Council archive · source document
24-01-2020 - Appeal No. 245 of 2019 - Final Order of Judge Rackemann · 51987.2951.01
____2020 ____ 2020 [OCR of page images] Ato, 245 of 2019 in the Planning and Environment Court y Held at: Brisbane Between: M DESIGN (ABN 80 598 020 058) Appellant AND FOURTEEN ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 627 275 558) AS TRUSTEE And: NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent FINAL ORDER Before: His Honour Judge Rackemann Date of Hearing: 24 January 26492020 Date of Final Order: 24 January 204192020 THIS MATTER HAVING come on for hearing by way of applicant appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse a minor change application to authorise the addition of a swimming pool and deck extension to an existing dwelling (Minor Change Application) on land located at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, which has a real property description of Lot 57 on RP 81810 (Land). UPON THE COURT BEING SATISFIED THAT: 1. The changes proposed by the Minor Change Application, identified in the affidavit of Gregory John Ovenden dated 21 January 2020, are only a minor change for the purpose of section 46(4) of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), having regard to the definition of ‘minor change’ in Schedule 2 of the Planning Act (Qld). IT IS ORDERED THAT: 2. The appeal be allowed. Bk The Minor Change Application be approved in accordance with the attached approval package marked Annexure A, which is comprised of: (a) the Respondent's conditions, which appear at pages 1 to 3; (b) the approved plans, which appear at pages 4 to 9; and (c) the approved documents, which appear at pages 10 to 100. Final Order McInnes Wilson Lawyers Filed on behalf of the Appellant Level 23, 345 Queen Street Form PEC-7 BRISBANE QLD 4000 Phone: (07) 3014 6529 Email: [email protected] Our ref: TWG:AXH:127738 127738:15484892_1 24 fe~ Pogo
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 pages 2 to 95 (of 102)
Page 2
4. Each party is to bear their own costs of the appeal. Filed on: Filed by: McInnes Wilson Lawyers Alexandra Hall Service address: Level 23, 345 Queen Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Phone: (07) 3014 6529 Email: [email protected] Registrar 427738:15484892_1
Page 3
Annexure A
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No: 51987.2951.01
Street address: 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Real property description: Lot 57 RP 81810
Planning Scheme: The Noosa Plan (8 June 2018)
2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. This development approval for a minor change to Town Planning Consent (TPC1918) for a
dwelling in a Sand Dune Problem Area, must be undertaken in accordance with the
conditions of approval.
2. The applicant must provide a copy of this development approval to the private building
certifier who assesses the subsequent development application for a development permit for
building works for the construction of the pool and deck area.
Approved Plans
3. Development must be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved plans listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Drawing No. Rev. Plan Date
2.1 C Ground Floor – Demolition, prepared by M 18.09.18
Design
2.2 C Ground Floor Proposed, prepared by M Design 18.09.18
5.1 C Sections, prepared by M Design 18.09.18
P1 A Cover Page, prepared by Rienmac Pty Ltd 14.09.18
Sheet 1 of 3
P2 A Pool Plan, prepared by Rienmac* 14.09.18
Sheet 2 of 3
P3 A Details, prepared by Rienmac* 14.09.18
Sheet 3 of 3
*Note: The foundations are to be modified to comply with the Core Geotechnical Consultants
report dated, September 2019 (ref J000867-003-R-Rev 0).
Approved Documents
4. Development must be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved documents listed
in the following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Document
M Design & Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd (Appellants v Noosa Shire Council (Respondent),
Planning and Environment Appeal No.245 of 2019, Joint Expert Report dated 7 August 2019
including all Attachments:
1
Page 4
Attachment 1
Working Notes: M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire
Council – 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, prepared by Omtrek dated July 2019;
and
Attachment 2
Geotechnical Report, proposed swimming pool 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach,
Updated in Response to Joint Information Request by Coastal Engineering Experts,
prepared by Core Consultants Pty Ltd and dated 24 September 2019; and
Attachment 3
Core Consultants email advice of 27 September 2019; and
Attachment 4
Coastal Erosion Historic Assessments by Neil Collins
Performance Bond
5. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $20,000 must
be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval, prior to the
issue of a Development Permit for Building Works. The cash bond or trading bank guarantee
will be returned within 2 weeks of written advice by the applicant that all conditions have been
met and satisfactory inspection by Council officer confirming performance of the conditions
of approval less any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing performance of this
permit. Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to effect
compliance with conditions.
Landscaping
6. The existing trees, in particular the Pandanus tectorius located in the south east corner of
the site must be retained as shown on the approved plan by M Design, Drawing No. 2.1,
Issue C, dated 18 September 2018.
7. Existing vegetation in the road reserve must be retained, unless written authorisation from
Council is granted for the clearing.
8. Trees to be retained must be protected from clearing or construction activities by:
a. clearly marking vegetation to be retained with flagging tape;
b. installing protective fencing around the drip line of the vegetation;
c. restricting stockpiling, storage and vehicle parking to those areas which are already
cleared; and
d. using low impact construction techniques around vegetation.
Earthworks
9. Earthworks required on site must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Planning
Scheme Policy PSP5 Engineering Design Standards, so as not to cause the additional
ponding of water on any adjoining lands or concentrate or direct overland flow on to an
adjoining property.
Geotechnical Stability
10. All works must be carried out strictly in accordance with the geotechnical report prepared by
Core Consultants Pty Ltd and dated 24 September 2019, including the following
recommendations (which are the minimum specifications):
10.1. piles are to be a minimum of 10m deep;
2
Page 5
10.2. pile arrangement number, arrangement and spacing and associated A frame structure
and capping beams are to be, as a minimum, in accordance with Drawing Number
P1001 entitled ‘A Frame for Slope Stabilisation General Arrangement’ and in
accordance with Figure B4 entitled ‘Case 4; Piles Support’;
10.3. grout columns are to be installed between the micro-piles to a minimum depth of 10m
to prevent all sand flow between the piles; and
10.4. a minimum of 56 piles are required with 50 required under the eastern side of the pool.
11. All works associated with the construction of the pool are to be certified by a Registered
Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) to ensure compliance with the geotechnical
report prepared by Core Consultants Pty Ltd and dated 24 September 2019, and the
conditions of approval.
Coastal Protection
12. To protect the coastal dune system, a mix of native endemic coastal vegetation consisting of
ground covers, shrubs and trees must be planted for a width of 5m for the full length of the
seaward boundary in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy PSP3 Landscaping
Plants and Guidelines. The planted vegetation must have a minimum pot size of 200mm
and must be planted at the following density:
a. trees must have a maximum spacing of 5m;
b. shrubs must have a maximum spacing of 2m; and
c. ground covers planted between the trees and shrub stems to provide a dense
coverage.
13. An access gate or like device allowing access to the beachfront area is not permitted to be
installed.
