/or over dry sand will require moisture adjustment and compaction.
Loose areas identified by proof rolling should be treated by over excavation and re-compaction of the
natural aeolian sand (providing these are free from organic matter).
Contractors carrying out compaction of existing subgrade will need to be aware of potential damage to
adjacent buildings due to vibration effects. Compaction may need to be carried out without vibrations. We
also recommend undertaking a condition assessment (dilapidation survey) of adjacent and neighbouring
structures prior to commencement of earthworks. It would also be prudent to confirm the foundation systems
of the adjacent properties, to ensure that these foundations are not undermined during any excavation
works.
J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 5
Page 8
Cambooya Pty Ltd Re-compaction of materials should be undertaken under ‘Level 1’ inspection and testing as detailed in Australian Standard AS3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Residential and Commercial Developments. Working platform assessments must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person (i.e., RPEQ geotechnical engineer) for large plant (e.g., cranes). 6.1.2 Temporary Batter slopes Temporary unsurcharged batters in loose to very dense sand up to 3 m vertical height should not be formed steeper than 1V:3H. Flatter batters may be required if localised instability or groundwater is encountered during construction. 6.1.3 Excavatability Cut excavations of up to about 3 m high are anticipated. Excavations within this depth range should be achievable with small to medium earthmoving equipment (i.e., 8 to 12 tonne excavators). Larger machinery will however improve production rates. Depending on the strength of cementation of the exposed indurated sand (i.e., coffee rock), ripping attachments may be required. 6.2 Foundations 6.2.1 Footing Design Conventional high-level strip and pad footings could be considered to support the proposed building, however, where footings are located along the east and west boundaries adjacent to existing structures, footings will need to be founded below the zone of influence of these structures. It is recommended that additional investigation be undertaken prior to construction, to assess foundation depths of the adjacent structures. It is likely that foundations along the east and west boundaries will require the use of a contiguous piled system (refer Section 6.3). Where high-level strip or pad footings are able to be adopted, these should be founded at least 0.4 m into the underlying very dense sand, designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 400 kPa. Footing settlements would not be expected to exceed around 1 % of footing width for pads and strips, under serviceability loads. Piles could comprise bored piers or continuous flight auger (CFA) piles. Liners may be required for bored piles to prevent the upper loose to medium dense sands from caving in. The use of driven piles (including sheet piles) is not considered suitable due to vibrational impacts on the surrounding structures. Bored or CFA piles founded in the underlying very dense sand could be designed using an ultimate bearing pressure of 1.5 MPa, and ultimate skin friction of 70 kPa. A geotechnical engineer must confirm the design bearing pressures during construction. Footing excavations must be dry and cleaned of any loose, disturbed, or saturated materials prior to pouring concrete. If any soil conditions encountered during the footing excavations are found to differ from those noted in the geotechnical investigation, Core should be notified immediately, and an assessment of the footing excavations should be carried out to assess if changes to footing design are required. All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations, batter slopes, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building or fill loads. To minimise the potential for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a plane extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/retaining walls, then rising up at 1V:1H. This requirement is illustrated in the following diagram. J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 6
Page 9
Cambooya Pty Ltd
6.2.2 Site Classification
The site classification derived in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 Residential slabs and
footings is not directly applicable to developments of this type but can provide an indication of the likely
magnitude of reactive (shrink and swell) movements associated with normal seasonal soil moisture
variations; and be used for plumbing design.
The site, in its state at the time of our investigation, would be classified as ‘Class ‘S’ in accordance with AS
2870-2011. The estimated characteristic ground surface movement due to seasonal moisture variation (‘ys’
value) is less than 20 mm.
It should be noted that the predicted order of movement is based on the existing soil profile (i.e., no cutting or
filling), and moisture content changes within soils due to normal seasonal moisture variations only (i.e., does
not consider soil settlement).
6.3 Retaining Wall Design
It is anticipated that the use of a contiguous piled system will be required to support cut excavations, and to
transfer proposed structure loads beneath the zone of influence of footings of the adjacent structures (on the
eastern and western site boundaries).
The design of flexible retaining walls (either fully cantilevered, or single propped) may be undertaken using a
triangular pressure distribution and the earth pressure coefficients provided in Table 1.
Flexible walls are those which are free to rotate or tilt (i.e., cantilevered walls or single anchored or propped
walls) and should be designed using an ‘active’ earth pressure coefficient (Ka). Where the walls are rigid and
cannot rotate or tilt, then an ‘at-rest’ earth pressure coefficient (K0) should be used.
Passive pressure (Kp) should be ignored where there is potential for in-ground services trenches (or similar)
in front of the wall.
Table 1: Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients.
Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Bulk Friction
Retained Material Density Angle
(kN/m3) (degrees) Kp Ko Ka
Loose sand 17 27 2.66 0.55 0.37
Medium dense Sand 18 32 3.26 0.47 0.3
Dense sand 19 37 4.02 0.4 0.25
Very dense sand 21 42 5.05 0.33 0.2
If appropriate, an allowance of 10 kPa should be made for lateral stress induced by compaction plant
operating behind the walls. The effects of surcharge should be included by multiplying the vertical pressure
developed by the surcharge by the appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient from Table 1.
J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 7
Page 10
Cambooya Pty Ltd
Drainage material behind the wall should be installed for the full height of the wall, for a width of at least
0.3 m. The material must be free draining and granular and have a perforated or slotted drainage pipe at the
heel of the wall to rapidly remove the water into the stormwater system. Alternatively, the wall will need to be
designed for the full hydrostatic pressure.
6.4 Drainage & Erosion Control
Site drainage should be designed to readily remove surface water and to prevent ponding of water.
Stormwater should be piped to an engineer-designed dissipation system. Concentrated surface water flows
(e.g., roof runoff) should be avoided.
7.0 STABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT
A qualitative slope stability risk assessment for the proposed structure has been carried out following the
AGS 2007 guidelines. The risk assessment relates to property. Relative levels of risk and their implications
are given in Table 2 below and the qualitative terminology (i.e., likelihood and consequence definitions) for
use in assessing risk to property are attached in Appendix C.
Table 2: Stability Risk Levels.
Risk Level Example Implications(1)
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research,
VERY HIGH planning and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to
VH
RISK Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than
value of property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and
H HIGH RISK implementation of treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would
cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators’ approval) but
MODERATE requires investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to
M
RISK reduce risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
L LOW RISK Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce
the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance required.
VERY LOW
VL Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
RISK
Note: (1) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the
nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.
Table 3: Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (Based on AGS 2007).
Assessed
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Comments
Risk
Shallow translational failure in the loose sands
Shallow failure of is considered Rare, and if the
soils above the recommendations in this report are
Rare Insignificant Very Low
footing zone (< 2m implemented, the consequence to property is
depth) assessed as Insignificant. The resulting
assessed risk is Very Low.
The likelihood of a deep failure through the
Deeper failure dense (or denser) sand is assessed as Rare
through soils below Rare Major Low based on the slope profile. Although the
footing depth consequence of such a failure would likely be
Major, the resultant risk is Low.
Refer Appendix C, Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix (Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007).
Subject to the implementation of the recommendations in this report, it is our opinion that there is a Very Low
to Low Risk of global instability of the remediated retaining structure assessed in accordance with the AGS
guidelines (March 2007).
J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 8
Page 11
Cambooya Pty Ltd 7.1 General Foundation Maintenance The Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC): A guide to preventing structural damage V3 (2015) is attached in Appendix D for your information. This advice should be considered in the construction and maintenance of the proposed development. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Your attention is drawn to the document, Limitations which is attached in Appendix E. Core Consultants Pty Ltd Yours sincerely, Brodie Hare Darryn Quinn MEngSc BEng(Hons) MIEAust CPEng NER RPEQ 29565 BE(Geological) MIEAust RPEQ 7602 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Associate/Principal Geotechnical Engineer BH/GAH/DQ/bh A.B.N. 75 603 384 050 J001873-001-R-Rev1 Page 9
Page 12
Appendix A Site Plan
Page 13
7079405
7079400
NE
LA
A S
U GL
7079395
DO
Breaks in slope
7079390
Small retaining wall
BH1
7079385
3º
19º
7079380 3º
BH2
Northing (m)
7079375
7079370
EXISTING BUILDING
7079365
7079360
7079355
ET
RE
ST
KE
7079350 DU
7079345
7079340
510980 510985 510990 510995 511000 511005 511010 511015 511020 511025 511030
Easting (m)
LEGEND
Denotes approximate borehole location
3º Denotes slope angle and direction
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH CORE DOCUMENT J001873-001-L-Rev0.
