Council archive · source document
Appendix D- Stormwater Management Plan · MCU23/0078
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
Very large file (18.3 MB): may take a few minutes to open.
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED NOOSA CIVIC VILLAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 28 EENIE CREEK ROAD NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566 PREPARED FOR STOCKWELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP PTY LTD
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of sections 2 to 27 (of 74)
Section 2
Bornhorst & Ward Pty Ltd
A.B.N. 78 010 151 354
A.C.N. 010 151 354
Level 14, 133 Mary Street
Brisbane Qld 4000
Phone: (07) 3013 4699
E-mail: [email protected]
Bornhorst and Ward Project No: 22159
If you have any queries regarding this proposal, then please contact: Stewart Grant
Revision Date Description Author Rev. App.
A April 2023 Draft Issue for Client Review KHN SG
B May 2023 DA Issue KHN JD NR
Nicholas Rozis: RPEQ 7729
COPYRIGHT: This document is and shall remain the property of Bornhorst & Ward Pty Ltd and shall not be copied in whole or part. Unauthorized use of this
document in any form is prohibited.
FileName: J:\2022\22159\07_REPORTS\DESIGNREPORTS\SWMP(B)\RPT_SWMP(B).docx
www.bornhorstward.com.au
Section 3
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 LOCATION AND EXISTING FEATURES ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................ 3
2.3.1 Site A – Western Lot....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.2 Site B – Eastern Lot......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 EXISTING FLOODING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3
3. EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 4
3.1 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE ...................................................................................................................................... 5
4. STORMWATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 5
4.1 DETAILED HYDRAULIC MODELLING – XP STORM .................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Existing Scenario Model ................................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1.2 Results for Existing Scenario ........................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1.3 XP Storm and Rational Method Comparison ............................................................................................................. 7
4.1.4 Developed Scenario Model ........................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.5 Detention Basin Design ................................................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.6 Results for Developed Scenario ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1.7 Hydraulic Impacts on Downstream Waterway Corridor .........................................................................................11
5. STORMWATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................................12
5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE .............................................................................................................................................................12
5.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE.................................................................................................................................................................12
5.2.1 Pollutants of Concern ..................................................................................................................................................12
5.2.2 Modelling/Assessment Approach ..............................................................................................................................12
5.2.3 Meteorological Data ....................................................................................................................................................12
5.2.4 Source Nodes ................................................................................................................................................................13
5.2.5 Treatment Methodology .............................................................................................................................................13
5.2.6 Treatment Nodes .........................................................................................................................................................13
5.2.7 Proposed Treatment Train - SPEL ..............................................................................................................................15
5.2.8 Results - SPEL ................................................................................................................................................................15
5.2.9 Proposed Treatment Train – OceanProtect ..............................................................................................................16
5.2.10 Results – OceanProtect ................................................................................................................................................17
6. NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL CODES ................................................................................................................................................17
7. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................................18
www.bornhorstward.com.au
Section 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Locality Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Noosa Shire Council Interactive Flood Map ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Proposed Treatment Train (Site A) – SPEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4: Proposed Treatment Train Site B (Northern & Southern Catchment) – SPEL ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Proposed Treatment Train (Site A) – OceanProtect ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 6: Proposed Treatment Train (Site B) – OceanProtect ............................................................................................................................................ 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: XP Storm Existing Model Parameters ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 2: XP Storm Existing Peak Flow Results – Site A (m3/sec) .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3: XP Storm Existing Peak Flow Results – Site B (South) (m3/sec) ......................................................................................................................... 7
Table 4: XP Storm Existing Peak Flow Results – Site B (South) (m3/sec) ......................................................................................................................... 7
Table 5: Comparison of Rational Method & XP Storm Existing Peak Flows – Site A (m3/sec)............................................................................... 8
Table 6: XP Storm Developed Model Parameters – Site A..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 7: XP Storm Developed Model Parameters – Site B (North) ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 8: XP Storm Developed Model Parameters – Site B (South) ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 9: XP Storm Developed Model Hydraulic Routing ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 10: XP Storm Developed Mitigated Peak Flow Results – Site A (m3/sec) ........................................................................................................ 10
Table 11: XP Storm Developed Mitigated Peak Flow Results – Site B (North) (m3/sec) ........................................................................................ 10
Table 12: XP Storm Developed Mitigated Peak Flow Results – Site B (North) (m3/sec) ........................................................................................ 10
Table 13: XP Storm Existing and Developed Mitigated Peak Discharge Comparison – Site A (m3/sec)......................................................... 11
Table 14: XP Storm Existing and Developed Mitigated Peak Discharge Comparison – Site B (North) (m3/sec)......................................... 11
Table 15: XP Storm Existing and Developed Mitigated Peak Discharge Comparison – Site B (South) (m3/sec)......................................... 11
Table 16: Noosa Shire Council Water Quality Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 17: Source Node Information – Site A Catchment ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 18: Source Node Information – Site B Northern Catchment ................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 19: Source Node Information – Site B Southern Catchment ................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 20: Selected Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices................................................................................................................................................ 14
Table 21: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site A) – SPEL ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 22: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site B) – SPEL............................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 23: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site A) – OceanProtect ......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 24: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site B) – OceanProtect ......................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDICES
Appendix A DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS
Appendix B ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
Appendix C EXISTING STORMWATER AND CONTOUR INFORMATION
Appendix D RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
Appendix E XPSTORM OUTPUTS
Appendix F MUSIC DATA
Appendix G COUNCIL CODES
www.bornhorstward.com.au
Section 5
1. INTRODUCTION
Bornhorst and Ward has been commissioned to investigate and report on the stormwater requirements pertaining to the
proposed mixed-use development located at 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville QLD 4566 (Lot 7 and Lot 3 on SP322201,
respectively). The proposal consists of constructing basement car parking, ground floor retail with civic open space, and
entertainment, commercial and residential apartments on the second and third floors. Plans of the proposed development
can be seen in Appendix A.
This document reports on the existing and proposed stormwater infrastructure required as part of the proposed
development as well as the stormwater quantity and quality management required for the site. The engineering
requirements for this proposal shall be in accordance with Engineering Best Management Practices, Noosa Shire Council
Planning Scheme, the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM 2017) and the State Planning Policy 2017.
This report outlines the preliminary design methodology and calculations in support of a Development Application and
should be read in conjunction with other documents issued by the consultant team.