3
Page 6
EXISTING TREES
TO BE REMOVED
m
5m
22.5
22.2
EXISTING
PATIO
EXISTING TREES
TO BE RETAINED
18.25 m
21.75 m
17.75 m
17.25 m
19.25 m
18.75 m
20.25 m
19.75 m
20.75 m
21.25 m
18.5 m
17.5 m
19.5 m
20.5 m
21.5 m
18 m
22 m
19 m
17 m
20 m
21 m
1
PRELIMINARY ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5.1
EXISTING
HOUSE
-
---
DEMOLITION PLAN
north 1 : 100
0 1 2 3 4m
1:100
ISSUE: PRELIMINARY DESIGN sheet title:
M Design
© COPYRIGHT 2017 - M DESIGN Alterations & Additions: GROUND FLOOR
THE IDEAS AND CONCEPTS
PO Box 290 For: REV DESCRIPTION DATE
Peregian Beach QLD 4573
CONTAINED WITHIN THIS
DOCUMENT AND THE DOCUMENT
- DEMOLITION
ITSELF REMAIN THE
JAN & REBECCA A CLIENT REVIEW
B ENGINEER 10.09.18 job no: drawn by:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF
M DESIGN AND MAY NOT BE C COUNCIL APPROVAL 18.09.18 - MDESIGN
COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN Project Address: date:
BSA No. 1066058 PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUT 18.09.18
EXPRESSED WRITTEN 42 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
Contact: Michael Broeren PERMISSION FROM MICHAEL SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD scale (A3): drawing no:
t. 07 5471 2721 BROEREN OF M DESIGN. 4567
4
t. 0422 969 645 1 : 100 2.1
Page 7
EXISTING ADDITIONAL 2m HIGH POOL POOL FENCE
TREE SCREEN TIMBER EQUIPMENT
PLANTING SCREEN UNDER?
SIDE SETBACK
1500
m
.5
22
UP G
EC EC EC UP
22140
SEAT
1.2m
22660
NEW 20,000L
IN GROUND
NEW NEW WATER TANK.
3.4m DIA,
DECK DECK 2.7m DEEP
4x7m
G
EAT
EC
EC
POOL S
LINE OF
DECK OVER
LAP
1 POOL
19.75 m
19.25 m
19.5 m
18.75 m
18.25 m
18.5 m
17.75 m
4x13.3m
19 m
17.25 m
17.5 m
16.75 m
18 m
PRELIMINARY ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5.1
17 m
EXISTING
HOUSE NEW 20,000L
IN GROUND
WATER TANK.
22740 3.4m DIA, 4000
2.7m DEEP -
---
NEW ARTIFICIAL 1.8m
TURF (FLAT)
22140
EC
LINE OF
BUILDING
OVER
G
TURF R
m AMP
22
G
K
SIDE SETBAC
1500
6000
REAR S
ETBACK
PROPOSED PLAN
north 1 : 100 0 1 2 3 4m
1:100
ISSUE: PRELIMINARY DESIGN sheet title:
M Design
© COPYRIGHT 2017 - M DESIGN Alterations & Additions: GROUND FLOOR
THE IDEAS AND CONCEPTS
PO Box 290 For: REV DESCRIPTION DATE
Peregian Beach QLD 4573
CONTAINED WITHIN THIS
DOCUMENT AND THE DOCUMENT
- PROPOSED
ITSELF REMAIN THE
JAN & REBECCA A CLIENT REVIEW
B ENGINEER 10.09.18 job no: drawn by:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF
M DESIGN AND MAY NOT BE C COUNCIL APPROVAL 18.09.18 - MDESIGN
COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN Project Address: date:
BSA No. 1066058 PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUT 18.09.18
EXPRESSED WRITTEN 42 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
Contact: Michael Broeren PERMISSION FROM MICHAEL SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD scale (A3): drawing no:
t. 07 5471 2721 BROEREN OF M DESIGN. 4567
5
t. 0422 969 645 1 : 100 2.2
Page 8
View From New Deck
PRELIMINARY ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL
25620
NEW DECK
6000
REAR SETBACK
EXISTING GROUND FLOOR
22740
POOL LEVEL
22140
BOUNDARY
NEW POOL
EXISTING
GROUND LINE
2700
NEW 20,000L
CONCRETE WATER
TANK. INDICATIVE
LOCATION.
3400
Section 1
1 : 100
0 1 2 3 4m
1:100
ISSUE: PRELIMINARY DESIGN sheet title:
M Design
© COPYRIGHT 2017 - M DESIGN Alterations & Additions:
THE IDEAS AND CONCEPTS
PO Box 290 CONTAINED WITHIN THIS For: REV DESCRIPTION DATE
SECTIONS
Peregian Beach QLD 4573 DOCUMENT AND THE DOCUMENT
ITSELF REMAIN THE
JAN & REBECCA A CLIENT REVIEW
B ENGINEER 10.09.18 job no: drawn by:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF
M DESIGN AND MAY NOT BE C COUNCIL APPROVAL 18.09.18 - MDESIGN
COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN Project Address: date:
BSA No. 1066058 PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUT 18.09.18
EXPRESSED WRITTEN 42 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
Contact: Michael Broeren PERMISSION FROM MICHAEL SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD scale (A3): drawing no:
t. 07 5471 2721 BROEREN OF M DESIGN. 4567
6
t. 0422 969 645 1 : 100 5.1
Page 9
7
[OCR of page images]
PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL
AT
42 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD
FOR:- J & R HERRMANN
DRAWING REGISTER
DATE
DESCRIPTION REVISION DRAWING
ISSUED
Pt COVER PAGE 14/09/2018
P2 POOL PLAN 14/09/2018 RIEN MAC Pry LTD
P3 DETAILS 14/09/2018 CONSULTING CIViL’ &
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
SUNSHINE COAST OFFICE;
DRAWING
NUMBER
SUITE 5, FIRST FLOOR, P:- (07) 5349 0762
SAINT CIRINO, Emails- [email protected]
137 BRISBANE ROAD, Web:- www.rienmac.net
(PO BOX 149)
MOOLOOLABA OLD 4557
IENT:
J) R HERRMANN
PROJECT;
PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL
42 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
SUNSHINE BEACH QLD 4567
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & COUNCIL:
Lot 57 RP 81810
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL
DRAWING TITLE
COVER PAGE,
WATERPROOFING OF WALLS AND SLABS IS TO BE TO LEGEND
THE BUILDERS SPECIFICATIONS. OO
LX Coepe NOTE OTHERWISE Designed: PLR. Drawn: TP
MINS MAIMUD SCALES:
IHOR HORIZONTAL
MER MERTIAL wt Engineer: PLR |DATE: 14 SEP 18
DO NOT SUBSTITUTE CHANGES ON SITE WILL REQUIRE fe BOLD DOWN EL
ALTERNATIVE MEMBER TYPES DRAWINGS TO BE UPDATED PRIOR TO Rew, CONTINUOUS FILLET MELD 183367 P{ A
OR SIZES WITHOUT ENGINEERS THESE WORKS COMMENCING ON SITE, AS KB. CONSTRUCTION, BREAK a /
WRITTEN APPROVAL. PER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. Ws UNDERSIDE rrlen frist trom Wesaue Conting Emeeers | JOB_ NUMBER DWG No. | ISSUE
PETER RIENECKER - RPEQ 2088 Do NoT SCALE oFF orAWINGS. | A3 SHEET 10F = 3 |CHECKED: PLR
Page 10
8 [OCR of page images] ALL FIXINGS INCLUDING CLEAT PLATES, BOLTS ETC ADJACENT POOL 10 BE STAINLESS STEEL. POOL PLAN PETER RIENECKER - RPEQ 2088 SCREW PIERS OF MIN SWL 100kN TO SUBCONTRACTORS SPECIFICATIONS. SUBMIT DETAILS TO ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING ALL PILING DETAILS ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS2159, EXCAVATION FOR POOL SHALL NOT EXTEND BELOW A LINE DIPPING AT 45° AWAY FROM THE NEAREST UNDERSIDE CORNER OF ANY FOOTINGS, CONTACT ENGINEER IF UNCERTAIN. BUILDER TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL SERVICES ON SITE PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS OR COMMENCING WORK. LOCATION OF POOL 10 BE VERIFIED ON SITE. POOL DESIGN TO BE CONFIRMED BY SOIL TEST. SUBMIT REPORT 10 ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL, RIENMAC eryiro ABN. 52 010 666 430 A.CN. 010 666 430 CONSULTING CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SUNSHINE COAST OFFICE: SUITE 5, FIRST FLOOR, SAINT CIRINO, 137 BRISBANE ROAD, (PO BOX 149) MOOLOOLABA QLD 4557 IENT: J) R HERRMANN PROJECT; PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL P:- (07) 5349 0762 Email:- [email protected] Web:- www.rienmac.net 42 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH QLD 4567 REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & COUNCIL: Lot 57 RP 81810 NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL DRAWING TITLE: POOL PLAN Designed: PLR Drawn: TP SCALES: 1100 Engineer: PLR |DATE: 14 SEP 18 Files trun tron Renae Conatfan Engeers | JOB NUMBER DWG No. | ISSUE Do NOT SCALE oFF oRAWINGs. | A3 |SHEET 20F 3 |CHECKED: PLR
Page 11
9
[OCR of page images]
POOL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION
1.