BASE IMAGE FROM NEARMAP
DRAWN CLIENT: CAMBOOYA PTY LTD
BH
CHECKED GAH PROJECT:
Scale (m) PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
DRAWN 21/02/2023 36-38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
0 2 4 6 8 DATE
CHECKED 22/02/2023 TITLE: SITE PLAN
DATE
ORIGINAL PROJECT NO.: FIGURE NO.: REV
A3 J001873 001 0
SIZE
Page 14
Appendix B Reports of Boreholes and Explanatory Notes
Page 15
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1
East 510993.0 m
North 7079386.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Cambooya Pty Ltd Surface RL 18.36 m AHD Logged: BH
Project Mixed-Use Development Contractor Core Consultants Pty Ltd Logged Date: 09/02/23
Location 36-38 Duke Street, Sunshine Beach Drill Rig Edson CP1 Checked: GAH
Job No. J001873 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 22/02/23
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
DCP TEST
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
18.36 SP TOPSOIL SAND trace silt trace gravel: fine grained, brown;
gravel fine to medium grained, sub-angular; grass rootlets. L
0.20
18.16 SP SAND (AEOLIAN) trace silt trace gravel: fine grained, brown to
pale brown; gravel fine to medium grained, sub-angular.
D MD
L
Augered to this depth before
1.00 commencing test
1
17.36 SP SAND (AEOLIAN) with silt: fine grained, dark grey; tending to
indurated sand.
1.50
16.86 SP SAND (AEOLIAN) with silt: fine grained, dark grey; weakly
cemented.
2
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001873-UNIT DEVELOPMENT-BH1-2.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 21/2/2023 15:52 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
Augered to this depth before
D- recommencing test
M
M
Not Encountered
ADT
3
VD
3.80
14.56 SP SAND (AEOLIAN) trace silt: fine to medium grained, brown
and orange brown.
4
L-M
4.50
13.86 SP SAND (AEOLIAN) with silt: fine grained, dark grey; weakly
cemented.
M
5
M
5.50
12.86 SM Silty SAND (AEOLIAN): fine grained, dark brown.
Augered to this depth before
6.00 recommencing test
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to consider possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 16
REPORT OF HAND AUGER BOREHOLE: BH2
East 510998.0 m
North 7079376.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Cambooya Pty Ltd Surface RL 15.90 m AHD Logged: BH
Project Mixed-Use Development Contractor Core Consultants Pty Ltd Logged Date: 09/02/23
Location 36-38 Duke Street, Sunshine Beach Drill Rig Hand Auger Checked: GAH
Job No. J001873 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 50 mm Checked Date: 22/02/23
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
DCP TEST
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
15.90 SM TOPSOIL Silty SAND: fine grained, dark brown; grass rootlets.
0.40
L
15.50 SP SAND (AEOLIAN) trace silt: fine grained, brown.
L
Not Encountered
HA
D
MD /
D
1
M-H D
1.20
14.70 Dark brown; tending to indurated sand.
>20
H VD
1.60
Hole Terminated at 1.60 m
Practical Refusal
Backfilled
2
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001873-UNIT DEVELOPMENT-BH1-2.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 21/2/2023 15:53 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
3
4
5
6
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to consider possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 17
EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
AD Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*V V - Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
T TC - Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
DTC Diatubre Coring JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
WB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive digging HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L Low resistance . Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used
M Medium resistance. Excavation possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from equipment used
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate
R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the digging implement
or machine.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools,
and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level shown at date Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave in
OBSERVED of the borehole/test pit.
GROUND WATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in less permeable strata.
ENCOUNTERED Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed Sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
G Gas Sample
W Water sample
FP Field permeability test over section noted
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
WPT Water pressure tests
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Dynamic cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quantity Designation (%)
Page 18
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT
REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL,CI, or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or SW) ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)
SAND (SP or SW) COBBLES or BOULDERS
SILT (ML or MH)
Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in AS 1726 - 2017. The material proper-
ties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
PARTICLE SIZE PLASTIC PROPERTIES
Major
Sub Division Particle Size
Division
Boulders >200 mm
Cobbles 63 - 200 mm
Gravel Coarse 20 - 63 mm
Gravel Medium 6.7 - 20 mm
Gravel Fine 2.36 - 6.7 mm
Sand Coarse 0.6 - 2.36 mm
Sand Medium 0.21 - 0.6 mm
Sand Fine 0.075 - 0.21 mm
Silt 0.002 - 0.075 mm
Clay <0.002 mm
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR COARSE GRAINED SOIL AS 1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Non-cohesive and free running
M Moist Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, tends to stick together
W Wet Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, soil sticks together, free water forms when handling
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR FINE GRAINED SOIL AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
W<PL Moist dry of liquid limit Hard and friable or powdery
W = PL Moist near plastic limit Soils can be molded at a moisture condition approximately equal to the plastic limit
W >PL Moist, wet of plastic limit Soils usually weakened and free water forms on hands when handling
W = LL Wet near plastic limit
W > LL Wet, wet of liquid limit
CONSISTENCY TERMS FOR AS1726—2017 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE GRAINED SOILS AS1726—2017
COHESIVE SOILS
Symbol Term Density Index % SPT ‘N’ #
Symbol Term Undrained Shear
VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
Strength
L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with
the observed behaviour of the material.
H Hard Above 200 kPa
Page 19
TERMS FOR ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH & WEATHERING AND
ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS
ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH CLASSIFICATION AS1726—2017
Symbol Term Uniaxial Point Load Field Guide
Strength Is (50)
Compressive
(MPa)
Strength (MPa)
VL Very Low 0.6 to 2 0.03 to 0.1 Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick. Pieces up to 30 mm thick can
Strength be broken with finger pressure.
L Low Strength 2 to 6 0.1 to 0.3 Easily scored with knife. Indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with firm
blows of the pick point. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm may be broken by hand. Sharp
edges of core are friable and break during handling.
M Medium 6 to 20 0.3 to 1 Readily scored with a knife. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm can be broken by hand
Strength with difficulty.
H High Strength 20 to 60 1 to 3 A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm cannot be broken by hand but can be broken by a pick
with a single firm blow. Rock rings under hammer.
VH Very High 60 to 200 3 to 10 Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow. Rock rings under hammer.
Strength
EH Extremely High Above 200 Above 10 Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact material. Rock
Strength rings under hammer.
= Diametral Point Load Test = Axial Point Load Test
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL AS1726—2017
WEATHERING
Symbol Term Field Guide
RS Residual Soil (Note 1) Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
fabric of original rock are no longer visible but the soil has not been significantly transported.
XW Extremely Weathered Material is weathered to such an extent that is has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
(Note 1) fabric of original rock are still visible.
HW Highly Weathered (Note 2) The whole rock mass is discoloured, usually by iron staining or beaching to the extent that the colour of the
original rock is not recognizable. Rock strength is significantly changed by weathering. Some primary miner-
als have weathered to clay minerals. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to
deposition of weathering products in pores.
MH Moderately Weathered The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the
(Note 2) colour of the original rock is not recognizable, but shows little or no change in strength from fresh rock.
SW Slightly Weathered Pock is partially discoloured with staining or bleaching along joints but shows little or no change of strength
from fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no signs of decomposition of individual minerals or colour change.
Note 1 The term ‘Extremely Weathered rock’ is misleading as the material has soil properties. The word ‘rock’ should be replaced with the name
of the original rock of the word ‘material’, eg. Extremely Weathered granite or Extremely Weathered material.
Note 2 Where it is not possible to distinguish between ‘Highly Weathered’ and ‘Moderately Weathered’ rock the term ‘Distinctly Weathered’ may
be used.
DEFECT TYPE/DESCRIPTION DEFECT PROFILE DEFECT ROUGHNESS
Symbol Description DESCRIPTION
B Bedding Parting V Vein
PL Planar
Symbol Description
J Joint HB/DB Handling/Drilling St Stepped
Break Sl Slickenside
Un Undulating
EW Extremely Weathered C Contact Sm Smooth
DEFECT INFILL DESCRIPTION
Seam
Symbol Description Ro Rough
FZ Fracture Zone L Cleavage Vertical Boreholes - The dip
Cn Clean: No visible
coating (inclination from horizontal) for the
CZ/S Crushed Zone/Seam X Foliation defect is given.
Sn Stain: Coated 1 to
3 mm Inclined Boreholes - The inclination
IS Infilled Seam S Schistocity is measured as the acute angle to the
Vr Veneer: < 1 mm core axis.
SZ/S Sheared Zone/Seam Ct Coating: 1 to 3
mm
Page 20
Appendix C Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property (AGS 2007)
Page 21
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD
Approximate Annual Probability
Implied Indicative Landslide
Description Descriptor Level
Indicative Notional Recurrence Interval
Value Boundary
10-1 5x10-2
10 years The event is expected to occur over the design life. ALMOST CERTAIN A
20 years The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the
-2
10 100 years
design life.
LIKELY B
-3
-3 5x10 200 years
10 1000 years The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life. POSSIBLE C
5x10-4 2000 years
The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the
10-4 10,000 years
design life.
UNLIKELY D
-5 5x10-5 20,000 years
10 The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances
100,000 years RARE E
over the design life.
-6 5x10-6 200,000 years
10 1,000,000 years The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life. BARELY CREDIBLE F
Note: (1) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY
Approximate Cost of Damage
Description Descriptor Level
Indicative Notional
Value Boundary
Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for
200% CATASTROPHIC 1
stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.