2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 LOCATION AND EXISTING FEATURES
The development site, located at 28 Eenie Creek Road has the following existing characteristics:
− The site is bounded by Walter Hay Drive to the east, the existing Noosa Civic Centre to the west, and future
development lots to the north and south;
− The development site comprises of 2 separate lots currently made up of bushland separated by a private internal
roadway (known as Main Street) contained within an access easement;
− The total area of the site is approximately 5.8 ha;
− Site A is located on the western side of the development site and is bounded by Noosa Civic Buildings to the
west and north, the private access roadway to the east, and vacant future development lots to the north and
south. There is a natural drainage channel located along the western boundary of Site A;
− Site B is located on the eastern side of the development site and is bound by Walter Hay Drive to the east, the
private access roadway to the west and north, and vacant future development lots to the south;
− Site A has an area of 3.46 ha and Site B has an area of 2.32 approximately ha;
− The closest waterway is Eenie Creek which located approximately 500m to the south-west;
− The internal private access roadway is contained within an access easement in favour of Noosa Shire Council
within the Site A lot, with a separate Unity Water easement located within the access easement to service Unity
Water sewer and water reticulation infrastructure; and
− A surface access easement in favour of Noosa Shire Council to facilitate pedestrian and active transport
movements is located along the western side of the Site A lot.
Refer to Figure 1 for locality details which notes Sites A and B within the proposed development area.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 1
Section 6
Figure 1: Site Locality Plan
2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The following points outline the extent of works for the proposed development:
− Material change of use and building work in support of the proposed development;
− Construction of the mixed-use development within the Site A lot, with basement carparking, commercial and
retail outlets, and residential build-to-rent apartments;
− Construction of mixed-use three-story buildings within the Site B lot, with surface carparking, commercial and
retail outlets, and residential build-to-rent apartments;
− The existing private access roadway will remain. Access to both Sites A and B lots will be via four proposed
driveway crossovers onto the existing private roadway, and multiple pedestrian entrances to both sites;
− A new pedestrian bridge across the environmental zone and natural drainage channel between the proposed
development and the existing shopping centre; and
− Modifications to the existing shopping centre loading bay to allow for the proposed pedestrian bridge landing.
Refer to the development drawings in Appendix A for further details of the proposed development.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 2
Section 7
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The topography and catchment characteristics for the development site, broken down between both Sites A and B, are
discussed below:
2.3.1 Site A – Western Lot
− The high point of the existing site is RL 9.47m AHD located on the eastern side of the site;
− The development falls from the high point at an approximate grade of 2.5% to a low point of RL 3.88m AHD in
the south-western corner;
− During both minor and major storm events, runoff from the site discharges as overland flow over the western
boundary of the development site and onto the environmental zone and natural drainage channel, and is
ultimately conveyed through culverts below Hofmann Drive to Eenie Creek and Lake Weyba;
− As the roadways surrounding the site have been built assuming a fully developed catchment, there is no external
catchment.
2.3.2 Site B – Eastern Lot
− The high point of the existing site is RL 10.63m AHD located on eastern side of the site;
− The development falls from the high point at an approximate grade of 1% to a low point of RL 9.2m AHD in the
south-west corner;
− During both minor and major storm events, runoff from the site discharges as overland flow over the western
boundary of the development site and onto the private access roadway, and is ultimately conveyed to the
stormwater drainage system along the access roadway to Eenie Creek and Lake Weyba;
− Site B is split into two sub-catchments, with a high-point located midway along the private access road frontage,
with flows directed either towards the north-west onto the private access road and around Site A to the
environmental zone and natural drainage channel, or towards the south-west onto the private access roads; and
− As the roadways surrounding the site have been built assuming a fully developed catchment, there is no external
catchment.
See the survey plan in Appendix C for more information.
2.4 EXISTING FLOODING CONDITIONS
From Noosa Shire Council Plan Interactive Mapping, it has been obtained for the site and states the following:
− No flood levels or flags for building development purposes exist for the development site.
− The interactive mapping system within Noosa Shire Council Plan confirms that the development site is not
affected by Eenie Creek or overland flow flooding.
− It is expected that the site is at a low risk of flood inundation.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 3
Section 8
Figure 2: Noosa Shire Council Interactive Flood Map
3. EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
A Dial Before You Dig investigation, detailed survey, and examination of as-constructed documentation for the
surrounding roadways has been completed of the site and its surrounding area. The following stormwater infrastructure
was noted:
− An existing 600mm dia. stormwater pipe and temporary inlet is located at the south-west corner of the Site A lot
which conveys flows below Hofmann Drive and into Eenie Creek;
− An existing 375mm dia. stormwater pipe with multiple gully pits is located along the southern half of the internal
access roadway which also conveys flows along Hofmann Drive and into Eenie Creek;
− An existing 750mm dia. stormwater pipe with multiple gully pits is located along the northern half of the internal
access roadway which conveys flows to the north into the upstream end of the environmental zone and natural
drainage channel; and
− The stormwater infrastructure has been built for a fully developed catchment.
As-constructed Drawings of the existing stormwater infrastructure and detailed survey can be found in Appendix C.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 4
Section 9
3.2 PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The following points outline the proposed stormwater infrastructure for the development site:
− Minor events from within Site A will be conveyed by an internal stormwater piped network to the existing 600mm
dia. stormwater pipe at the south-west corner of the development site;
− Minor events from within Site B will be conveyed by an internal stormwater piped network to the existing gully
pits along the private access roadway along the western frontage of the development site;
− Major events will be conveyed via overland flow towards and onto the surrounding private access roadways and
environmental zones as per existing conditions;
− Run-off from the remaining un-developed areas of site B will be conveyed via catch drains around the proposed
development works area to the private access roadway as per existing catchment characteristics;
− As there will be an increase to the impervious area as a result of the proposed development, there will be an
increase to peak stormwater discharge rates from the development site. Based on this, stormwater detention
measures are required, and three below-ground stormwater detention tanks are proposed across both Sites A
and B; and
− Considering the development works area is greater than 2500m2, stormwater quality treatment measures are
required for the proposed development as per the State Planning Policy and Noosa Shire Council Planning
Scheme. Treatment is proposed within the below-ground stormwater tanks.
Refer to the engineering drawings in Appendix B for further information.
4. STORMWATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS
Under the Noosa Shire Council Guidelines, several design elements were identified in relation to stormwater management
issues. Noosa Shire Council must be satisfied that:
− The proposed development can be drained;
− The stormwater management system can follow the features and functions of the natural drainage system;
− The volume, timing, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater has no adverse effect on any surrounding
properties or receiving waters; and
− Suitable provision is made in the design layout to accommodate for major drainage.