WORKMANSHIP & MATERIALS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS2783 CONCRETE SWIMMING POOL CODE AND
LOCAL AUTHORITY'S REQUIREMENTS.
POOL FILLING & SOIL BACKFILLING NOT TO BE CARRIED OUT UNTIL WALLS & FLOOR HAVE REACHED DESIGN
ALL CONCRETE TO BE PRESSURE APPLIED BY ‘PRESSURECRETE’ METHOD WITH AN AVERAGE COMPRESSIVE
WHERE A SECOND LAYER OF
COVER TO TOP STEEL OF COPING TO
COVER TO BOTTOM STEEL IN COPING IS TO BE 40mm FROM BOTTOM OF
DEEP END TO HAVE AT LEAST 0.3m OF FIRM, NATURAL SOIL OR EQUIVALENT RETAINING WALL, ETC AS
SUPPORTING SOIL TO BE SOUND NATURAL SOIL OR WELL COMPACTED FILLING WITH BEARING CAPACITY AT
2.
STRENGTH.
3. 50mm LAYER OF 22mm GRAVEL TO BE PLACED UNDER POOL FLOOR.
4,
STRENGTH OF 32MPa AT 28 DAYS.
5. ALL CONCRETE ON PLAN TO BE 300mm RADIUS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
6. ALL REINFORCEMENT 10 BE HOT ROLLED DEFORMED BARS 'S' & ‘Y’.
7, CROSS RODS NOT NOTED TO BE S12 @ 300 CRS.
8. ALL BARS TO HAVE A SPLICE LENGTH OF 600mm, UNO.
9. MAIN REINFORCEMENT TO HAVE 65mm COVER TO GROUND FACE.
REINFORCEMENT IS USED COVER IS TO BE 40mm TO WATER FACE.
25mm FROM TOP OF CONCRETE.
CONCRETE.
10. SPLICES IN ADJACENT REINFORCEMENT BARS TO BE STAGGERED.
it
SUPPORT.
12.
ANY DEPTH NOT LESS THAN 100kPa,
13. DESIGN TO BE MODIFIED IF EXCESS GROUND WATER IS ENCOUNTERED DURING EXCAVATION.
1h. ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE PLAN SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE POOL ARE TO THE WATER FACE.
15.
POOL OWNER TO BE INFORMED THAT AN ELEMENT OF RISK TO THE POOL STRUCTURE IS INVOLVED IF THE
POOL IS EMPTIED.
ODD -
3/512 CONT FOR
FULL LENGTH OF POOL.
wry
eo &
S12 VER BARS @ 150 (RS —_____+->] —— VER BARS TO HAVE —__—-+
THROUGHOUT. S12 HOR BARS @ POOL AS ae 50 COVER TO WATER
150 CRS. THROUGHOUT. DETAILED os FACE WHEN MORE
. oo THAN 600mm QUT OF
| —VER BARS TO BE 5 GROUND.
V/| CENTRAL IN POOL SHELL. x 3
WHEN IN GROUND. ==
200 THICK POOL SHELL SE
THROUGHOUT. .
200
i | +]
a
M12 TIE BARS @400 CRS TO EACH
FACE OF FOOTING. LAP 500 WITH
POOL REINFORCEMENT AS SHOWN.
4 BAR FIITM 50 BOTTOM COVER
CUT CENTRAL BAR AT SCREW PIER
AS REQUIRED.
POOL DETAILS
| ——— N12 HOR BARS @400 CRS
450
HYDROSTATIC VALVE 10 BE vera AT
LOWEST POINT.
HYDROSTATIC VALVE
SKIMMER PUMP
PROVIDE 2/S12 HOR 1200lg TOP & BOTTOM
AT SKIMMER BOX & SKIMMER OPENINGS.
/
SKIMMER BOX
FILTER
DISCHARGE TO COUNCIL
REQUIREMENTS.
MAIN DRAIN
TO POOL INLETS
DIAGRAMMATIC WATER RETICULATION
SCREW PIERS TO BE
FOUNDED A MIN OF 1m
BELOW UNDERSIDE OF
ADJACENT REVETMENT WALL.
LAP 450 WHERE REQUIRED
AND AT CORNERS.
STEP
POOL TO BE LOCATED MINIMUM 600 INTO
NATURAL GROUND OF MINIMUM SAFE
BEARING CAPACITY 100kPa,
PROVIDE EDGE THICKENING AS REQUIRED.
EP) MIN Nté BAR x500 LONG.
SCREW PIERS TO BE
LOCATED CENTRALLY
UNDER POOL WALL.
WATER LEVEL
S12 BARS @300 CRS EACH
WAY.
RIENMAC eryiro
ABN. 52 010 666 430 ACN. 010 666 430
CONSULTING CIVIL &
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
SUNSHINE COAST OFFICE:
SUITE 5, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINT CIRINO,
137 BRISBANE ROAD,
P:- (07) 5349 0762
Email:- [email protected]
Web:- www.rienmac.net
(PO BOX 149)
MOOLOOLABA OLD 4557
IENT:
DETAIL
INDICATIVE ONLY
J) R HERRMANN
PROJECT;
PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL
42 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
SUNSHINE BEACH QLD 4567
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & COUNCIL:
Lot 57 RP 81810
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL
DRAWING TITLE:
PETER RIENECKER - RPEQ 2088
DETAILS
Designed: PLR Drawn: TP
SCALES: 1:20
Engineer: PLR |DATE: 14 SEP 18
rrlen frist trom Wesaue Conting Emeeers | JOB_ NUMBER DWG No. | ISSUE
DO NoT SCALE oFF DRAWINGS. | A3 |SHEET 30F 3 |CHECKED: PLR
Page 12
M Design & Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd (Appellants) v Noosa Shire Council (Respondent)
Planning and Environment Appeal No. 245 of 2019
Joint Expert Report of Coastal Engineering Experts commenced on 7 August 2019 and completed via
subsequent emails and telephone discussions between Neil Collins (NC) of BMT WBM Pty Ltd
5 (representing Noosa Shire Council) and Paul Prenzler (PP) of Omtrek Pty Ltd (representing M Design
& Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd).
STATEMENT TO COURT
We, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that we have been instructed on an expert’s duty to
assist the court and that, that duty overrides any obligation we may have to any party to the
10 proceedings or to any person who is liable for our fees or expenses.
We furthermore state that no instructions were given or accepted to adopt or reject any particular
opinion in preparing this report.
BACKGROUND
A Notice of Appeal was lodged by McInnes Wilson Lawyers on 25 January 2019, on behalf of the
15 Appellants (M Design & Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd) against the decision by Noosa Shire Council to
refused a minor change application for additions to a detached house to include a swimming pool, deck
and other structure seaward of the coastal building line for land located at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine
Beach, having a real property description of Lot 57 on RP81810 (the subject site).