100%
Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant
60% MAJOR 2
stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.
40%
Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.
20% MEDIUM 3
Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.
10%
5% 1% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works. MINOR 4
Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a
0.5% INSIGNIFICANT 5
notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)
Notes: (2) The Approximate Cost of Damage is expressed as a percentage of market value, being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected property which includes the land plus the
unaffected structures.
(3) The Approximate Cost is to be an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures), stabilisation
works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary
accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to address other landslides which may affect the property.
(4) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa
91 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 22
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: – QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)
QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX – LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY
LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage)
Indicative Value of 1: CATASTROPHIC 2: MAJOR 3: MEDIUM 4: MINOR 5:
Approximate Annual 200% 60% 20% 5% INSIGNIFICANT
Probability 0.5%
A – ALMOST CERTAIN 10-1 VH VH VH H M or L (5)
-2
B - LIKELY 10 VH VH H M L
C - POSSIBLE 10-3 VH H M M VL
D - UNLIKELY 10-4 H M L L VL
-5
E - RARE 10 M L L VL VL
-6
F - BARELY CREDIBLE 10 L VL VL VL VL
Notes: (5) For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1% is Low Risk.
(6) When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current
time.
RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
Risk Level Example Implications (7)
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment
VH VERY HIGH RISK options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the
property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce
H HIGH RISK
risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires investigation, planning and
M MODERATE RISK implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is
L LOW RISK
required.
Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
VL VERY LOW RISK
Note: (7) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only
given as a general guide.
92 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 23
Appendix D A Guide to Preventing Structural Damage V3 (QBCC 2015)
Page 24
A guide to preventing structural damage Build better.
Page 25
Home owners guide to planning landscaping and maintenance of foundations Structural damage can result from - under normal conditions. The movement in clay soils caused by performance of footings under this varying moisture conditions around the standard requires normal conditions to perimeter of homes. be maintained around the house. The majority of Queensland homes This guideline identifies abnormal are situated on what are termed conditions that should be avoided reactive clay soils. These soils are and/or corrected. subject to expansion and contraction Dry seasons cause soils to dry out depending on seasonal weather and rapidly. Wet seasons cause soils to site conditions. Sandy sites and rocky become wet quickly. This results in terrain are usually not prone to this sudden extreme volume changes and expansion and contraction. movement in soil. In Queensland, engineers design Abnormal conditions (other than footings to the Australian Standard seasonal changes), may include the AS2870 – 2011 Residential slabs effect of trees, poor surface drainage and footings. Footings correctly and/or leaking plumbing. If not allowed designed to this standard are intended for in the engineer’s design, these to accommodate the expected types of abnormal conditions may lead movements caused by seasonal to movement and damage varying volume changes in the soil (swelling from minor to extreme. when wet and shrinking when dry) NORMAL MOVEMENT EXPECTATIONS FOR BUILDINGS CONSTUCTED ON REACTIVE CLAY SOILS
Page 26
How much can the soils under my
house move?
The amount of movement that may occur depends on the site classification,
which is defined under the Australian Standard AS2870.
The relevant classifications and expected movements under normal site
conditions and seasonal influences are:
Site Description of type of clay and reactivity Expected range of
classification movement
A Mostly sand and rock with little or no ground movement 0
from moisture changes.
S Slightly reactive clays that do not present significant 0 to 20mm
trouble. Very limited damage could be expected in the life
of the building.
M Moderately reactive clays that may cause minor 20 to 40mm
movement and damage in the life of the building.
Reasonable care is required in planning the site.
H Highly reactive clays have potential to move more, and H1 40 to 60mm
(H1 & H2) react to variable moisture change conditions. Some minor
damage may occur in the life of the building under normal
H2 60 to 75mm
conditions. More significant damage may occur where site
maintenance conditions are a problem e.g. influence of
trees or leaking underground plumbing or poor drainage.
Particular care is required in planning the site.
E Extremely reactive clays have the potential to react >75mm
significantly to any variable moisture changes in the
foundation clays and require significant attention to
(Note: Movements
detail in planning the site works. Extreme movement and
on E sites have been
damage may occur if the site conditions and foundation
known to move up
maintenance requirements are not observed. Footing
to and in excess
systems and site conditions on “E” sites require very
of 100 to 150mm
detailed specification from an engineer.
in SE Qld)
Page 27
Is it normal to expect cracking
to occur in brickwork, walls
and ceilings?
Yes, damage in varying degrees can
be expected in the life of the building Key points to consider when
depending on the relevant site planning landscaping to avoid
classification. structural damage.
If cracking becomes apparent the site • Plan type and location of
maintenance conditions should be gardens, paths, driveways,
checked as noted under “key points lawns, filling and retaining walls
to consider...” • Take care in selection of trees
Corrective action should be carried out and shrubs. Do not over plant
immediately and may include regrading next to the house
surface drainage, moving gardens and • Keep trees with high water
trees or repairing leaks in water supply, demand well away from
stormwater and/or sewer drainage. buildings in reactive clay areas.
A sound plan for a reactive clay site • Avoid variable conditions
is to provide a consistent moisture around the house and maintain
regime around the building by installing adequate moisture/watering.
paths and patios against the house. Do not over water and avoid
Locate lawns up against paths & patios. the use of unregulated
Garden beds, the most heavily watered sprinkler systems.
parts of a garden, should be kept well
• Locate ponds and water
away from the house.
features away from the house.
If gardens must be placed in close
• Direct surface water away from
proximity to the house, they should be
the house. Do not allow water
sealed with plastic and contain only
to be trapped or pond near
a few small plants. Take care not to
the house.
trap water against the building if using
garden edging. • Repair leaking pipes and taps.
Caution: Care should also be taken if Note: these issues should be
placing filling against the house. Always considered as part of planning
ensure weep holes are not covered and maintaining the home. Aim
and that existing Termite Management to provide a consistent moisture
Systems are not compromised. regime around the house. This will
minimise soil moisture variations
that may cause movement and
result in structural damage.
Page 28
Common sense guidelines for
landscaping and gardens
1. Gardens
Important: It is quite impractical to try If gardens must be placed in close
to prevent gardening activities from proximity to the house, they should be
increasing the moisture content sealed with plastic and contain only
around the foundations of your a few small plants. Take care not to
home. The only practical course is to trap water against the building if using
keep such activities away from the garden edging.
immediate vicinity of the building and Caution: Care should also be taken
so minimise their effects. if placing filling against the house.
A sound plan for a reactive clay site Always ensure weep holes are not
is to provide a consistent moisture covered and that existing Termite
regime around the building by installing Management Systems are not
paths and patios against the house. compromised.
Locate lawns up against paths & patios.
Garden beds, the most heavily watered
parts of a garden, should be kept well
away from the house.
RECOMMENDED LAYOUT FOR GARDENS AND LANDSCAPING
TREES AND
Trees and GARDEN
garden bedsBEDS REQUIRING
requiring HEAVY WATERING
heavy watering SHOULD
should be kept BE KEPT from
well removed WELL REMOVED
the dwelling.
FROM THE DWELLING.
Page 29
2. Paths, patios and driveways
Paths should be laid hard against Concrete pavements should be
brickwork or footings with a fall away constructed in a way that will not
from the house to a stormwater impede surface water flowing away
discharge point. from the building or cause water to
Avoid placing large expanses of pond adjacent to the footings causing
concrete on one side of the house clay foundations to swell.
and heavily watered garden beds On “H” & “E” site classifications,
on the other. particular detail is required to prevent
The water saturated clay in the gardens pavement from moving away from
will expand and swell while the soil the building. Movement in paths could
under the concrete may not move. cause stress on pipes and inspection
Structural damage can result from openings and/or breakages in pipes.
this unco-ordinated movement. Resulting leakages may cause
movement and damage as a result of
clay soils under the house swelling.
RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPING
Page 30
3. Lawns 5. Excessive watering of gardens
If placing lawn areas against the house, and lawns
ensure that filling built up against the
The erection of a building also
wall is graded away and will not allow
indirectly brings with it changes in the
ponding of water to occur. The filling
moisture content to the site. While it
should be impervious clay soil and not
is normal to water gardens and lawns,
sandy loam.
excessive or over watering should be
REMEMBER: Do not cover weep holes. avoided. Consistent and adequate
watering should be observed at all
4. Filling times.
Prior to preparing for gardens, lawns or The location of sprinkler systems next
filling as part of site works, care should to houses should also be avoided on
be taken to ensure the sub-grade or H and E sites.
ground level is graded or sloped away, Sprinkler systems should be as well
especially when filling or top dressing controlled and maintained as practical,
with sandy loam. The sub-grade should and only used in gardens and on lawns
consist of impervious natural site clay. away from the building.
Where elevated floors exist ensure that
the final finished ground level outside
the house is not higher than the sub-
floor area and that water cannot flow
back under the house.