All stormwater discharge will comply with Noosa Shire Council’s Stormwater Management Code with quantity calculations
completed in accordance with the requirements and methods outlined in the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual
(QUDM).
4.1 DETAILED HYDRAULIC MODELLING – XP STORM
A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis using XP Storm software has been undertaken to model the stormwater flow
characteristics of the site more accurately.
XP Storm is a hydraulic modelling software tool that utilises detailed hydrograph flow analysis to provide an effective
representation of urban stormwater systems. Hydrographs are calculated using the Laurenson Method for runoff routing
in conjunction with the Uniform Loss model for determining catchment losses. XP Storm has been used to demonstrate
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 5
Section 10
acceptable detention sizing and non-worsening on downstream properties through comparison of the results obtained for
existing and developed mitigated scenarios.
4.1.1 Existing Scenario Model
Initially the existing XP Storm model was built using catchments’ parameters outlined in Table 1. The initial and continuing
loss properties were assumed from site investigations and recent experience with stormwater modelling in the subject
area.
Table 1: XP Storm Existing Model Parameters
Parameter Site A Site B - North Site B - South
Pervious Impervious Pervious Impervious Pervious Impervious
Data Data Data Data Data Data
Area (ha) 3.46 - 0.249 - 0.45 -
Slope (%) 2.7 1 1.5
Mannings ‘n’ 0.05 - 0.015 - 0.015 -
Initial Loss
27 0 27 0 27 0
(mm)
Continuing
2.6 0 2.6 0 2.6 0
Loss (mm/hr)
Laurenson ‘n’ -0.285 -0.285 -0.285 -0.285 -0.285 -0.285
4.1.2 Results for Existing Scenario
Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 indicates the existing total peak discharge rate for the site as outputted by XP storm for Site
A, Site B North Site B South. The critical storm duration for the existing catchment was determined by simulating all storm
events from the 1 to 100-year ARI storm events for 20, 25, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 180-minute durations. The critical storm
events can be seen within tables below.
Table 2: XP Storm Existing Peak Flow Results – Site A (m3/sec)
ARI & AEP
Storm Duration
1 Years 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years 20 Years 50 Years 100 Years
(min)
63% 39% 18% 10% 5% 2% 1%
20 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.153 0.313 0.400 0.566
25 0.000 0.001 0.138 0.239 0.371 0.577 0.741
30 0.000 0.020 0.209 0.327 0.471 0.686 0.852
45 0.029 0.080 0.307 0.454 0.640 0.840 1.014
60 0.068 0.134 0.360 0.556 0.727 0.942 1.115
90 0.116 0.184 0.418 0.606 0.801 0.998 1.182
120 0.132 0.186 0.431 0.597 0.793 0.970 1.163
180 0.134 0.197 0.425 0.613 0.813 0.975 1.171
Critical 0.134 0.197 0.431 0.613 0.813 0.998 1.182
Critical Even (Min) 180 180 120 180 180 90 90
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 6
Section 11
Table 3: XP Storm Existing Peak Flow Results – Site B (South) (m3/sec)
ARI & AEP
Storm Duration
1 Years 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years 20 Years 50 Years 100 Years
(min)
63% 39% 18% 10% 5% 2% 1%
20 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.023 0.034 0.043 0.058
25 0.000 0.003 0.017 0.027 0.039 0.055 0.069
30 0.002 0.005 0.022 0.033 0.045 0.061 0.073
45 0.007 0.012 0.030 0.043 0.055 0.071 0.085
60 0.010 0.015 0.036 0.049 0.064 0.083 0.098
90 0.013 0.018 0.039 0.053 0.070 0.083 0.098
120 0.013 0.018 0.037 0.053 0.069 0.081 0.096
180 0.013 0.018 0.038 0.054 0.070 0.079 0.093
Critical 0.013 0.018 0.039 0.054 0.070 0.083 0.098
Critical Even (Min) 90 90 90 180 90 60 60
Table 4: XP Storm Existing Peak Flow Results – Site B (South) (m3/sec)
ARI & AEP
Storm Duration
1 Years 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years 20 Years 50 Years 100 Years
(min)
63% 39% 18% 10% 5% 2% 1%
20 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.034 0.051 0.064 0.088
25 0.001 0.004 0.025 0.040 0.059 0.084 0.106
30 0.003 0.008 0.034 0.051 0.071 0.098 0.120
45 0.010 0.018 0.048 0.070 0.090 0.117 0.141
60 0.016 0.024 0.059 0.079 0.103 0.134 0.160
90 0.021 0.029 0.064 0.087 0.114 0.136 0.161
120 0.022 0.031 0.061 0.086 0.113 0.131 0.157
180 0.022 0.030 0.062 0.087 0.114 0.132 0.157
Critical 0.022 0.031 0.064 0.087 0.114 0.136 0.161
Critical Even (Min) 120 120 90 90 90 90 90
Discharge hydrographs for the existing model have been included in Appendix E.
4.1.3 XP Storm and Rational Method Comparison
Before utilising data from XP storm, a comparison of results from XP Storm and the Rational Method was undertaken to
ensure that the XP Storm model was functioning correctly. Peak discharge rates from the site in the existing case were
compared (“site” catchments defined in Table 1). The comparison was undertaken for the Site A catchment only outlined
in Table 4. Detailed Rational Method calculations can be reviewed in Appendix D.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 7
Section 12
Table 5: Comparison of Rational Method & XP Storm Existing Peak Flows – Site A (m3/sec)
AEP (%) ARI (Years) Rational Method Result XP Storm Result
63.21 1 0.286 0.134
39.35 2 0.344 0.197
18.13 5 0.520 0.431
10 10 0.641 0.613
5 20 0.765 0.813
2 50 0.968 0.998
1 100 1.111 1.182
As indicated, the XP Storm peak discharge results are of the same magnitude as the results initially estimated using the
Rational Method. It was therefore concluded that the existing XP Storm model was functioning correctly.
4.1.4 Developed Scenario Model
A developed scenario model was then created with internal catchments and parameters modified from the existing model
to suit the proposed development as outline in Table 6, 7 and 8.