The Court Order dated 13 March 2019 defines the issues in dispute in the appeal as the issues
20 identified in paragraphs 7 and 10 to 13 (inclusive) of the Notice of Appeal.
The issues in dispute relating to coastal engineering advanced by the Appellant are (adopting the
paragraph numbering in the Notice of Appeal):
10. The Proposed Changes, both now and into the future, will not result in or contribute
to any adverse impacts in relation to:
25 (a) natural coastal processes;
(b) erosion;
(c) integrity and resilience of the foreshore.
11. The Proposed Changes will provide no worsening to the existing state of the
environment and coastal hazards that might affect the Land, the immediate
30 surrounding and beyond.
12. The Proposed Changes have the potential to:
(a) reduce the risk of erosion an minimise the effect of natural coastal processes
in the locality; and
(b) improve the integrity and resilience of the foreshore in the immediate
35 locality.
13. The design and proposed implementation of the Proposed Changes:
(a) appropriately address and respond to any and all risks of erosion and natural
coastal processes and protects the environment; and
001
10
Page 13
(b) satisfied all assessment benchmarks that would apply if the change
40 application were a development application, or can otherwise be condition
to do so.
The issues in dispute relating to coastal engineering advanced by the Respondent are (adopting the
paragraph numbering in the Notice of Appeal):
7. 1 The proposal is in conflict with the assessment benchmarks of the State Planning
45 Policy as it proposes development in an Erosion Prone Area and Natural Hazard Area
(reason 1).
7.2 Development seaward of the Coastal Building Line is contrary to the building
setbacks contained in the Planning Scheme and the setback provided under State
Code 8; Coastal Development and Tidal Works of the State development assessment
50 provisions (reason 2).
7.3 Recent modelling carried out by the Council Indicates significant erosion is likely to
occur in the future which may threaten life and property should the proposed
development proceed (reason 3);
7.5 The proposal does not comply with the Natural Resources Overlay Code for Coastal
55 Protection as it has the potential to adversely impact on natural coastal processes
(reason 5);
7.6 Given the site is affected by the Coastal Building Line and is located in a highly
vulnerable erosion prone area, the proposed 6m setback is not sufficient to minimise
the risk of erosion (reason 6).
60 7.7 The proposal does not comply with the Biodiversity Overlay Code as vegetation is
proposed to be removed within the Environmental Protection Overlay placing the
integrity and resilience of the foreshore at risk (reason 7).
7.8 The proposal is contrary to the Overall Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality as
it does not protect the dunal area and natural environment nor maintain the safety
65 of people and works (reason 8).
On 12 April 2019, Council’s solicitor wrote to the Appellant’s solicitor advising that Council was no
longer relying on reasons 4, 7 and 8 of its reasons for refusal, and that it also was now relying on
overall outcomes (a)‐(e) & (g) and performance outcomes PO1, PO3‐PO5 of the Coastal Protection
Overlay Code in the draft planning scheme.
70 Having regard to the above issues in dispute relevant to coastal engineering, the key questions for
the coastal engineering experts are:
1. The extent of erosion associated with a storm event equivalent to a 100 year ARI return
period.
2. The extent of recession associated with sea level rise predicted for the design life of the
75 swimming pool (assumed to be 30 years) (i.e. a sea level rise of 0.3 metres by the year 2050)
3. The design of the piled foundation of the swimming pool to withstand erosion for a
combination of erosion associated with a 100 year ARI storm and recession due to sea level
rise of 0.3 metres by 2050
4. The likelihood of erosion given the underlying geological conditions
2
002
11
Page 14
80 The above key questions were agreed in the joint experts meeting of coastal engineering dated 7
August 2019.
That joint expert report also set out the methodology to be used, and the data to be used to address
the agreed issues in relation to coastal engineering.
The additional work was carried out by Omtrek Pty Ltd under the supervision of PP. The work
85 delivered a coastal engineering analysis of the erosion vulnerability of Sunshine Beach adjacent to
the subject site.
The additional work carried out is summarised in the following report:
Working Notes: M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council ‐
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, Omtrek Pty Ltd, July 2019.
90 Coastal Erosion historic assessments by Neil Collins
This is included in Attachment 4 to this joint report.
Since lodging the appeal, the Appellant has carried out additional detailed geotechnical
investigations for the Site, with resultant reporting by Core Consultants Pty Ltd dated May 2019, 23
July 2019 and 29 August and 24 September 2019 These reports provide additional detail on the
95 materials and the densities of material below the subject site, and also provide refined details of a
proposed micro‐pile foundation system under the proposed pool. Slip analysis including assessment
of coastal erosion impacts and agreed erosion bite (as discussed below) on stability and the
foundation design is incorporated in this reporting. The September 2019 report supersedes the
three previous Core Consultants reports.
100 GENERAL POINTS OF AGREEMENT
1. The erosion prone area provides a conservative estimate of erosion vulnerability due to the
inclusion of a 40% safety factor. The calculations associated with the terms of the erosion
prone area formula also assume that the beach and dunes consist of loose sand with uniform
physical characteristics.
105 2. The erosion prone area does not take account of natural features that may influence sediment
transport rates (i.e. Noosa Headland) and the components (i.e. recession due to sea level rise
and short‐term erosion) of the erosion prone area assume a long straight coastline without
headlands or other features
3. If the pool can be designed to accommodate without failure erosion associated with a 100
110 year ARI storm event combined with recession due to sea level rise predicted over the life of
the pool, assumed to be 30 years (i.e. a sea level rise of 0.3 metres by the year 2050) it is
agreed that the swimming pool is unlikely to adversely impact on adjoining structures or on
public land including the beach.
115
3
003
12
Page 15
COASTAL PROCESSES CONSIDERATIONS
a. Points of agreement
i) The agreed methodologies for calculation of the erosion prone area is outlined in
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015), ‘Coastal Hazard Technical
120 Guide’.
ii) The prevailing south‐easterly wave climate drives a northerly transport of sand along the
beach and Noosa Headland located approximately 400 metres north of the site acts like a
groyne trapping sand to the south providing benefit to the northern section of Sunshine
Beach
125 iii) Dune vegetation assists by trapping wind blown sand which builds the volume of sand
held in the dune. The dune system in front of the site is vegetated but there has been
trees die‐off. A development condition to replant native dune plants on the dunes would
assist with maintaining stability.
LONG‐TERM EROSION
130 a. Points of agreement
i) The long term erosion assessment undertaken by BMT WBM (2018) is considered a
reasonable assessment of the long‐term erosion potential of beach. BMT WBM (2018)
estimated long‐term erosion of 2.5 metres is based on industry standard practice.
ii) The default value of 10 metres for long‐term erosion is conservative given the features of
135 this section of Sunshine Beach, including proximity to Noosa Headland and could be
reduced for this location.
SHORT‐TERM EROSION
a. Points of agreement
i) The storm tide level of 1.74 metres adopted by BMT WBM (2018) is appropriate for
140 assessment of erosion associated with a 100 year ARI storm tide event.
ii) The assessment of short‐term erosion using the methodology developed by Vellinga
(1983) provides a conservative assessment of short‐term erosion as it assumes sea level
remains elevated for a sufficient period to allow for an equilibrium storm profile to fully
develop.
145 b. Points of disagreement
i) PP opinion is that the calculation of the short‐term erosion component of the erosion
prone area at the northern end of Sunshine beach should adopt a lower wave height as
the criteria for a design storm event. The Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection (2015) recommends a combination of a 20 year ARI wave height combined
150 with a 100 year ARI storm tide level. The 100 year ARI wave height adopted by BMT
WBM (2018) has not considered the sheltering provided by Noosa Head and is therefore
conservative. PP has adopted a 20 year ARI wave height of 5.5 metres based on previous
assessment presented by BMT WBM (2013). This results in a short‐term erosion distance
of 41 metres from the position of Highest Astronomical Tide (refer Attachment 1).