Page 31
6. Site drainage and sloping sites
Design for site conditions, location of
retaining walls, paths, swimming pools,
future structures or proposed extensions
etc. should all be considered when
preparing the site for correct surface
water flow.
If the ground slopes towards the house,
paths with spoon drains should be
provided.
It is also important to place drains uphill
of the footings so as to direct water
around the house and away from the
footings. A stormwater and roof water Seek advice from an engineer
drainage management plan should be
1. To ascertain surface falls which
considered and take into account water
allow for the specific potential
flowing from adjoining properties.
soil movement of the site without
loss of free drainage
2. To provide correct mechanical
connection of perimeter paths
of footings
RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE AND
MAINTENANCE ADJACENT TO DWELLING
Page 32
7. Trees and shrubs
The roots of trees and shrubs can Height of Tree(h)
affect footings by removing moisture Distance from house (d)
from clay soils immediately underneath d = 1 h for class H and M sites.
the building causing subsidence as the
d = 1.5 h for class E sites.
clays shrink.
d = 2 h for rows or groups of trees.
In its search for water, a tree root
system can spread a lateral distance 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 60
equal to the height of the tree. If in metres metres metres
rows or grouped with other trees the Acacias But-But Blue Gum
roots may spread up to twice the
Ash Cedars Cypress
height of the tree.
Athel Tree English Oak English Elm
Care should be taken when selecting
trees and, as a guide, the trees listed Candlebark Lemon Gum Figs
should not be planted within the Manna Gum Palms Karri
distance of their mature height from Pepper tree Planes Pines
the house depending on the site
Willows Sheoaks Poplars
classification and whether they are to
be planted in a line or in a group. Yate Silky Oak River Gum
Yellow Gum Spotted Sugar
Gum
Casuarina
TREES AND SHRUBS
Page 33
Summary of owner responsibilities for houses under warranty 1. Maintain the site drainage at all times. 5.Do not plant trees within a distance 2.Do not alter the site drainage provided from a building that equates to by the builder. Any changes to the site their mature height. Always plant in drainage should ensure that water will accordance with the requirements for be directed away from the building the relevant site classification. and not pond adjacent to the footing 6.Regularly check and maintain and slab system. Care should also be plumbing, drainage and stormwater taken to avoid directing water flow to systems by immediately carrying adjoining properties. out repairs to leakages or breakages 3.Where possible on reactive clay sites when observed (usually displayed by (Type M,H,E Classifications), avoid seepage and/or greener lawns etc.), placing gardens or installing garden or when minor damage or cracking edging, gravel pavements etc next to exceeding 3-5mm appears in walls the building. This may cause water or ceilings. retention and/or promote a greater By observing these requirements, variation in moisture conditions movement and damage which may be around the building. expected in the life of the building can 4.Installation of sprinkler systems be minimised and maintained within next to dwellings on highly and normal performance requirements. extremely reactive sites (Type H & E Classifications) should be avoided. Adequate and consistent watering only is recommended. Over watering should be avoided. UNSATISFACTORY METHOD FOR CREATING SURFACE FALL AWAY FROM DWELLING
Page 34
Notes: Note: this document has been developed to provide homeowners with general guidance on the maintenace of their homes. It does not purport to address site specific issues. Homeowners should seek professional advice from their builder or engineer when they experience movement in their home or need advice on issues which may affect their home.
Page 35
Need more information?
Visit qbcc.qld.gov.au or call us on 139 333.
QBCC20150210_FCTbrstructuraldamageV3
299 Montague Road,
West End Qld 4101
GPO Box 5099,
Brisbane Qld 4001
T: 139 333
F: 07 3225 2999
W: qbcc.qld.gov.au
Page 36
Appendix E Limitations
Page 37
LIMITATIONS This Document has been provided by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (“Core”) subject to the following limitations: This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Core’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose. The scope and the period of Core’s Services are as described in C o r e ’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Core did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Core in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Core was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Core’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Core to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Core for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. Core may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Core to provide Services for the benefit of Core. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Core’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors. This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Core accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document. Limitations Page 1 of 1 Date: 12/07/2018 FRM-065 Uncontrolled When Printed Issue: 1.02
Page 38
CLIENTCHOICE Awards CLIENTCHOICE Awards 2022 2022 e e G BEST CONSULTING. ENGINEERING FIRM
Page 39
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU23/0070 12 JAN 2024
SITE BASED STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Revision B
Proposed Development at
36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
for
Cambooya Pty Ltd
Page 40
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Proposed Development at
36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
for
Cambooya Pty Ltd
M3024E_DA1_SBSMP –Revision B
September 2023
JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd
Prepared by: C. Blair
Approved by: A. Fraser
Revision Date Details Prepared By Approved By
A 20/04/2023 For Authority Submission CB (RPEQ 19190) AF (RPEQ 5691)
B 18/09/2023 Information Request Response CB (RPEQ 19190) AF (RPEQ 5691)
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 INFORMATION REQUEST ITEMS ..................................................................................... 1
SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................ 3
2.1 LOCATION....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY & DRAINAGE ........................................................................................... 3
STORMWATER QUANTITY ........................................................................................................ 6
3.1 LAWFUL POINT OF DISCHARGE ...................................................................................... 6
3.2 STORMWATER DISCHARGE STRATEGY ........................................................................... 6
3.3 RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION ................................................................................ 6
3.4 PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE XP-STORM .............................................................................. 7
3.4.1 CATCHMENT DATA ....................................................................................... 7
3.4.2 RAINFALL DATA ............................................................................................ 7
3.4.3 HYDROLOGICAL LOSSES ............................................................................... 7
3.4.4 BX FACTOR ................................................................................................... 7
3.4.5 EXISTING PEAK DISCHARGE .......................................................................... 7
3.5 POST-DEVELOPMENT SITE XP-STORM............................................................................ 8
3.5.1 CATCHMENT DATA ....................................................................................... 8
3.5.2 RAINFALL DATA, HYDROLOGICAL LOSSES & BX FACTOR .............................. 8
3.5.3 DETENTION TANK ......................................................................................... 9
3.5.4 POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE ...................................................... 9
3.5.5 DETENTION TANK RESULTS .......................................................................... 9
3.6 DOUGLAS LANE ROAD FLOW CALCULATION ................................................................ 10
3.6.1 PEAK FLOW CALCULATION ......................................................................... 10
3.6.2 ROAD CAPACITY CALCULATION .................................................................. 10
STORMWATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 11
4.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ............................... 11
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 11
4.1.2 POLLUTANTS .............................................................................................. 11
4.1.3 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 11
4.1.4 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY .................................. 12
4.1.5 MONITORING & MAINTENANCE ................................................................ 12
4.1.6 RESPONSIBILITY & REPORTING ................................................................... 12
4.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT .................................. 13
4.3 WATERWAY STABILITY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 13
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 14
DISCLAIMER .......................................................................................................................... 15
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 42
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A – Existing Site Survey & Proposed Site Plans Appendix B – Spreadsheet Calculations Appendix C – XP-STORM Summary Appendix D – Stormwater Catchment Plans SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 43
INTRODUCTION
JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Cambooya Pty Ltd to compile this Site Based
Stormwater Management Plan (SBSMP) for the proposed development at 36 & 38 Duke Street,
Sunshine Beach (‘the site’). Noosa Council Application Number is MCU23/0070.
The site currently contains a restaurant located fronting Duke Street. It is understood that the proposal
is for a mixed-use development comprising the existing tenancy fronting Duke Street and five
residential apartments developed above. Refer to Appendix A for the survey of the existing site and for
the proposed development plans.
Revision B has been updated to address Stormwater Drainage issues (item 13) raised in the
Information Request dated 14th June 2023. Refer to Section 1.2 for summary responses.
1.1 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE
The design objectives for this report are:
Nominate the lawful point of discharge.
Ensure post-development peak flow rates are mitigated back to the pre-development peak flow
rates via onsite detention.
Confirm if the Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) in accordance with the State Planning Policy
(2017) is applicable for the site.
The scope of investigations undertaken for this report is as follows:
Nominate lawful point of discharge.
Undertake hydrological and hydraulic analysis for the site using the XP-STORM 1D. This analysis
includes the sizing of onsite detention to achieve peak flow mitigation.
Provide commentary regarding possible performance-based stormwater quality management
strategies for the operational phase of the development.
Based on the outcomes of the above investigations, this report provides recommendations, including
concept drawings for stormwater management. These recommendations should be incorporated into
future detailed design and subsequent construction documentation.
1.2 INFORMATION REQUEST ITEMS
Issue – Stormwater Drainage
The submitted documentation does not include sufficient information for Council to assess how
stormwater generated by the development will be controlled, collected, and discharged.
It is unclear what the proposed structure downstream from the proposed detention tank is and
how it will integrate into the proposed drainage system (indicated by a blue circle).
It is unclear how the proposed detention tank overflows during events up to, and including, a 1%
AEP event (volume, discharge rate).