Table 6: XP Storm Developed Model Parameters – Site A
Parameter Site A Catchment
Pervious Data Impervious Data
Area (ha) - 3.46
Slope (%) - 1
Mannings ‘n’ - 0.015
Initial Loss (mm) - 0
Continuing Loss (mm/hr) - 0
Laurenson ‘n’ -0.285 -0.285
Table 7: XP Storm Developed Model Parameters – Site B (North)
Parameter Site B Northern Catchment
Pervious Data Impervious Data
Area (ha) - 0.25
Slope (%) - 1
Mannings ‘n’ - 0.015
Initial Loss (mm) - 0
Continuing Loss (mm/hr) - 0
Laurenson ‘n’ -0.285 -0.285
Table 8: XP Storm Developed Model Parameters – Site B (South)
Parameter Site B Southern Catchment
Pervious Data Impervious Data
Area (ha) - 0.45
Slope (%) - 1.5
Mannings ‘n’ - 0.015
Initial Loss (mm) - 0
Continuing Loss (mm/hr) - 0
Laurenson ‘n’ -0.285 -0.285
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 8
Section 13
4.1.5 Detention Basin Design
For the developed mitigated scenario, a storage node representing the proposed detention basins were included in the
model. Flows from all three development catchments were routed to the assigned detention tank.
The storage node inputs were sourced based on an in-situ tank design for the Site A catchment, and a pre-cast tank
system for the two Site B catchments and tanks. The three detention tanks modelled for each of the three sub-catchments
are outlined in Table 9 below.
Table 9: XP Storm Developed Model Hydraulic Routing
Development Sub- Invert Elevation Internal Height Surface Area Approximate Volume
Catchment (RL) (m) (m2) (m3)
Site A 5.50 2.0 1,120 2,240
Site B (North) 7.00 1.0 160 160
Site B (South) 7.30 1.0 270 270
The outlets to each of the three detention tanks were modelled as per the below:
• Site A Catchment Tank:
o Low-flow outlet: 150mm diameter orifice with invert at RL 5.50;
o Mid-flow outlet: 300mm diameter orifice with invert at RL 6.30;
o High-flow outlet: 600mm diameter orifice with invert at R: 6.50; and
o High-flow weir: 20m long weir with crest height at RL 7.30.
• Site B (North) Catchment Tank:
o Low-flow outlet: 90mm diameter orifice with invert at RL 7.00;
o Mid-flow outlet: 225mm diameter orifice with invert at RL 7.40; and
o High-flow weir: 2m long weir with crest height at RL 7.85.
• Site B (South) Catchment Tank:
o Low-flow outlet: 100mm diameter orifice with invert at RL 7.30
o Mid-flow outlet: 275mm diameter orifice with invert at RL 7.70; and
o High-flow weir: 1.6m long weir with crest height at RL 8.13.
See Engineering Drawings in Appendix B for further information.
4.1.6 Results for Developed Scenario
Tables 10, 11 and 12 indicates the developed total peak discharge rate from the development sites as outputted by XP
storm. The peak flow rate indicated is the combined flow of the site and external catchments. To determine the critical
storm event for the developed mitigated case, the 1-to-100-year ARI storm events for 20, 25, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 180-
minute durations were simulated in the model.
From these simulations it was determined that for both catchments, the critical duration for the 100-year and 20-year ARI
storm events was the 25-minute storm and the critical duration for the 1-to-10-year and 50-year ARI storm events was the
60-minute storm. The 25-minute and 60-minute storm duration results will therefore be compared against the existing
scenario discharges for both catchments, as identified in Section 4.1.7.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 9
Section 14
BORNHORST +WARD Table 10: XP Storm Developed Mitigated Peak Flow Results — Site A (m3/sec) Storm Duration ARI (Years) (min) 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 20 0.037 | 0.040 | 0.091 0.161 0.247 0.408 0.515 25 0.040 | 0.046 | 0.132 0.231 0.349 0.514 0.619 30 0.042 | 0.058 | 0.177 0.295 0.422 0.579 0.680 45 0.063 | 0.101 | 0.274 0.425 0.546 0.697 0.881 60 0.084 | 0.128 | 0.326 0.482 0.617 0.798 1.010 90 0.112 | 0.162 | 0.369 0.520 0.668 0.887 1.119 120 0.124 | 0.173 | 0.369 0.517 0.660 0.838 1.081 180 0.128 | 0.179 | 0.366 0.536 0.699 0.896 1.158 Critical 0.128 | 0.179 | 0.369 0.536 0.699 0.896 1.158 Critical Event 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 Table 11: XP Storm Developed Mitigated Peak Flow Results — Site B (North) (m3/sec) Storm Duration ARI (Years) (min) 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 20 0.009 | 0.010 | 0.018 0.028 0.037 0.048 0.056 25 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.022 0.032 0.042 0.052 0.060 30 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.025 0.035 0.044 0.055 0.061 45 0.011 | 0.015 | 0.031 0.041 0.050 0.061 0.068 60 0.013 | 0.017 | 0.035 0.047 0.058 0.068 0.084 90 0.013 | 0.017 | 0.037 0.050 0.061 0.070 0.097 120 0.013 | 0.017 | 0.035 0.048 0.059 0.067 0.088 180 0.012 | 0.016 | 0.036 0.050 0.061 0.067 0.090 Critical 0.013 | 0.017 | 0.037 0.050 0.061 0.070 0.097 Critical Event 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 Table 12: XP Storm Developed Mitigated Peak Flow Results — Site B (North) (m3/sec) Storm Duration ARI (Years) (min) 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 20 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.028 | 0.040 | 0.053 0.063 25 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.021 | 0.036 | 0.048 | 0.061 0.077 30 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.027 | 0.041 0.053 | 0.066 0.096 45 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.038 | 0.052 | 0.063 | 0.097 0.132 60 0.013 | 0.018 | 0.042 | 0.058 | 0.074 | 0.122 0.153 90 0.015 | 0.021 | 0.046 | 0.061 | 0.089 | 0.130 0.161 120 0.016 | 0.022 | 0.045 | 0.060 | 0.086 | 0.128 0.161 180 0.016 | 0.022 | 0.044 | 0.061 0.104 | 0.134 0.161 Critical 0.016 | 0.022 | 0.046 | 0.061 | 0.104 | 0.134 0.161 Critical Event 120 | 120 90 90 180 180 90 Further details of the outputs for the critical events have been located within Appendix D. www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 10
Section 15
4.1.7 Hydraulic Impacts on Downstream Waterway Corridor
A comparison of critical peak flows for the existing and developed mitigated scenarios has been included in Table 10, 11
and 12. The hydraulic modelling undertaken has demonstrated that the proposed development will not cause a worsening
impact downstream of the site in all storm events and that the detention has been adequately sized. Therefore, the
required detention volume for all three catchments across the development in the 1% AEP storm event is 2,670m3.