155 ii) NC says that until the State Government and Council carry out more details assessments
of coastal erosion for regional planning, it would not be appropriate to adopt on an ad‐
4
004
13
Page 16
hoc basis local variations in approach and that the BMT WBM (2018) report was endorsed
by both the State and the Council.
RECESSION DUE TO SEA LEVEL RISE
160 a. Points of agreement
i) The Bruun Rule is the agreed methodology for calculation of the estimated shoreline
recession due to sea level rise.
ii) The Bruun Rule assumes uniform physical characteristics of the sand across and through
the beach profile
165 iii) The predicted sea level rise by 2050 is 0.3 metres, 2070 is 0.5 metres and 2100 is 0.8
metres.
iv) The depth of closure for assessment of this component of the erosion prone area is ‐
12m AHD
b. Points of disagreement
170 i) PP opinion is that the height of the dune that should be adopted for this assessment
should be 17m AHD based on site survey and not 4.5m AHD as adopted by BMT WBM
(2018). This gives an active beach width of 550 metres and therefore a recession of 5.7
metres by 2050 and 15.2 metres by 2100.
ii) NC says that until the State Government and Council carry out more details assessments
175 of coastal erosion for regional planning, it would not be appropriate to adopt on an ad‐
hoc basis local variations in approach and that the BMT WBM (2018) report was
endorsed by both the State and the Council.
DUNE SCARP RECESSION
a. Points of agreement
180 i) The Dune Scarp component is based on the angle of repose for dry sand (i.e. 34o) and
does not consider the actual geotechnical stability of the slope.
EROSION PRONE AREA CALCULATION
a. Points of agreement
i) The erosion prone area is a conservative estimation of erosion vulnerability and does not
185 consider the durability of underlying soil/rock layers in the profile.
COASTAL BUILDING LINE
b. Points of agreement
i) The Coastal Building Line is an arbitrary line originally created by the former Beach
Protection Authority to allow for beach erosion and accretion associated with storm
190 events to occur without impacting on infrastructure.
ii) Both BMT WBM (2018) and Omtrek Pty Ltd assessments have shown that the subject
property is outside of the short‐term erosion component of the erosion prone area.
5
005
14
Page 17
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND POOL SUPPORT DESIGN
195 An agreed assessment of the geotechnical investigation and proposed pool design is as follows:
Core Consultants Pty Ltd provided an undated geotechnical report on 24 September 2019 (included
in Attachment 2 to this joint report), which includes an assessment of Slope Stability in Chapter 6,
taking account of coastal erosion. The initially assumed coastal erosion extent was based on the
200 joint advice by NC and PP, which was for a cut to 60m west of the toe of the frontal dune (assumed
to align with the location of the highest astronomical tide). This cut was based on a 100 year storm
tide and 100 year wave condition with 0.3m sea level rise by 2050.
The analysis considered slope failure / erosion and slope reprofiling subsequent to the initial coastal
205 erosion cut, comprising upslope failure and lower slope failure, with and without micro‐piling to
support the proposed pool.
Case 3 results from the Core report show that, without piling, the pool is at risk of failure due to
failure of the slope to the east of the pool, following the assumed coastal erosion.
210 Case 4 shows that, with the 10m long micro‐piling, that an adequate factor of safety against failure is
achieved, and that the pool structure would remain in place. A consequence of the upper and lower
slope failure is that a near vertical erosion scar approximately 5m high would result immediately
adjacent to the pool.
215 The micro‐piles proposed on the eastern side of the pool are spaced at approximately 0.5m
minimum centres, with 49 piles in total distributed over two rows. An additional 7 micro‐piles are
proposed to support the western side of the pool.
Grout columns are also proposed between the micro‐piles to prevent sand flow, such that a
220 continuous wall is created under the eastern side of the pool.
RESPONSES TO KEY COASTAL ENGINEERING QUESTIONS
In terms of the 4 questions raised above, taking account of our investigations and the latest
225 geotechnical report by Core consultants, we provide the following agreed responses.
1. The extent of erosion associated with a storm event equivalent to a 100 year return period is
conservatively assessed as being a vertical cut extending 60m shoreward of the highest
astronomical cut line. This cut would result in subsequent upper and lower slope failures and
230 reprofiling. Without piling under the proposed pool, failure as shown in Case 3 could occur,
resulting in the collapse of the pool. With the proposed 10m deep, 56 micro‐pile
arrangement, the pool structure will remain intact, and the possible erosion scar profile as
shown in Core Consulting’s Case 4 could occur.
This addresses questions 1 to 3.
235 2. In relation to question 4, whilst some coffee rock has been encountered in geotechnical
investigations, in the orange zone shown on Core Consultants four Cases, there is insufficient
information to assume that a continuous and homogenous layer of coffee rock exists. Hence
the need for the deep micro‐piles.
6
006
15
Page 18
240 CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
a. Beach Protection Act 1968 – 1974 (as amended in 2002)
i) From PP’s experience the proposed development would have been subject to an
application for approval from the Beach Protection Authority. The Authority was
generally not supportive of development seaward of a coastal building line unless there
245 was precedent for development seaward of the coastal building line on neighbouring
properties, or a coastal processes assessment was undertaken and demonstrated that
the erosion prone area width could be reduced.
ii) PP’s opinion is that the Beach Protection Authority would have considered the erosion
prone area reassessment undertaken by either BMT WBM (2018) or Omtrek Pty. Ltd.
250 favourably.
iii) NC says that this is not relevant to the coastal assessments in that it is speculation as to
what the Authority would have determined under this hypothetical scenario.
b. State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAPs) Other relevant matters
i) PP’s opinion is that the proposed piled foundation constitutes an alternative coastal
255 protection structure and as such the proposed development would comply with
performance outcome 6 of the State Development Assessment Provisions State Code 8.
ii) NC says that the setback does not comply with those provided under PO6 of the State
Code 8; Coastal Development and Tidal Works of the State Development Assessment
Provisions.
260 iii) NC says that the development does not comply with the provisions of the Natural
Resource Overlay Code overall outcome 13.42.2 (f) (i) and specific outcome O20.
ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO THE REASONS FOR REFUSAL
Our agreed position in relation to the reasons for refusal detailed above are as follows:
1. Reason 1; Whilst this reason is correct, the proposed geotechnical design ensures that,
265 irrespective of coastal erosion and subsequent slope failure and reprofiling, the pool structure
will remain in place following a 100 year storm tide and wave erosion event.
2. Reason 2; this is a matter for the planners and the Court to consider.
3. Reason 3; coastal erosion and subsequent slope failure and reprofiling analysis described in
this report demonstrates that significant erosion that would fail the original proposed pool
270 can occur under a severe storm tide and wave event. However, the proposed geotechnical
design ensures that, irrespective of coastal erosion and subsequent slope failure and
reprofiling, the pool structure will remain in place following a 100 year storm tide and wave
erosion event.
4. Reason 5; with the proposed geotechnical design with micro‐pile support for the pool, coastal
275 processes will not be impacted by the proposed development on all coastal events up to the
100 year storm tide and wave event, accounting for climate change to 2050. Under more
severe events, further erosion could occur; however coastal structures of this nature are
normally required to be designed to withstand events up to the 100 year event (noting that
7
007
16
Page 19
the minimum requirement for seawalls is a 50 year ARI event at stipulated in the Prescribed
280 Tidal Works Code in the Coastal Protection and Management Regulation 2017).
5. Reason 6; it is acknowledged that further set‐back beyond 6m would further reduce the risk of
erosion affecting the proposed development; however, the proposed geotechnical design
ensures that, irrespective of coastal erosion and subsequent slope failure and reprofiling, the
pool structure will remain in place following a 100 year storm tide and wave erosion event and
285 recession due to sea level rise of 0.3m by 2050.