It is unclear how the infiltration outlet of the detention tank will operate. Given the large
catchment area of the detention tank, Council is concerned the soil may become oversaturated
and the filtration rate of the soil will reduce which may adversely affect the overall drainage
system and the structural elements of the development.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |1
Page 44
It is unclear how the proposed field inlet in catchment D3 will function during a 1% AEP event.
Council recognise that this field inlet serves both the overflow from the detention tank and a small
catchment area. Council is concerned that during events up to, and including, a 1% AEP event this
pit may surcharge and direct additional runoff on to the footpath in the road reserve.
The discharge rate of the RHS kerb adapter is unclear. Council is unlikely to support a discharge
rate higher than 25 l/s during a 1% AEP event.
Information Required
13. Provide additional detail to address Council’s concerns. The additional detail must be prepared by a
suitably qualified person (RPEQ).
Note that the detail can be preliminary in nature but must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that
the stormwater system is conceptually functional.
RESPONSE:
The following responses are provided for each dot point raised:
The ‘blue circle’ is a manhole/roofwater pit. It conceptually shows a junction at which drainage
pipes change direction. The concept plans have been amended and further details can be provided
during detailed design as required.
The outflow from the tank is controlled via a 75mm diameter orifice. It limits 1% AEP site discharge
to 25L/s as requested in dot point #5. An overflow weir is proposed at RL 33.11m AHD to allow
overflow.
No infiltration is proposed. All outflows are directed to Duke Street kerb and channel.
Runoff from a majority of Catchment D3 will be collected by building’s roofwater system. The
proposed field inlet in Catchment D3 has been amended to a roofwater pit and it can be provided
with a bolt down cover so that it will not surcharge. The outflow pipe from the detention tank will
operate under head. This is consistent with standard building hydraulic design.
The discharge rate from site has been limited to 25L/s in a 1% AEP storm event. This has been
achieved by increasing detention volume and limiting outflows via 75mm diameter orifice.
Appropriate screens can be incorporated in detail design to minimise blockage of this orifice. Any
additional requirements can be conditioned.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |2
Page 45
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 LOCATION
The site is in the Noosa Shire Council local government area. The site has real property descriptions Lot
370 & 371 on RP48111 – more commonly known as 36 & 38 Duke Street, Sunshine Beach. It has
frontage to Duke Street to the south and Douglas Lane to the north; and currently contains a
restaurant fronting Duke Street. Refer to Figure 1 for aerial view.
The site is not identified to be affected by flooding or tidal influence.
Site
Figure 1 – Site Location (Source: Nearmap, August 2022)
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY & DRAINAGE
The site falls toward Duke Street at an average grade of 10%. A site visit was undertaken on 26th July
2022, and the following drainage patterns were observed.
The existing site appears to discharge roofwater to Duke Street via two kerb adapters located on
high side and low side of the site. Refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3.
No existing stormwater infrastructure was observed in the rear of the site. Surface flows from the
rear is expected run down the pathway adjacent to the existing building. Refer to Figure 4.
A road flow calculation has been undertaken on Douglas Lane to confirm up to and including a 1%
AEP external flows do not enter the site. Refer to Section 3.6.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |3
Page 46
Existing
restaurant
on site
Existing kerb
adapter, high side
Figure 2 – Existing High Side Kerb Adapter
Existing kerb
adapter, low side
Figure 3 – Existing Low Side Kerb Adapter
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |4
Page 47
Existing
building
Existing
pathway
Figure 4 – Rear of the Site, viewed from Douglas Lane
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |5
Page 48
STORMWATER QUANTITY
3.1 LAWFUL POINT OF DISCHARGE
The proposed lawful point of discharge is the kerb & channel on Duke Street. Currently there are two
kerb adapters fronting the site. It is proposed to utilise only the low side kerb adapter and upgrade as
required. The 1% AEP peak flow rate has been limited to 25L/s.
3.2 STORMWATER DISCHARGE STRATEGY
The fraction imperviousness increases due to the proposed development. To mitigate increase to peak
discharge rates an on-site detention tank is proposed. The tank is proposed to be located on ground
level at RL 30.26m AHD.
It is proposed to collect and convey a majority of the site runoff into the detention tank. Mitigated
flows are to be discharged on to Duke Street kerb & channel.
3.3 RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION
The Rational Method Calculation has been undertaken for the pre-development site. Table 1 presents
the Rational Method catchment parameters. Refer to Drawings No. M3024E_DA1_SK01 in Appendix D
for the catchment plan. The fraction imperviousness has been estimated from the detailed survey
(included in Appendix A). The C10 has then been determined in accordance with Table 4.5.3 of the
QUDM (2016) and the time of concentration (Tc) based on the Standard Inlet Time in accordance with
Table 4.6.2 of the QUDM (2016).
Table 1 – Rational Method Calculation Parameters
Fraction
Catchment Area (ha) C10 Tc (mins)
Impervious
E1 0.0486 57% 0.82 8
Site specific 2016 rainfall intensities were obtained from Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). Table 2
presents the Rational Method peak flow rates. Further details included in Appendix B.
Table 2 – Rational Method Peak Flows
Rational Method Peak Flows (m³/s)
63% AEP 39% AEP 20% AEP 10% AEP 5% AEP 2% AEP 1% AEP
E1 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.022 0.026 0.033 0.037
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |6
Page 49
3.4 PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE XP-STORM
A peak flow analysis has been undertaken using the XP-STORM version 2021.3 for sizing the detention
tank. The pre-development site was modelled using a single node and peak flows verified against the
Rational Method Calculation.
3.4.1 CATCHMENT DATA
Table 3 presents the catchment modelled in XP-STORM. Refer to Drawings No. M3024E_DA1_SK01 in
Appendix D for the catchment plan.
Table 3 – Pre-Development Catchment Data
Fraction Vectored Slope
Catchment Area (ha)
Impervious (%)
E1 0.0486 57% 10%
3.4.2 RAINFALL DATA
The site specific 2016 rainfall intensities obtained from BOM coupled Australian Rainfall & Runoff (AR&R)
1987 temporal patterns for zone 3 have been used to generate peak flow hydrographs in XP-STORM.
3.4.3 HYDROLOGICAL LOSSES
The following initial loss, continuous loss and Manning’s n values have been adopted for the
hydrological modelling. They are within the ranges recommended in the AR&R (1987) for Southeast
Queensland.
Table 4 – Hydrological Losses
Continuing Loss
AEP Area Type Initial Loss (mm) Manning’s n
(mm/hr)
Impervious Area 0 0 0.014
63% to 1%
Pervious Area 15 2 0.07
3.4.4 BX FACTOR
A Bx factor of 1.8 has been used across all AEPs modelled.
3.4.5 EXISTING PEAK DISCHARGE
The XP-STORM hydrology was run for the standard AEPs from a 63% AEP to a 1% AEP and 15 to 180-
minute standard durations. Table 5 presents pre-development site peak flows.
Table 5 – Pre-Development Peak Flows
Pre-Development Peak Flows (m³/s)
63% AEP 39% AEP 20% AEP 10% AEP 5% AEP 2% AEP 1% AEP
Rational Calc 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.022 0.026 0.033 0.037
XP-STORM 0.012 0.017 0.021 0.027 0.032 0.034 0.038
Variance +0.002 +0.004 +0.003 +0.005 +0.006 +0.001 +0.001
The XP-STORM peak flows are generally similar to the Rational Method Calculation, particularly for the
larger 1% and 2% AEP storms. On that basis, the XP-STORM peak flow rates have been used for the
peak flow and detention tank analysis for this site.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |7
Page 50
3.5 POST-DEVELOPMENT SITE XP-STORM
3.5.1 CATCHMENT DATA
Table 6 presents the post-development catchment details. Drawing No. M3024E_DA1_SK02 in
Appendix D presents the catchment delineation.
Table 6 – Post-Development Catchment Data
Fraction Vectored Slope
Catchment Area (ha)
Impervious (%)
D1 0.0335 100% 10%
D2 0.0121 66% 10%
D3 0.0030 100% 10%
Total 0.0486 92% 10%
The following catchment arrangements have been modelled:
5% AEP from catchment D1 has been modelled to enter the detention tank. Larger flows bypass
detention.
1% AEP from catchment D2 has been modelled to enter the detention tank.
Catchment D3 bypasses the detention tank.
Figure 5 presents the XP-STORM layout for the post-development site.
Figure 5 – Post-Development XP-STORM Layout
3.5.2 RAINFALL DATA, HYDROLOGICAL LOSSES & BX FACTOR
As per the pre-development scenario.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |8
Page 51
3.5.3 DETENTION TANK
Table 7 presents the detention tank parameters modelled. Refer to Appendix C for the stage vs area
relationship. Re-analysis will be required if the stage-area relationship is significantly altered.