Discharge hydrographs, stage/water elevations for the detention basin and associated XP Storm outputs have been
included in Appendix E of this report to demonstrate the performance of the proposed detention system.
Table 13: XP Storm Existing and Developed Mitigated Peak Discharge Comparison – Site A (m3/sec)
ARI (Years) Existing Critical Discharge Developed Critical Discharge Discharge Difference
1 0.134 0.128 -0.006
2 0.197 0.179 -0.018
5 0.431 0.369 -0.062
10 0.613 0.536 -0.077
20 0.813 0.699 -0.114
50 0.998 0.896 -0.102
100 1.182 1.158 -0.024
Table 14: XP Storm Existing and Developed Mitigated Peak Discharge Comparison – Site B (North) (m3/sec)
ARI (Years) Existing Critical Discharge Developed Critical Discharge Discharge Difference
1 0.013 0.013 0.000
2 0.018 0.017 -0.001
5 0.039 0.037 -0.002
10 0.054 0.050 -0.004
20 0.070 0.061 -0.009
50 0.083 0.070 -0.013
100 0.098 0.097 -0.001
Table 15: XP Storm Existing and Developed Mitigated Peak Discharge Comparison – Site B (South) (m3/sec)
ARI (Years) Existing Critical Discharge Developed Critical Discharge Discharge Difference
1 0.022 0.016 -0.006
2 0.031 0.022 -0.009
5 0.064 0.046 -0.018
10 0.087 0.061 -0.026
20 0.114 0.104 -0.010
50 0.136 0.134 -0.002
100 0.161 0.161 0.000
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 11
Section 16
5. STORMWATER QUALITY
5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE
As a result of the proposed development, contaminants will be generated during the construction phase. A
comprehensive Erosion and Sediment control plan including the construction process will be prepared during the detailed
design. This is to be kept on site during the construction phase and will be in accordance with the State Planning Policy
2017 and Noosa Shire Planning Scheme.
5.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE
As the proposed development includes building work that involves greater than 2,500m2 of land the State Planning Policy
(2017) and Noosa Shire Council Planning Scheme requirements for water quality are applicable to the proposed
development.
5.2.1 Pollutants of Concern
The key pollutants to be targeted and the minimum reductions in mean annual loads described in Table 9.4.8.3 the State
Planning Policy of Noosa Shire Council outlined in Table 16.
Table 16: Noosa Shire Council Water Quality Objectives
Reduction in Mean
Pollutant
Annual Load
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 80%
Total Phosphorus (TP) 60%
Total Nitrogen (TN) 45%
Gross Pollutants (GP) 90%
5.2.2 Modelling/Assessment Approach
A quantitative assessment of stormwater runoff quality was considered for the catchments ultimate developed scenario.
The predicted reductions in mean annual loads of key pollutants have been identified using the “Model for Urban
Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation” (MUSIC), Version 6 (6.3.0). MUSIC is a stormwater quality modelling program
that provides estimates of stormwater pollution generation and the performance of stormwater management measures
used in series or parallel to form a ‘treatment train’.
5.2.3 Meteorological Data
The first step in creating the MUSIC model was to select the appropriate meteorological data set (period and time step) to
be used as the basis for the runoff algorithms. Section 3.1 – Meteorological Data and Section 3.2 – Modelling Period and
time-step, of the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines details the Rainfall Data and Time Step process requirements of the model,
respectively.
The time step used for the MUSIC modelling process was: Tewantin RSL Park 6 Minutes, Station No: 040908.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 12
Section 17
5.2.4 Source Nodes
The second step taken in creating the MUSIC models was to define ‘Source Nodes’ or Sub-Catchments. Source nodes for
modelling these catchments were based on the Water by Design reference material: Music Modelling Guidelines. The
MUSIC model uses the split catchment approach and consists of commercial source nodes. Catchment areas are outlined
in Table 17, 18 and 19 below with catchment extents illustrated in Appendix F for both proposed sites.
Table 17: Source Node Information – Site A Catchment
Node type Area (ha) Fraction Impervious
Commercial Road 1.59 100%
(Car Park & Un-Treated Private Access
Roadway)
Commercial Roof 2.13 100%
Table 18: Source Node Information – Site B Northern Catchment
Node type Area (ha) Fraction Impervious
Commercial Road (Car Park) 0.191 100%
Commercial Roof 0.057 100%
Table 19: Source Node Information – Site B Southern Catchment
Node type Area (ha) Fraction Impervious
Commercial Road (Car Park) 0.259 100%
Commercial Roof 0.130 100%
The input parameters used are listed in Appendix F.
5.2.5 Treatment Methodology
Runoff from the development site will be conveyed through litter baskets and treated via a proprietary treatment device
owned by the development owners. SPEL Stormwater and Ocean Protect provide proprietary treatment devices and litter
baskets for stormwater treatment purposes and the MUSIC modelling has been performed on both suppliers to enable a
comparison of products and to allow for supply and installation of either product.
5.2.6 Treatment Nodes
The MUSIC model consisted of 2 treatment nodes as detailed in Table 20. Treatment node input parameters were based
on the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines and sourced from the two product suppliers. Refer to Appendix B for indicative
locations of these treatment devices.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 13
Section 18
Table 20: Selected Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices
Treatment Device Discussion
Gross Pollutant
Traps A gross pollutant trap is a treatment device designed to capture coarse sediment,
trash and vegetation matter in stormwater runoff – discussed for each supplier
option below.
Site A Catchment:
• SPEL – 8 (Eight) Stormsacks: or
• Ocean Protect – 8 (Eight) Ocean Guards.
Site B - Northern Catchment:
• SPEL – 2 (Two) Stormsacks: or
• Ocean Protect – 2 (Two) Ocean Guards.
Site C - Southern Catchment:
• SPEL – 4 (Four) Stormsacks: or
• Ocean Protect – 4 (Four) Ocean Guards.
Proposed number of gross pollutant traps for development sites will be installed in
all major field inlets and gully pits within the development site parking and vehicle
areas.
Proprietary
Treatment Device Proprietary filtration devices are designed to remove nutrients and sediments
from stormwater runoff – discussed for each supplier option below.