6. Draft Planning Scheme; Coastal Protection overlay Code
a) PO1; the proposed micro‐piled design allows for natural fluctuations of the coast and
foreshore without the need for additional coastal protection works, for events up to the
100 year climate change to 2050 storm tide and wave event, and recession due to sea
290 level rise of 0.3m by 2050.
Coastal erosion events larger than the 100 year event would further impact on the
ultimate erosion scar but appear unlikely to compromise the proposed micro‐pile design
as further erosion of the dune can occur whilst maintaining an adequate factor or safety.
295 Certification of the final Geotechnical design confirming this is recommended. Under
extreme event, failure may still occur.
b) PO3; dune crest is not impacted by the proposal. Wave overtopping does not occur due
to the height of the dune. Storm tide inundation has been assessed and the miro‐pile
300 design adequately mitigates the risk for all storm tide and wave events up to the 100
year climate change 2050 event.
Coastal creeks and mangroves are not impacted.
c) The development proposal is not located as far landward as possible as it could be 3 to
305 5m further to the west. PO5; the development proposal does not comply as it is located
seaward of the coastal building line.
CONCLUSION
The of proposed development of a swimming pool can be accommodated within the Coastal
Building Line by incorporation of the modified geotechnical design with a number of micro‐piles
310 without compromising the future coastal management options for this section of coast. The design
of the piled foundations prepared by Core Engineering dated 24 September 2019 will provide
protection of the swimming pool and subsequently the house by adequately managing erosion from
impacting on the pool structure for all storm tide and wave events up to the 100 year climate change
2050 event.
315 The Coastal Building Line is an arbitrary line set by the former Beach Protection Authority to allow
for natural shoreline movements (i.e. erosion and accretion) associated with storm events.
In terms of coastal engineering issues, we conclude that the inclusion of the modified piled
foundation design by Core Engineering should ensure that the pool will withstand erosion associated
with a 100 year ARI storm and recession due to sea level rise of 0.3m by 2050 (i.e. the adopted
320 design life of the swimming pool).
8
008
17
Page 20
END NOTE
We confirm that:
a) The factual matters stated in this report are, as far as we are aware, true;
325 b) We have made all the enquiries that we consider appropriate;
c) The opinions attributed to the experts in this report are genuinely held by those experts;
d) The report contains references to all matters that we consider are significant; and
e) We understand that our duty is to the Court and we have complied with that duty.
330
335
____________________________ ____________________________
Paul Prenzler Neil Collins
B.Eng.(Env.), M.Eng.(Coastal), RPEQ B.Eng.(Civil), M.Eng.Sc., CPEng, MIEAust, RPEQ
340
3rd October 2019
Attachment 1 - Working Notes: M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council - 42
345 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, Omtrek Pty Ltd, July 2019
Attachment 2 – Core Consultants Geotechnical Report of 24 September 2019
Attachment 3 – Core Consultants email advice of 27 September 2019
Attachment 4 – Coastal Erosion Historic Assessments by Neil Collins
9
009
18
Page 21
350 Attachment 1 - Working Notes: M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee
v Noosa Shire Council - 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, Omtrek Pty Ltd, July
2019
10
010
19
Page 22
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises
Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire
Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
127738:14917433_1
011
20
Page 23
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Document Control Sheet
Project Number: J0022
Omtrek Pty. Ltd.
Document Number: R2
43 Raff Avenue
HOLLAND PARK QLD 4121 Title: Working Notes: M Design and
Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as
trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
Ph: 0422 220 438 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine
Beach
Project Manager: Paul Prenzler
www.Omtrek.com.au
Author: Paul Prenzler
Client:
Client Contact: Trevor Gallienne
Client Reference:
Synopsis: Review of Erosion Prone Area associated with the coastal
building line over a property at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine
Beach to support a Joint Expert Report for an appeal in the
Planning and Environment Court
Version History:
Version Date Checked by: Issued by:
R1 2/10/19 AWF 2/10/19 PTP 2/10/19
Distribution:
Destination Version
1 2 3 4
Client Pdf
File word/pdf
Library -
127738:14917433_1
012
21
Page 24
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
2. Site Description ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Proposed Development .................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Site Inspection................................................................................................................. 6
3. Planning Framework ............................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Queensland Coastal Planning Policy ............................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Beach Protection Act 1968.......................................................................................... 9
3.1.2. Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 .......................................................... 9
3.1.3. Planning Act 2016 ....................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Coastal Management Mapping ..................................................................................... 10
4. Coastal Processes at Sunshine Beach ................................................................................... 14
4.1. Water Levels.................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1. Astronomical Tides.................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2. Storm Tide ................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.3. Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................ 14
4.2. Wave Climate and Design Wave Conditions ................................................................. 15
5. Aerial Photography Analysis ................................................................................................. 18
6. Erosion Prone Area Reassessment........................................................................................ 28
6.1. Long-term Erosion (N x R) ............................................................................................. 29
6.2. Short-term Erosion (C) .................................................................................................. 30
6.3. Recession due to Sea Level Rise .................................................................................... 32
6.4. Dune Scarp Component ................................................................................................ 34
6.5. Summary of the Erosion Prone Area Assessment......................................................... 34
7. Coastal Building Line ............................................................................................................. 36
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 38
9. Qualifications ........................................................................................................................ 39
9.1. The Report..................................................................................................................... 39
9.2. Limitations, Qualifications and Reservations ................................................................ 39
10. References ............................................................................................................................ 40
3
127738:14917433_1
013
22
Page 25
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
1. Introduction
Paul Prenzler of Omtrek Pty Ltd has been engaged by Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd via McInnes
Wilson Lawyers regarding the matter of the Planning and Environment Appeal No 245 of 2019 with
respect to the Disputed Issues relevant to coastal management. In response to the Court Order
dated 24 July 2019, a meeting of coastal engineering experts is to commence on 2 August 2019 and a
Joint Experts Report (JER) in relation to coastal management and engineering was prepared for the
Court by 16 August 2019.
This report has been prepared by Omtrek Pty Ltd under the supervision of Paul Prenzler to support
the JER and addresses issues relevant to coastal management and engineering, specifically coastal
hazards and associated beach erosion. This report documents the site specific conditions that will
influence the modelling and calculation of the Erosion prone area.
The appeal relates to Noosa Shire Council’s refusal of an application to construct a swimming pool at
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. The swimming pool is proposed to be located seaward of a
Coastal Building Line located on the property but in alignment with similar development on
neighbouring properties along Seaview Terrace.
The following sections of this report document a critical review of the Erosion prone area variables
calculated by others, the data collated and used in empirical modelling, an overview of the empirical
modelling that was prepared and a recalculation of the Erosion prone area for two design event
intervals being 30 year and 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). The 30 year period
corresponds with the asset lifespan of the pool which is the subject of this appeal and 100 year
period corresponds with the Queensland Government methodology for calculating an Erosion prone
area.
4
127738:14917433_1
014
23
Page 26
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
2. Site Description
The site is a 592 square metre residential property located at 42 Seaview Terrace (Lot 57 on
RP81810), Sunshine Beach, see Figure 2-1. The site slopes away from Seaview Terrace towards the
dunes that adjoin Sunshine Beach with a change in elevation from Seaview Terrace to the rear
property boundary of approximately 6 metres. The rear property boundary that adjoins the dune is
elevated at approximately 17 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD).