Table 7 – Detention Tank Details
Parameter Value
Detention Tank Dimensions (m) 4.5m² surface area x 3m deep (min)
Available Volume (m³) 13.5
Available Depth (m) 3.0 (min)
Detention Tank IL (m AHD) 30.26
Orifice Outlet 75mm dia at IL 30.26m AHD
Weir Outlet 1200mm weir at RL 33.11m AHD
3.5.4 POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE
The XP-STORM was run for 63% AEP to 1% AEP storms with 15 to 180-minute standard durations.
Table 8 presents the peak flow results.
Table 8 – Pre & Post-Development Peak Flows (XP-STORM)
Peak Flow Results (m³/s)
63% AEP 39% AEP 20% AEP 10% AEP 5% AEP 2% AEP 1% AEP
Post-Dev. 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.021 0.022 0.025
Pre-Dev. 0.012 0.017 0.021 0.027 0.032 0.034 0.038
Variance 0 -0.003 -0.005 -0.009 -0.011 -0.012 -0.013
The results show peak flow rates are not increased. Moreover, the 1% AEP flow is limited to 25L/s
(0.025m³/s).
3.5.5 DETENTION TANK RESULTS
Table 9 presents the detention tank performance. As can be seen, the 1% AEP volume is within the
nominated minimum tank volume.
Table 9 – Detention Tank Results
63% AEP 39% AEP 20% AEP 10% AEP 5% AEP 2% AEP 1% AEP
Tank Inflow
0.017 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.035 0.037
(m³/s)
Tank Outflow
0.011 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.019 0.021 0.023
(m³/s)
Detention
4.1 5.5 7.0 8.7 10.3 11.4 12.9
Volume (m³)
Depth of
0.90 1.22 1.56 1.93 2.29 2.53 2.85
Water (m)
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e |9
Page 52
3.6 DOUGLAS LANE ROAD FLOW CALCULATION
A road flow capacity assessment has been undertaken to confirm that the external flows on Douglas
Lane do not enter the site.
3.6.1 PEAK FLOW CALCULATION
Refer to Figure 6 for the external catchment delineation and Table 10 for peak flow rates calculated
using the Rational Method. Refer to Appendix B for additional details.
External
Catchment
0.13ha
Manning’s
Section
Figure 6 – External Catchment to Douglas Lane
Table 10 – External Catchment Peak Flows
63% AEP 39% AEP 20% AEP 10% AEP 5% AEP 2% AEP 1% AEP
Peak Flow (m³/s) 0.030 0.040 0.055 0.068 0.081 0.103 0.113
3.6.2 ROAD CAPACITY CALCULATION
The Manning’s Equation has been used to undertake a road flow calculation on Douglas Lane. Refer to
Figure 6 above for the cross-section location. The longitudinal grade on Douglas Lane fronting the site
is approximately 8% and a surface roughness value of 0.015 was adopted for the pavement.
The results in Table 11 show the flows do not overtop the kerb, which is approximately 120mm high.
Refer to Appendix B for further calculation details.
Table 11 – Manning’s Equation Calculation
Max Road Flow Depth
1% AEP Flow (m³/s) Velocity (m/s) DV Product (m²/s)
(mm)
0.113 42 1.54 0.07
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 10
Page 53
STORMWATER QUALITY
4.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides conceptual stormwater quality management strategies for construction phase.
These strategies are applicable for all stages of the development. No modelling has been undertaken
for the construction phase stormwater quality management. Detailed Erosion and Sediment Control
Plans will be prepared during detailed design phase and implemented during construction.
4.1.2 POLLUTANTS
Typical pollutants generated during the construction phase of an urban development are shown in
Table 12. These based on Table C4.1 BCC’s Subdivision & Development Guidelines Part C Section 4.1.1
(2008).
Table 12 – Construction Phase Pollutants
Pollutant Potential Source
Litter Paper, construction packaging, food packaging, cement bags, off-cuts.
Sediment Unprotected exposed soils and stockpiles during earthworks and building works.
Hydrocarbons Fuel/oil spills, leaks from construction equipment, and temporary car park areas.
Toxic
Cement Slurry, asphalt primer, solvents, cleaning agents, and washwaters etc.
Materials
pH altering
Cement slurry, acid sulfate soils, and washwaters
substances
4.1.3 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
It is recommended that the amount of runoff crossing and leaving the site is kept to a minimum during
the construction phase to restrict soil erosion and mobilisation of sediments and pollutants through
and off the site. Table 13 presents an extract from Table A, Appendix 2 of the State Planning Policy
(2017) objectives for construction phase stormwater quality management
Table 13 – Construction Phase Performance Criteria
Issue Desired Outcomes
1. Stage clearing and construction works to minimise the area of exposed soil
at any one time.
2. Effectively cover or stabilise exposed soils prior to predicted rainfall.
Erosion control
3. Prior to completion of works for the development, and prior to removal of
sediment controls, all site surfaces must be effectively stabilised using
methods which will achieve effective short-term stabilisation.
1. Direct runoff from exposed site soils to sediment controls that are
appropriate to the extent of disturbance and level of erosion risk.
2. All exposed areas greater than 2500m² must be provided with sediment
Sediment
controls which are designed, implemented and maintained to a standard
Control
which would achieve at least 80% of the average annual runoff volume of
the contributing catchment treated (i.e. 80% hydrological effectiveness) to
50mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or less, and pH in the range (6.5–8.5).
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 11
Page 54
4.1.4 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
An erosion and sediment control management plan that is endorsed by an CPESC or RPEQ will be
prepared and implemented during construction phase. Erosion and sediment control measures may
include, but not limited to, devices such as:
catch drains,
diversion drains,
silt fences, and
construction entry/exit pads.
4.1.5 MONITORING & MAINTENANCE
The general requirement of monitoring during the construction phase will be:
Work activities to be restricted to designated construction areas.
Earthworks and site clearing to be undertaken in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans prepared during detailed design phase.
Erosion and sediment control devices to be constructed in accordance with the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plans prepared during detailed design phase.
Inspect sediment fences and erosion and sediment control structures/devices on a weekly basis as
well as after any rain event exceeding 25mm in 24hrs.
Stormwater discharges from the site are not to have any adverse effect on the downstream
environment.
Monitor and record of the performance of the drainage control devices including water quality
testing where required.
Any failure in the stormwater system to be immediately rectified to prevent uncontrolled
discharge from the site.
Any failure to the stormwater system causing damage to surroundings should implement
immediate remedial work to the damaged area.
4.1.6 RESPONSIBILITY & REPORTING
The contractor shall be responsible for monitoring the performance of all drainage control and
erosion and sediment control devices.
Records of any failures to devices should be kept and reported to the Construction Manager.
Regular inspections of the devices shall be reported to the Construction Manager.
Inspections of the devices after heavy rainfall shall be reported to the Construction Manager.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 12
Page 55
4.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The development footprint is 486m² which is less than 2,500m². Therefore, the site does not trigger
compliance with the State Planning Policy (2017) for stormwater quality management and meeting the
required Water Quality Objectives (WQOs). The development is also not discharging into ‘High
Ecological Value’ waters. On that basis, no conventional stormwater improvement devices such as
bioretention are proposed and MUSIC modelling has not been undertaken for the site.
While no active stormwater treatment measures such as bioretention is proposed, the site will have
some passive stormwater quality treatment measures. For instance, most of the site is covered by the
building footprint and most of the building runoff is directed into a detention tank. Most of the gross
pollutants such as tree leaves and visible rubbish will be captured in the roof gutters. Smaller gross
pollutants and Suspended Solids that travel through the roof drainage system will enter the detention
tank where runoff will pond for a period of time allowing the pollutants to settle into the bottom of
the bank. Periodic maintenance of the roof drainage system and the detention tank will ensure most
of the gross pollutants and Suspended Solids are captured within the site prior to discharging into the
downstream drainage network.
The landscaping proposed within the site will also provide water quality benefit to runoff that is
directed to them. The vegetation will capture primary pollutants and the soil underneath will provide
some level of nutrient treatment.
4.3 WATERWAY STABILITY MANAGEMENT
The waterway stability management in accordance with the State Planning Policy (2017) is not
applicable for this site, as the site flows are connected to an urban underground drainage network
which then discharges into tidal waters.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 13
Page 56
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd has prepared this Site Based Stormwater Management Plan for the
proposed development at 36 & 38 Duke Street, Sunshine Beach. The analyses presented in this report
achieve the following outcomes:
The outcomes of the stormwater analyses are:
The proposed lawful point of discharge is the kerb & channel on Duke Street and 1% AEP discharge
is 25L/s.
On-site detention is proposed. The 1% AEP detention volume is 12.9m³.
Douglas Lane has adequate capacity to convey 1% AEP external catchment flows so they do not
enter the site.
Erosion & sediment control measures are to be finalised during detailed design and incorporated
in the construction phase.
As the site area is less than 2500m² the development does not trigger the State Planning Policy
(2017) for operational phase stormwater quality management and therefore stormwater quality
treatment devices such as bioretention is not required. However, the site’s internal drainage
system and the landscaping areas will provide some level of stormwater quality treatment,
particularly for the gross pollutants and Suspended Solids.