Site A Catchment:
• SPEL – 50 (Fifty) SPELFilters: or
• Ocean Protect – 85 (Eighty-Five) Stormfilters.
Site B - Northern Catchment:
• SPEL – 2 (Two) SPELFilters: or
• Ocean Protect – 5 (Five) Stormfilters.
Site B - Southern Catchment:
• SPEL – 2 (Two) SPELFilters: or
• Ocean Protect – 6 (Six) Stormfilters.
All runoff from the site will pass through the cartridge filters located within the
proposed stormwater detention tanks across the development site.
Refer to the MUSIC information attached in Appendix F for further details.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 14
Section 19
5.2.7 Proposed Treatment Train - SPEL
A ‘Treatment Train’ was developed to target each of the pollutants of concern using SPEL devices to be incorporated into
the development site layout. This treatment train is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 3.
Figure 3: Proposed Treatment Train (Site A) – SPEL
Figure 4: Proposed Treatment Train Site B (Northern & Southern Catchment) – SPEL
5.2.8 Results - SPEL
The pollutant reductions for the ultimate developed phase of the site using SPEL devices, with the inclusion of the detailed
treatment train, as obtained from the MUSIC model and analysis are summarised in Table 17 and Table 18.
Table 21: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site A) – SPEL
Pollutant TSS (%) TP (%) TN (%) GP (%)
Treatment Train Effectiveness 81 62.4 45.2 100
WQOs 80.0 60.0 45.0 90.0
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 15
Section 20
Table 22: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site B) – SPEL
Pollutant TSS (%) TP (%) TN (%) GP (%)
Treatment Train Effectiveness 82.9 61.5 51.6 100
WQOs 80.0 60.0 45.0 90.0
As indicated in the table above, the removal rates for the target pollutants; total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus
(TP), total nitrogen (TN) and gross pollutants (GP) are all above the water quality objectives stipulated in the State
Planning Policy and Noosa Shire Council Planning Scheme. Therefore, the proposed treatment train for these areas will
yield satisfactory pollutant removal.
5.2.9 Proposed Treatment Train – OceanProtect
A ‘Treatment Train’ was developed to target each of the pollutants of concern using OceanProtect devices to be
incorporated into the development site layout. This treatment train is illustrated in Figure 4 and 5.
Figure 5: Proposed Treatment Train (Site A) – OceanProtect
Figure 6: Proposed Treatment Train (Site B) – OceanProtect
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 16
Section 21
5.2.10 Results – OceanProtect
The pollutant reductions for the ultimate developed phase of the site using OceanProtect devices, with the inclusion of the
detailed treatment train, as obtained from the MUSIC model and analysis are summarised in Table 19 and Table 20.
Table 23: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site A) – OceanProtect
Pollutant TSS (%) TP (%) TN (%) GP (%)
Treatment Train Effectiveness 87 69.3 45.2 100
WQOs 80.0 60.0 45.0 90.0
Table 24: Pollutant Removal Rates Discharge (Site B) – OceanProtect
Pollutant TSS (%) TP (%) TN (%) GP (%)
Treatment Train Effectiveness 89 67.3 45 100
WQOs 80.0 60.0 45.0 90.0
As indicated in the table above, the removal rates for the target pollutants; total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus
(TP), total nitrogen (TN) and gross pollutants (GP) are all above the water quality objectives stipulated in the State
Planning Policy and the Noosa Shire Council Planning Scheme. Therefore, the proposed treatment train for these areas will
yield satisfactory pollutant removal.
6. NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL CODES
The relevant Noosa Shire Council Codes with respect to engineering aspects for assessment of the Development
Application have been addressed. The codes will assist in assessing operational works requirements. The codes addressed
in this report include: -
− Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code;
− Earthworks Code; and
− Water Quality and Drainage Code.
The completed codes can be found attached in Appendix H of this Report.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 17
Section 22
7. SUMMARY
This Engineering Report has demonstrated that the proposed development located at 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
QLD 4566, can be developed in accordance with Engineering Best Management Practice, Noosa Shire Council guidelines,
QUDM 2017 and the State Planning Policy 2017. The following points summarise the findings and recommendations:
− The proposed development site has no flood levels or flags for building or development purposes and is
expected to be at low risk of flooding;
− New stormwater connections are proposed from the development site to the existing stormwater piped network
located along the private access roadway and the adjoining environmental zone and natural drainage channel;
− Minor storm events will be collected by internal stormwater infrastructure within the development sites and
surface car parking areas. This infrastructure will convey flow towards the surrounding stormwater infrastructure
within the surrounding private access roadways, to ultimately discharge into Eenie Creek to the south;
− Major storm events will be conveyed via overland flow onto the surrounding private access roadways or
adjoining environmental zone and natural drainage channel;
− Stormwater detention is proposed as there will be an increase to the impervious area across all three sites as a
result of the proposed development, which will take the form of below-ground detention tanks;
− In accordance with the State Planning Policy and the Noosa Shire Council Planning Scheme, stormwater quality
treatment measures are proposed as the site area is over 2,500m 2, and quality treatment devices will be located
within the below-ground detention tank systems; and
− The three sub-catchments across the development site remain unchanged due to the proposed development.
www.bornhorstward.com.au Page 18
Section 23
BORNHORST +WARD APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS www.bornhorstward.com.au
Section 24
Sim
1 1 2 Rev. Date Description Iss. Appr.
2000 3000 2000 A 23.05.2023 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ISSUE MM GS
RL 8.00
NOMINAL
1 STAIR FROM
LEVEL1 BASEMENT RAMP
EX
BIO
IST
IN
-B
G
AS
VAN RAMP
FO
IN
OT
2
TO BASEMENT STAIR FROM
PA
VAN LEVEL 1/2
TH
3 VAN
VE
HIC
VAN
LE
4
CR
OS
SO
VE
EX
R
IST
GIN
5
FO
OT
PA
2
BIO
4
LOA
TH
300
UNDERCROFT CARPARK
-B
D
BIO
DOC ING
AS
IN
-B
87 PARKING BAYS
AS
K
IN
6 Y EN
T
VE
BB SE
M
SE
HIC
LO
REFUSE
AIR BA FU
ST OM RE
LE
FR REFUSE AND LOADING
C
SCREENED AND
RO
LOADING
7
S
CK
SS
RA SETBACK FROM
OV
LE STREET
YC
ER
EMERGENCY BIC
BAY
SWITCHROOM
SUBSTATION
8 Do not scale this drawing. Verify all dimensions on site before commencing
any work. Copyright © 2023 Buchan. This drawing remains the property of
NOOSA CIVIC 1 AME
NIT
IES REFUSE COMMERCIAL
The Buchan Group Australia Pty Ltd. Reproduction in whole or in part without
prior consent is forbidden.