Sunshine Beach is located south of Noosa Head and has an east-south-easterly aspect with exposure
to waves from the north-east, east and south-easterly sectors. The site is approximately 430 metres
south of Noosa Headland which has a significant influence on sand transport along this section of
coastline.
A small ephemeral creek crosses the beach to the south of the site. This creek is observed in aerial
photography to meander across the beach.
Coastal Building Line
Site
Figure 2-1 Site Location
2.1. Proposed Development
This appeal relates to a proposed pool and decks located at the rear of an existing house located on
the site. Figure 2-5 shows the proposed pool and decks in relation to the existing house. It should
be noted that the asset lifespan of a residential concrete swimming pool is between 30 to 40 years.
Taking account of the coastal environment and the rate of building renewal of seaside properties an
asset lifespan of 30 years has been adopted for the purposes of this assessment.
5
127738:14917433_1
015
24
Page 27
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 2-5 Proposed development and land levels
2.2. Site Inspection
A site inspection was undertaken by Paul Prenzler on 22 June 2019 to observe the coastal conditions
at the site and undertake field measurements of the beach.
To assist with accurate mapping the extents of the Erosion prone area the ‘seaward toe of the
frontal dune’ was located and recorded using a hand held GPS. The seaward toe of the frontal dune
is defined in part 3.b.(i) and (ii) on Erosion prone area plan number NOS3A dated 8 July 2015
prepared by the Department of Environment and Science.
Figure 2-6 shows the ‘seaward toe of the frontal dune’ mapped in accordance with the Department
of Environment and Heritage Protection specification included in the ‘Coastal Hazards Technical
Guide’ (DEHP, 2013) and Erosion Prone Area plan number NOS3A.
The distance from the rear property boundary of the site to the toe of the frontal dune is between
72 to 75 metres. The site is approximately 400 metres south of Noosa Heandland.
6
127738:14917433_1
016
25
Page 28
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Site
Figure 2-6 Mapped Line of the Seaward Toe of the Frontal Dune
2.3. Geotechnical Assessment
The geotechnical conditions at the site have been investigated by Core Engineering. Figure 2-7
shows a cross-sectional view of the underlying soil profiles.
Core Engineering have been requested to determine the likelihood of erosion impacting on the site
given the soil profile and the design of the piled foundations of the pool to resolve erosion impacts.
(eport No. J000867-003-R-Rev0 dated September 2019 prepared by Core Engineering has
determined the potential for slope failure associated with erosion of the base of the dunes due to a
100 year ARI storm event and determined a piled foundation arrangement to support the swimming
pool.
7
127738:14917433_1
017
26
Page 29
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 2-7 Cross-sectional view of soil profile
8
127738:14917433_1
018
27
Page 30
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
3. Planning Framework
Reel Planning Consultants have prepare a summary (Attachment A) of the relevant development
requirements of the past and current versions of the Noosa Plan. In addition to the Noosa Plan
requirements the Queensland Government have requirements related to development on land
constrained by coastal building lines. The following sections provide opinion related to the past and
current requirements under the relevant coastal management legislation.
3.1. Beach Protection Act 1968
The Beach Protection Act 1968 was enacted in response to severe erosion of the Gold Coast beaches
and the threat posed to public infrastructure and private property. The Act created the Beach
Protection Authority.
In relation to the current development application for the proposed swimming pool. An approval
from the Beach Protection Authority would have been required under section 44 of the Beach
Protection Act 1968. The Beach Protection Authority generally did not approve development
seaward of a coastal building line. However, the Authority did consider reassessment of the erosion
prone area based on assessment undertaken by applicants.
In this instance the review of the erosion prone area presented in this report demonstrates that the
short-term erosion component of the erosion prone area is located outside of the property. The
Coastal Building Line had been set by the Beach Protection Authority to allow for the erosion and
accretion of the beach due to storm events. In this instance it is likely that a case could have been
present to the former Beach Protection Authority to demonstrate that the Coastal Building Line was
not consistent with the requirements for setting a Coastal Building Line and as such may have been
relaxed by the Authority.
3.2. Queensland Coastal Planning Policy
The Beach Protection Act 1968 was repealed in 2003 and replaced with amendments to the Coastal
Protection and Management Act 1995. With the development approvals transition into the Planning
Act 2016 (and its predecessors).
3.2.1. Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995
The Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 provides for the declaration of erosion prone
areas, coastal management districts and coastal building lines which are used as triggers for
development approvals under the Planning Act 2016. These layers are discussed in Section 3.3.
3.2.2. Planning Act 2016
The Planning Act 2016 details the planning and development approval framework for Queensland.
In relation to this application the proposed swimming pool is trigger for building works seaward of a
coastal building line, similar to the apploval requirement under the repealed Beach Protection Act
1968.
The Planning Act 2016 includes provision for the State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP)
to form the assessment criteria for development assessed by the Queensland Government.
Performance Outcome PO6 of SDAP State Code 8 states, “In areas where a coastal building line is
present, building work is located landward of the coastal building line unless coastal protection work
9
127738:14917433_1
019
28
Page 31
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
has been constructed to protect the development”. This is the only performance outcome that
relates to Coastal Building Lines.
3.3. Coastal Management Mapping
The site is located with three coastal management mapping layers prepared by the Queensland
Government Department of Environment and Science. These mapping layers include:
Coastal Management District (see Figure 3-1),
Erosion prone area (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3), and
Coastal Building Line (see Figure 2-1).
The State Planning Policy (dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/spp-july-2017.pdf) requires
local governments, including Noosa Shire Council, to base their planning scheme mapping on the
above mapping. The specific details of the Erosion prone area and Coastal Building Line for this site
will be further discussed in Sections XX and XX.
Figure 3-1 Coastal Management District in red hatch (source: SARA DA Mapping System)
10
127738:14917433_1
020
29
Page 32
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 3-2 Current Erosion prone area extents in orange hatch (source: SARA DA Mapping System)
11
127738:14917433_1
021
30
Page 33
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 3-3a Erosion Prone Area Plan for Noosa Shire (source: Department of Environment and
Science)
12
127738:14917433_1
022
31
Page 34
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 3-3b Erosion Prone Area Plan for Noosa Shire (source: Department of Environment and
Science)
13
127738:14917433_1
023
32
Page 35
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
4. Coastal Processes at Sunshine Beach
The coastal processes of interest to this investigation are water levels (including sea level rise
predictions), wave conditions, and sediment transport processes.
4.1. Water Levels
The water levels of interest for a reassessment of the erosion prone area include the astronomical
tide, storm tide and the predicted rise in mean sea level associated with climate change. The
following sections describe the water levels adopted for the assessment.
4.1.1. Astronomical Tides
Sunshine Beach adjacent to the site experiences semi-diurnal tides with a tidal range of 1.4 metres
at Spring Tides. Table 3-1 presents the tidal planes for Noosa Beach published by Maritime Safety
Queensland (2019). These tidal planes are considered consistent with conditions at Sunshine Beach
due to the proximity of the two beaches.
Table 3-1 Noosa Beach Tidal Planes (Maritime Safety Queensland, 2019)
Tidal Plane Water Level
(m AHD)
Highest Astronomical Tide 1.16
Mean High Water Spring 0.66
Mean High Water Neap 0.33
Mean Sea Level -0.06
Mean Low Water Neap -0.41
Mean Low Water Spring -0.74
Lowest Astronomical Tide 1.16
The Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) is used as the basis for measuring the width of the short-term
erosion component of the erosion prone area.
