Original source · versioned page text
ASTP-Rspns_To_RFI
Figure 3 shows the rear portion is hatched for ‘cut’ which Council believes to be an error, as
Section A of Barlow Shelley’s Earthworks Sections (C102, Rev. A) does not indicate a cut and
annotations suggest the existing levels are to be retained.
Information Required
6. Clarify the intent of the sections of retaining wall highlighted in Figure 3 and
comment on the overall intent of the rear portion of the site with respects to
earthworks (cut). Any commentary must be prepared by a suitably qualified person
(RPEQ) and include amended plans where necessary.
RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. The updated
Engineering Plans (Attachment 4) show the cut hatch filtered for a minimum depth and the natural slope to the
rear of the site left intact as described on the site sections.
ITEMS 7 & 8:
Issue – Vehicle Manoeuvring
Insufficient Vehicle Turn Paths have been provided demonstrating that the carparks
highlighted below are functional for a B99 vehicle.
Figure 4 – Potential collision and carparks requiring Vehicle Turn Paths extracted from Barlow Shelley’s Vehicle Turn
Paths (C300, Rev. A)
It is unclear if the garage “gate” is intended to function as a traditional gate and open
inwards. If it is the intention for the garage “gate” to open inwards, then the B99 Vehicle
Turn Path shown in Figure 4 collides with the open gate.
Information Required
7. Provide additional Vehicle Turn Paths demonstrating a B99 vehicle can manoeuvre in
and out of the carparks highlighted in blue in Figure 3. The additional Vehicle Turn
Our ref: 240407 Page 7 of 9
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the original