EXISTING CENTRE 5000
9
NT
File
EME
\ACCDocs\Buchan\719021-R22-Noosa_Civic_Precinct\
AS
STAIR
NOTE:
MB
FRO IR
FROM BASEMENT
STA
INTERTENANCY WALLS LIFT
SHOWN INDICATIVELY TO LEVEL 1 AREA SCHEDULE (GFA)
10
& BASEMENT
EL 1 RETAIL (ground floor) 13,700m2
EASEMENT AM EL 1
CINEMA 3,050m2
LEV
RL (first floor)
LIFT
LEV
RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL
TO IR
STAIR FROM
ENTERTAINMENT 1,540m2
TO
STA
8.95 (first floor)
LEVEL 1/2
11 COMMERCIAL (first floor) 2,800m2
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LINE OF AWNING OVER
RESIDENTIAL (ground floor) 950m2
CONNECTION OVER 3,140m2
12 BICYCLE RACKS BICYCLE RACKS (first floor)
(second floor) 3,950m2
3002
23000
3003
EASEMENT AK
MAIN STREET
CAR PARKING SCHEDULE
TO LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2
INTERTENANCY WALLS SHOWN INDICATIVELY
13
(PRIVATE ROAD)
COV
LOT 3 GROUND LEVEL NORTH 87
inclusive of STANDARD 85
E
COVENANT J CIVIC PLAZA CIVIC SPINE LINE OF AWNING OVER
LOT 7
STAIR
NAN
PW D 2
14 FUTURE BASEMENT
inclusive of STANDARD
699
684
T AJ
DEVELOPMENT PW D 15
LOT 7 GROUND LEVEL 95
15 3 STAIR TO LEVEL 1 3 inclusive of STANDARD
PW D
93
2
2000 NOTE:
LIFT TO
LEVEL 1 & 32 95 2000
BASEMENT
STAIR INTERTENANCY WALLS STAIR STAIR PARKING PARKING STREET GROUND LEVEL 32
NOTE:
16
TO LEVEL 1 SHOWN INDICATIVELY STAIR TO BASEMENT TO LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 TO LEVEL 1 BAYS BAYS inclusive of STANDARD 32
PW D N/A
4 RL
RETAIL RETAIL 2 RETAIL 3 TOTAL COMBINED LOT 3 / 7 / STREET 913
3000 3002 3000
EM E M
inclusive of STANDARD 894
17
BAS IR FRO
8.95
NT
PWD 19
STA
PEDESTRIAN
11000
INTERNAL STREET CROSSING BICYCLE PARKING SCHEDULE
18 STAIR
TO LEVEL 1
& LEVEL 2 LOT 3 PUBLIC BICYCLE RACK 12
LOBBY
19 RL
LIFT
TO LEVEL 1
LANDSCAPED RETAINING
BATTER TO TIE INTO
END OF TRIP SECURE STORAGE 90
& LEVEL 2 LOT 7 PUBLIC BICYCLE RACK 8
LIFT FROM BASEMENT
20 8.25 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
TOTAL COMBINED LOT 3 / 7 / STREET 110
VEHICLE LANES
BICYCLE LANE
BICYCLE LANE
RETAIL
FROM BASEMENT
TYPE 2A
CARPARING
CARPARING
TRAVELATORS
SECURE PRIVATE
PARALELL
PARALELL
NOTE: TYPE 1A CORRDIOR TO ACCESS
21 INTERTENANCY WALLS
SHOWN INDICATIVELY
GROUND FLOOR
APARTMENTS
APARTMENT SCHEDULE (SMALL DWELLING)
LIFT
LOT 3 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH 24
RL TO LEVEL 1 & 2 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 30
TYPE 1A
22
7.50 STAIR FROM BASEMENT
3 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 5
END OF TRIP
TYPE 1A
FACILITIES
STAIR
FROM LEVEL 1 &
LEVEL 2 LOT 7 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH 24
LOBBY 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 13
Section 25
23
TO LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2
TYPE 1A
TOTAL COMBINED LOT 3 / 7 96
AMENITIES TY TYPE 2A
RL
RETAIL RETAIL TY
PE
1A Project
PE
NOOSA CIVIC VILLAGE
1A
STAIR
24
6.75
SIN
BIO-BA
TY
PE
1A
2 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
PLANT
TY TYPE 2A 2002
25 PE
2A 28 Eenie Creek Rd
ER
Noosaville QLD 4566
V
STAIR FROM BASEMENT
SSO
RO
EC
26
ICL
RL
VEH
6.00 TY
PE
2A
IN
AS
ST
EXTERNAL
-B
FR AIR
STAIR TO
BIO
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT LE O M
LE VEL 1
Project Number
27 VE
L2 & 719021
Status
REFUSE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
LOADING DOCK Date Plotted 23/05/2023 2:55:14 PM
R
VE
28
N
RL
SO
Date Issued 23.05.2023
5.25
OS
CR
Scale 1 : 500 @A1
LE
HIC
0 5 10 20 30M
VE
29 PLANT Drawing Title
RL FLOOR PLAN
PATH
4.50
30
G FOOT
EASEMENT AL
EXISTIN
RAMP TO
ALONG FULL LENGTH BASEMENT CARPARK
OF WEST BOUNDARY
EASEMENT CB Drawing Number Revision
A-DA-1000 A
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U
1 2 Brisbane Studio
2000 2000 + 61 7 3859 9222 / buchangroup.com.au
Section 26
Sim
1 1 2 Rev. Date Description Iss. Appr.
2000 3000 2000 A 23.05.2023 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ISSUE MM GS
1 400
0 RAMP UP EDGE OF
TO GROUND CARPARK
8700
OVER
10
RAMP DOWN
56
2
FROM GROUND
0
2800
3
58
00
8500
58
4
00
8500
85
00
5
2
75
4
300
00
8800
6
85
00
8500
LOBBY
58
00
7
58
8500
00
PLANT
58
8
00
Do not scale this drawing. Verify all dimensions on site before commencing
any work. Copyright © 2023 Buchan. This drawing remains the property of
The Buchan Group Australia Pty Ltd. Reproduction in whole or in part without
8500
prior consent is forbidden.