It is recommended that the management strategies presented in this report are incorporated into
future detailed design and subsequent construction. While variations to the concepts are allowed, the
design objectives are to be maintained.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 14
Page 57
DISCLAIMER
This report has been prepared for the purpose and exclusive use of Cambooya Pty Ltd as an
investigation into the stormwater management issues related for the proposed development of the
land described in the report. The information presented in this report is not to be used for any other
purpose or by any other person or corporation.
JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered howsoever
arising to any person or corporation who may use or rely on this report without further input and/or
advice from JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd.
The investigations, calculations, analysis and recommendations presented in this report rely on
information sourced from third-parties. JFP Urban Consultants Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for the
accuracy of the information sourced from third-parties.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 15
Page 58
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Existing Site Survey & Proposed Site Plans
Appendix B – Spreadsheet Calculations
Appendix C – XP-STORM Summary
Appendix D – Stormwater Catchment Plans
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
P a g e | 16
Page 59
APPENDIX A – EXISTING SITE SURVEY & PROPOSED SITE PLANS SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 60
[5 STORMWATER GRATE
6) STORMWATER MANHOLE
G
SEWER MANHOLE
ELECTRICITY JUNCTION BOX
TELSTRA PIT
WATER METER
HYDRANT
STOP VALVE
POWER POLE
UIGHT POLE
BENCH MARK
exregiz®
®
LINETYPE LEGEND
BANK BOTTOM
BANK TOP
BATTER
CROWN
currer
= GRAVEL
‘BITUMEN
KERB
CONCRETE
ELECTRICAL
WATER
awiPoot
SEWER
DRAINAGE
TREELINE
GARDEN
T TELSTRA
——— sutone
—------ PAVING:
POE RETAINING WALL
WALL
a CUAROR AL
Fence
Boy
‘MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR,
cP
SP120994
0 2 4 6 8
cP
SP176872
ES
ROR
RS
SS
SOS
Re
Ss
ey
>
YY
AS
8
‘
30
us
10
Ss
x
12
Scale 1:200 - Lengths are in Metres
14
DENOTES GRAVEL
DENOTES CONCRETE
DENOTES BUILDING
DENOTES aITUMEN
DENOTES PAVING
MAX WATTERSON
+ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SURVEYORS
& PLANNERS
12. Maple Street
PO Box 639
Cooroy Qld 4563,
Ph. (07) 54426121
Fax. (07) 54425125
Email [email protected]
Client:
CAMBOOYA
PTY LTD
Project:
DETAIL AND
CONTOUR PLAN OF
LOTS 370 & 371 ON
RP48111.
LOCAL GOVT: NOOSA S.C.
LOCALITY: SUNSHINE BEACH
Scale: 1:200 Plan 4 of 4
Datum: AHD Date: 31-08-23
Origin: pee27 .
Cont 2s . Ref.
font.nt: 0.25m
22-5703AB
NOTE:
This plan has been prepared for building
design purposes only.
Underground services not located except
where evident on surface.
Page 61
A B C D E A B C D E
DA15 DA15 DA15 DA16 DA16 DA15 DA15 DA15 DA16 DA16
36 36
S 35 34 35 34
S
60
D O U G L A S 14980
L A N E 48
D O U G L A S L A N E
60 14980 45
1020 7770 6190
4390 10590
BOOSTER
REFUSE
HIGH POINT
RED HATCH INDICATES PLANTING
ZONE TO BE LESS THAN 0.6m
2x 1100L BINS HIGH & NO SOLID OBSTRUCTIONS
35 35
5500
UP
7537
7537
7537
7537
300
5400
34 34
2500
1200
MB4
34 34 V1
300
2500
700
GRATED DRAIN
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
OUTFLOW
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
UP
UP
33 33
TANK
2780
J J J J
DA23 DA23
6900
DA23 DA23
STAIR STAIR
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
10
17
18
19
20
21
9
LIFT SCREEN FOR LIFT
33 MECHANICAL 33
300
EXHAUST DUCT 1:
9460
10
UP C1
11450
EXTENT OF ENTRY RAMP
SHOWN DASHED
MECH EXHAUST DUCT
32
2500
I I I I
DA23 DA23 DA23 DA23
R1
5900
500 5400 6300 2400
2500
32
R2
CARPARK
300
GROUND FLOOR PUBLIC LOBBY
C2
22650
2600
H H H H
AMENITIES
24630
24630
24630
24630
DA23 DA23 DA23 5400 9200 DA23
19870
R3
31
TURN
5800
ZONE
2400
R4
BIKE
G G G 2500 300 1200 2600 2600 300 2500 G
DA23 DA23 DA23 DA23
2300
15170
BIKE
R5 C3
MB1
1200
13180
31 POOL PUMP &
1 x BIKES
POOL PUMP &
900
FILTER
FILTER
MB3 MB2
5400
POOL SHELL POOL SHELL
SUBSTRATE SUBSTRATE
F TENANCY 01 TENANCY 02 F F F
11
DA23 DA23 DA23 2 x BIKES DA23
m
2
1980
1980
PLANTER
30
20
20
OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR DINING
20
20
20
20
20
20
OUTDOOR BUSINESS AREA OUTDOOR BUSINESS AREA
16 m2 15 m2
11990 2990 AWNING BELOW 11990
60 14980 48 60 14980 48
S
A B C D E A B C D E
DA15 DA15 DA15 DA16 DA16 DA15 DA15 DA15 DA16 DA16
30 30
01 FLOOR PLAN DUKE STREET 02 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 / DOUGLAS LANE
1:100 1:100
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
north
CAMBOOYA PTY LTD DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
scale : 1:100 @A1 1:200 @A3
DUKE STREET & DOUGLAS LANE issue : 13 date : 08-09-23
36 - 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH FLOOR PLANS 7252-DA06
A R CHIT E CT UR E | L A NDS CA P E | INT E R IOR | P ROJECT MA NA G E ME NT
7252-25-Duke St Option10.pln Friday, 8 September 2023 3:01 pm The designs, drawings and specification are copyright and always remain the property of Blackburne Jackson Design Pty Ltd.
GSPublisherVersion 1259.0.72.0
Page 62
A B C D E
DA15 DA15 DA15 DA16 DA16
1080 12070 1938
5100 6970
7237
7237
CONCRETE LID OVER
ISOLATED STAIR
LIFT LID TO SIT UNDER ROOF
SHEETING 12.0m HEIGHT LIMIT PROJECTION
EXTENT OF METAL ROOF ABOVE NATURAL GROUND
SHEETING AS INDICATED
3080
J J
DA23 DA23
LIFT OVER
2000
RUN
(BELOW)
3038
6o FALL
1000
I I
DA23 DA23
15990
17250
17250
8450
H H
DA23 DA23
3720
G G
1260
DA23 DA23
1100 5520 5530
1000 12150 1938
7700
7700
F F
DA23 DA23
A B C D E
DA15 DA15 DA15 DA16 DA16
01 ROOF PLAN 02 HEIGHT PLANE PROJECTION
1:100 1:50
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
north
CAMBOOYA PTY LTD DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
scale : 1:100 @A1 1:200 @A3
ROOF PLAN & HEIGHT PLANE issue : 08 date : 08-09-23
36 - 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH PROJECTION 7252-DA08
A R CHIT E CT UR E | L A NDS CA P E | INT E R IOR | P ROJECT MA NA G E ME NT
7252-25-Duke St Option10.pln Friday, 8 September 2023 3:01 pm The designs, drawings and specification are copyright and always remain the property of Blackburne Jackson Design Pty Ltd.