9 NOOSA CIVIC LOBBY
File
\ACCDocs\Buchan\719021-R22-Noosa_Civic_Precinct\
8500
EXISTING CENTRE
10
8500
EASEMENT AM
11
8500
12 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CONNECTION OVER
8500
13
8500
14
8500
15 3
LOBBY
2000
8500
16
4
8500
699 PARKING BAYS
3000
17
8500
18
4250 4250
TYPICAL
19 2700 2700 2700
20
5400
LOBBY
8500
5400
21
TYPICAL
8500
6200
22
5400
8500
LOBBY
LOBBY
5400
23
8500
Project
24 NOOSA CIVIC VILLAGE
2 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
8500
2002
25 28 Eenie Creek Rd
Noosaville QLD 4566
8500
26
8500
Project Number
27 719021
Status
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
8500
Date Plotted 23/05/2023 11:59:31 AM
28
N
Date Issued 23.05.2023
Scale
8500
1 : 500 @A1
LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 0 5 10 20 30M
29 Drawing Title
BASEMENT PLAN
8500
EXTERNAL EXIT GATES
30
RAMP UP
TO GROUND
RAMP DOWN
FROM GROUND
Drawing Number Revision
A-DA-1010 A
4250 8500 5800 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 8500 5850 4300
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U
1 2 2 Brisbane Studio
2000 3000 2000 + 61 7 3859 9222 / buchangroup.com.au
Section 27
Sim
1 1 2 Rev. Date Description Iss. Appr.
2000 3000 2000 A 23.05.2023 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ISSUE MM GS
1 STAIR TO
GROUND
STAIR FROM
LEVEL 2
STAIR TO
2
GROUND
PE
TY C
3 3
PLANT AND 1E
PE
4 EQUIPMENT TY
1E
PE
TY
5 TY
PE2
D
2
4
STAIR FROM LEVEL2
300
CINEMA TO GROUND
6
LIFT
TO LEVEL 2
& GROUND
7 TY
PE
2D
1F
PE
TY
8 1E
Do not scale this drawing. Verify all dimensions on site before commencing
any work. Copyright © 2023 Buchan. This drawing remains the property of
5.00°
PE The Buchan Group Australia Pty Ltd. Reproduction in whole or in part without
LIFT FROM PLANT AND EQUIPMENT TY 1D prior consent is forbidden.
LOBBY LEVEL 2 TO PE
BASEMENT TY
9 NOOSA CIVIC File
\ACCDocs\Buchan\719021-R22-Noosa_Civic_Precinct\
EXISTING CENTRE TYPE 1C
RL14.2 AREA SCHEDULE (GFA)
10 UND RETAIL 13,700m2
AWNING BELOW
AWNING BELOW
(ground floor)
TYPE 2C
TYPE 2C
TYPE 2C
TYPE 2C
TYPE 2C
STAIR TO
UND
GR O
GR O
GROUND CINEMA (first floor) 3,050m2
LIFT
ROOF O ENTERTAINMENT
TO IR
ENTERTAINMENT 1,540m2
TO
TYPE 3B
STA
(first floor)
F BRIDGE
11 TENANT COMMERCIAL (first floor) 2,800m2
RESIDENTIAL (ground floor) 950m2
AWNING BELOW 3,140m2
12
(first floor)
(second floor) 3,950m2
3002 TYPE 2A
3003 CAR PARKING SCHEDULE
13 AWNING BELOW AWNING BELOW TYPE 1A LOT 3 GROUND LEVEL NORTH 87
inclusive of STANDARD 85
PW D 2
14 BASEMENT 699
AWNING BELOW
AWNING BELOW
TYPE 1A inclusive of STANDARD 684
STAIR FROM
RISER CUP
LEVEL2 TO
PW D 15
TYPE 1A
GROUND
BOARD
LOT 7 GROUND LEVEL 95
15 3 3 inclusive of STANDARD
PW D
93
2
2000 LIFT TO
LEVEL 2 & TYPE 1A 2000
BASEMENT
STAIR STAIR STAIR TYPE 1A STREET GROUND LEVEL 32
16
TO GROUND STAIR TO BASEMENT FROM LEVEL2 TO TO GROUND inclusive of STANDARD 32
GROUND
PW D N/A
AWNING BELOW
4 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 2 TYPE 1A
3 TOTAL COMBINED LOT 3 / 7 / STREET 913
3000 3002 3000 inclusive of STANDARD 894
17 PWD 19
TYPE 2A
BICYCLE PARKING SCHEDULE
18 INTERNAL STREET VOID BELOW
RL14.2
STAIR
FROM LEVEL2 TO
GROUND LOT 3 PUBLIC BICYCLE RACK 12
19 LIFT
TO LEVEL 2
END OF TRIP SECURE STORAGE 90
& GROUND LOT 7 PUBLIC BICYCLE RACK 8
20 TYPE 1B
TYPE 2B
TYPE 2A
TOTAL COMBINED LOT 3 / 7 / STREET 110
TYPE 1A
21 APARTMENT SCHEDULE (SMALL DWELLING)
3.00°
LIFT
LOT 3 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH 24
TO LEVEL2
& GROUND TYPE 2B TYPE 1A 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 30
22 STAIR
FROM LEVEL2 TO
TYPE 1A 3 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 5
GROUND LOT 7 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH 24
RL12.0
2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 13
23 TYPE 1A
TOTAL COMBINED LOT 3 / 7 96
TY TYPE 2A
PE
1A Project
24 TY
PE
1A NOOSA CIVIC VILLAGE
2 2 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
3.00°
STAIR FROM
TY
RISER CUP
LEVEL2 TO
PE
GROUND
1A
BOARD
2002 TY TYPE 2A 2002
25 PE
2A 28 Eenie Creek Rd
Noosaville QLD 4566
26 TY
PE
2A
ST
FR AIR
LE O M Project Number
GR VEL 2
27 OU
ND TO 719021
Status
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Date Plotted 23/05/2023 11:59:52 AM
28
N
Date Issued 23.05.2023
Scale 1 : 500 @A1
0 5 10 20 30M
29 Drawing Title
ROOF BELOW
LEVEL ONE PLAN
30
Drawing Number Revision
A-DA-1020 A
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U
1 2 2 Brisbane Studio
2000 3000 2000 + 61 7 3859 9222 / buchangroup.com.au
The text continues on section 28.
Used in these records
Appendix D- Stormwater Management Plan.PDFRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 18.3 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.