GSPublisherVersion 1259.0.72.0
Page 63
BOUNDARY
BOUNDARY
BOUNDARY
BOUNDARY
EXHAUST DUCTING TO BE
UNDER HEIGHT LIMIT PLANE
DOUGLAS DUKE DOUGLAS DUKE
LANE 12m HEIGHT LIMIT DA
SHED STREET LANE nom. LIFT 12m HEIGHT LIMIT DA
SHED STREET
OVERRUN TO
FUTURE DETAIL
nom. LIFT OVERRUN TO
FUTURE DETAIL STAIR LID
ROOF ROOF
RL 42.960 RL 42.960
STAIR BALC
2900
2900
SCREEN TO CONCEAL APT 03 APT 03 BALC
EXHAUST DUCTING
STAIR
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3
RL 40.060 RL 40.060
LIFT
3100
3100
APT 01 BALC APT 01
HARDSTAND LEVELS TO CIVIL
ENGINEER'S DRAWING
NO GAPS TO
BALUSTRADE -
HARDSTAND LEVELS TO CIVIL
ENGINEER'S DRAWING BALC
SPLASH PROOF
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2
RL 36.960 RL 36.960
POOL PLANTER
PLANTER
3100
3100
CAR PARKING CONCRETE
CAR PARKING CONCRETE
AWNING OVER
AWNING OVER FOOTPATH
FOOTPATH
DOUGLAS LANE DOUGLAS LANE
RL 33.860 RL 33.860
ENCLOSED ENCLOSED
UNDERCROFT UNDERCROFT
nom. TANKING & nom. TANKING &
TENANCY TENANCY
3600
3600
WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TO WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TO nom. TANKING &
CIVIL ENGINEER'S DETAIL nom. TANKING &
WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TO [LAYOUT AS PER 7252_DA13] FOOTPATH CIVIL ENGINEER'S DETAIL WATERPROOF [LAYOUT AS PER 7252_DA13] FOOTPATH
MEMBRANE TO CIVIL
CIVIL ENGINEER'S DETAIL
ENGINEER'S DETAIL
DUKE STREET DUKE STREET
RL 30.260 RL 30.260
NATURAL GROUND LINE DASHED
PROPOSED GROUND LINE PROPOSED GROUND LINE
01 A SECTION 02 B SECTION
1:100 1:100
BOUNDARY
BOUNDARY
DOUGLAS 8047
DUKE
LANE ROOF APEX 12m HEIGHT LIMIT DASHED STREET
RL 44.734
SLAB
SLAB EXTENSION AS EXTENSION AS
SUNSHADE FOR LEVEL SUNSHADE FOR
BELOW LEVEL BELOW
ROOF ROOF APEX
RL 42.960 RL 42.960
DROP SLAB TO PROTECT
EXTERNAL ACCESS FROM EXTERNAL
WEATHER
BALC
APT ACCESS
2900
APT 03
2400
SLAB EXTENSION AS 9950
SUNSHADE FOR LEVEL
BELOW
LEVEL 3
RL 40.060
11400
DROP SLAB TO PROTECT
EXTERNAL ACCESS FROM
WEATHER
3100
EXTERNAL
APT 01
2400
APT ACCESS 9950
BALC
12000
LEVEL 2
RL 36.960
HARDSTAND LEVELS TO CIVIL
ENGINEER'S DRAWING PLANTER
CONCRETE
2755
CAR PARKING
2400
2537
3100
AWNING OVER
FOOTPATH
LEVELS TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS
HIGHEST POINT
DOUGLAS LANE RL 34.310
RL 33.860
NATURAL GROUND
RL 33.334
BATHROOM
TENANCY
3600
GROUND FLOOR
nom. TANKING &
WATERPROOF MEMBRANE
PUBLIC LOBBY [LAYOUT AS PER 7252_DA13] FOOTPATH
TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S DETAIL NATURAL GROUND
RL 30.960
DUKE STREET
RL 30.260
NATURAL GROUND LINE DASHED
PROPOSED GROUND LINE
03 C SECTION
1:100
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
north
CAMBOOYA PTY LTD DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
scale : 1:100 @A1 1:200 @A3
issue : 09 date : 08-09-23
36 - 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH SECTIONS 7252-DA15
A R CHIT E CT UR E | L A NDS CA P E | INT E R IOR | P ROJECT MA NA G E ME NT
7252-25-Duke St Option10.pln Friday, 8 September 2023 3:01 pm The designs, drawings and specification are copyright and always remain the property of Blackburne Jackson Design Pty Ltd.
GSPublisherVersion 1259.0.72.0
Page 64
APPENDIX B – RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION Rational Method Calculation – Site Rational Method Calculation – External Catchment (Douglas Lane) Manning’s Calculation – Douglas Lane SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 65
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION – SITE
Catchment Details EXISTING SITE PROPOSED SITE
Area (ha) 0.0486 0.0486
Impervious Area (ha) 0.0277 0.044
Fraction Impervious (%) 57% 92%
1
I60 (mm/hr) 75.2 75.2
C1 0.656 0.70
C2 0.70 0.75
C5 0.78 0.84
C10 0.82 0.88
C20 0.86 0.92
C50 0.94 1.00
C100 0.98 1.00
Time of Concentration (min)
Method Tc
Catchment
EXISTING SITE Standard inlet time, catchment slope ~14% 8
PROPOSED SITE Standard inlet time, mostly paved/impervious areas 5
Rainfall Intensities (mm/hr)
Catchment 1yr ARI 2yr ARI 5yr ARI 10yr ARI 20yr ARI 50yr ARI 100yr ARI
EXISTING SITE 111 139 168 196 223 257 282
PROPOSED SITE 125 158 193 227 259 301 333
Stormwater Quantities (m3/s)
Catchment 1yr ARI 2yr ARI 5yr ARI 10yr ARI 20yr ARI 50yr ARI 100yr ARI
EXISTING SITE 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.022 0.026 0.033 0.037
PROPOSED SITE 0.012 0.016 0.022 0.027 0.032 0.041 0.045
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 66
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION – EXTERNAL
CATCHMENT (DOUGLAS LANE)
EXTERNAL
Catchment Details
CATCHMENT
Area (ha) 0.1302
Impervious Area (ha) 0.1042
Fraction Impervious (%) 80%
1
I60 (mm/hr) 75.2
C1 0.70
C2 0.74
C5 0.83
C10 0.87
C20 0.91
C50 1.00
C100 1.00
Time of Concentration (min)
Catchment Method Tc
EXTERNAL CATCHMENT Standard inlet time, mostly paved/impervious areas 6
Rainfall Intensities (mm/hr)
Catchment 1yr ARI 2yr ARI 5yr ARI 10yr ARI 20yr ARI 50yr ARI 100yr ARI
EXTERNAL CATCHMENT 120 151 184 215 245 284 313
Stormwater Quantities (m3/s)
Catchment 1yr ARI 2yr ARI 5yr ARI 10yr ARI 20yr ARI 50yr ARI 100yr ARI
EXTERNAL CATCHMENT 0.030 0.040 0.055 0.068 0.081 0.103 0.113
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 67
MANNING’S CALCULATION – DOUGLAS LANE
Cross Sec tion Details 1 % AEP Flow
P oint CH Z n wA wP n x wA
1 0.00 0.080 0.015
2 0.00 0.000 0.015 0.00 0.04 0.00
3 0.50 0.012 0.015 0.02 0.50 0.00
4 1.31 0.027 0.015 0.02 0.80 0.00
5 2.06 0.021 0.015 0.01 0.75 0.00
6 2.61 0.018 0.015 0.01 0.56 0.00
7 2.88 0.017 0.015 0.01 0.26 0.00
8 3.50 0.073 0.015 0.00 0.29 0.00
9 4.67 0.089 0.015
wA wP n x wA
TO TAL 0.073 3.207 0.001
Slope (m/m)
0.08 R n Q
0.023 0.015 0.113
Design Flow (m³/s) 0.113
WSL (m) 0.042
Results
Channel Flow (m³/s) 0.113
Velocity (m/s) 1.54
Max. Depth (m) 0.042
DV Product (m²/s) 0.07
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 Surface
1% AEP Flow
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Chainage (m)
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 68
APPENDIX C – XP-STORM SUMMARY Pre-Development Site Discharge (XP-STORM hydrographs) Post-Development Site Discharge (XP-STORM hydrographs) Detention Tank Stage-Area-Volume SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 69
PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE DISCHARGE POST-DEVELOPMENT SITE DISCHARGE SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 70
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS = JFOP URBANCONSULTANTS DETENTION TANK STAGE-AREA-VOLUME RL (m AHD) Height (m) Area (m?) Area (ha) Incremental Vol (m3?) Accum. Vol (m3) 4.50 0.00045 0 0.0 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 0.5 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 0.9 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 14 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 18 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 2.3 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 27 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 3.2 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 3.6 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 41 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 4.5 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 5.0 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 5.4 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 5.9 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 63 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 6.8 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 7.2 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 77 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 8.1 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 8.6 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 9.0 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 9.5 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 9.9 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 10.4 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 10.8 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 11.3 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 11.7 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 12.2 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 12.6 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 13.1 4.50 0.00045 r 0.450 13.5 SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN — Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 71
APPENDIX D –STORMWATER CATCHMENT PLANS Pre-Development Site Catchment Post-Development Site Catchment SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – Revision B 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH
Page 72
S
E1
S
S
S
S
S
S
E1
S
S
S
E
E
E
S
S
S
S
S
E
E
E
S
18/09/2023 N:\M3024\STORMWATER MANAGEMENT\REV B\ACAD\M3024E_DA1_SK01
S
S
BRISBANE - SUNSHINE COAST - CENTRAL QLD PLANNERS PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE CATCHMENT
BRISBANE URBAN DESIGNERS JOB NO: PLAN: ISSUE:
JFP House - 76 Ernest Street, SURVEYORS M3024E_DA1 SK01 B N
South Brisbane Qld 4101
P 07 3012 0100 W www.jfp.com.au ENGINEERS 36 & 38 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH SCALE:
DATE:
1:100 @ A1
18/09/2023
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. A.C.N. 050 414 045 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
COPYRIGHT © 2011 JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE COPIED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS IN PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD.
CAMBOOYA PTY LTD DRAFTED BY:
FILE NAME:
CB
M3024E_DA1_SK01.DWG
The text continues on page 73.