4.1.2. Storm Tide
Storm tide is the total water level associated with the combination of the normal astronomical tide
and the tidal surge associated with a storm event (e.g. tropical cyclone). There have been several
previous storm tide studies undertaken for the Sunshine Coast with the most recent being Aurecon
(2013).
BMT WBM (2018) adopted the 100 year ARI storm tide levels determined by Aurecon (2013) for the
reassessment of the erosion prone area widths for Noosa Shire, including Sunshine Beach. This is
consistent with industry practice and has also been adopted for this assessment.
4.1.3. Sea Level Rise
Sea levels are predicted to rise due to the effects of climate change. The Queensland Government
through the State Planning Policy has adopted a predicted sea level rise of 0.8 metres by the year
2100 above present day mean sea level. It is noted that BMT WBM (2018) adopted the following sea
level rise allowances (above present day mean sea level) as part of phase 3 of the CHAS:
14
127738:14917433_1
024
33
Page 36
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
0.2 metres by 2040,
0.5 metres by 2070, and
0.8 metres by 2100.
The adopted sea level rise allowances are consistent with industry practice and will be used for this
assessment. In addition, an allowance of 0.3 metres by the year 2050 will also be considered for this
assessment to coincide with the asset lifespan adopted for the proposed concrete swimming pool.
4.2. Wave Climate and Design Wave Conditions
Winds acting on the sea surface generate waves known as sea, as the sea waves move out of the
area the wave form becomes more regular and this is known as swell waves.
The wave climate at Sunshine Beach is influenced by both locally wind-generated sea waves and
ocean swell. Sea describes wind generated waves where wind energy is still being transferred to the
ocean. Swell describes wind generated waves that have travelled out of their generating area. Swell
characteristically exhibits smoother, more regular and uniform crests and a longer period than wind
waves. In open coastal areas sea waves generated by local winds are often superimposed on swell
waves.
The wave climate for Sunshine Beach has been previously reported by BMT WBM (2013), “Coastal
Processes Study for the Sunshine Coast” prepared for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. BMT
WBM (2013) has shown the wave climate for Sunshine Beach is dominated by waves from the east-
southeast direction (refer Figure 3-1)
15
127738:14917433_1
025
34
Page 37
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 3-1 Wave Rose for Sunshine Beach from BMT WBM (2013)
Analysis of the wave climate for southeast Queensland has previously been undertaken by Allen and
Callaghan (2001) using wave data recorded at the Brisbane recording site located east of Point
Lookout, North Stradbroke Island.
BMT WBM (2013) had used the design wave condition determined by Allen and Callaghan (2001) to
derive design wave conditions for the Sunshine Coast, including Sunshine Beach. Table 3-3 presents
the design wave heights for Sunshine Beach.
Table 3-3 Design Offshore Significant Wave Heights for Sunshine Beach (source: BMT WBM, 2013)
Year ARI Wave Height (m)
20 year ARI 5.5
50 year ARI 5.9
100 year ARI 6.2
16
127738:14917433_1
026
35
Page 38
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
The above wave return periods represent design wave conditions at Sunshine Beach determined for
an assessment of coastal processes on the Sunshine Coast to assist with shoreline erosion
management planning.
17
127738:14917433_1
027
36
Page 39
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
5. Aerial Photography Analysis
A review of historical aerial photography has been undertaken to assess the historical beach
movements at Sunshine Beach. Figures 4-1 to 4-9 shows aerial photographs from 1969, 1972, 1974,
1981, 1988, 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2018, respectively. Superimposed over the aerial photographs it
the toe of the frontal dune (i.e. edge of vegetation mapped on 22 June 2019).
The aerial photographs from 1972 and 1974 show the beach in an eroded state and evidence of
coffee rock exposed on the upper beach. From 1974 to present the beach has slowly accreted over
54 metres. The significant erosion that occurred in the early 1970’s was associated with a period of
extreme weather conditions during which time there were a number of tropical cyclones impacting
on southern Queensland and insufficient recovery time between storms. The period from the
1980’s to present has been significantly calmer with only a few tropical cyclones impacting on
southern Queensland, as a result the beach has been able to recover.
BMT WBM (2013) observations in relation to the recovery of Sunshine Beach is supported by the
analysis of historical aerial photography. It was noted that there has been significant recovery of the
beach since the early 1970’s.
In relation to Sunshine Beach, BMT WBM (2013) noted, “The erosion threat to development is
considered low due to well established dune and vegetation buffer. In some locations the existing
vegetation line is seaward of the 1974 position indicating recovery of the hind (secondary) dune and
the gradual development of frontal (primary) dune system”.
In relation to the subject site it is also worth noting that the rear boundaries of the properties along
Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach do not follow the vegetation line. This results in a greater
vegetated buffer seaward of the subject site in comparison to the properties to the north.
18
127738:14917433_1
028
37
Page 40
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-1 Aerial Photography from 1969 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
19
127738:14917433_1
029
38
Page 41
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-2 Aerial Photography from 1972 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
20
127738:14917433_1
030
39
Page 42
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-3 Aerial Photography from 1974 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
21
127738:14917433_1
031
40
Page 43
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-4 Aerial Photography from 1981 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
22
127738:14917433_1
032
41
Page 44
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-5 Aerial Photography from 1988 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
23
127738:14917433_1
033
42
Page 45
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-6 Aerial Photography from 1994 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
24
127738:14917433_1
034
43
Page 46
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-7 Aerial Photography from 1999 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
25
127738:14917433_1
035
44
Page 47
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-8 Aerial Photography from 2004 (source: www.qimagery.qld.gov.au) with toe of dune
mapped on 22 June 2019 (red dashed line)
26
127738:14917433_1
036
45
Page 48
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 4-9 Aerial Photography from 2018 (source: google earth) with toe of dune mapped on 22 June
2019 (red dashed line)
27
127738:14917433_1
037
46
Page 49
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
6. Erosion Prone Area Reassessment
Erosion Prone Areas are declared under section 70 of the Coastal Protection and Management Act
1995 and identifies land that may be vulnerable to coastal erosion or tidal inundation over a 100
year planning period. The Erosion prone area is used in the assessment of development triggered by
the Coastal Management District.
The ‘Coastal Hazards Technical Guide’ prepared by the Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection (2013) provides guidance on the calculation of an erosion prone area. The erosion prone
area width is based on the following:
short-term erosion from extreme storm events (e.g. a tropical cyclone);
a dune scarp component to accommodate slumping of the erosion scarp following short-
term erosion;
long-term erosion associated with a deficit in sediment supply;
shoreline recession due to sea level rise of 0.8 metres associated with climate change by the
year 2100; and
a 40% safety factor.
The Erosion prone area is calculated using the following equation:
𝐸 = {(𝑁 × 𝑅) + 𝐶 + 𝑆} × (1 + 𝐹) + 𝐷 equation 1
Where:
E= Erosion Prone Area (metres)
N= planning period (years)
R= rate of long-term erosion (metres/year)
C= short-term erosion from the design storm event (metres)
S= recession due to sea level rise (metres)
F= factor of safety (0.4)
D= Dune scarp component to allow for slumping of the erosion scarp (metres)
The erosion prone area equation was created by the former Queensland Beach Protection Authority
in the late 1970’s and has not been altered since that time. The equation is based on a number of
assumptions, including:
The beach and dune profile consists of unconsolidated loose sand with uniform physical
characteristics throughout the profile.
There are no physical features (e.g. headland) that would influence sand movements.
Storm events occur over a sufficient period of time to allow for development of an
equilibrium storm profile of the beach.
The long-term erosion trend is independent of recession due to sea level rise.
These factors mean the erosion prone area is a very conservative assessment of erosion
vulnerability. When combined with the 40% safety factor the overall conservatism of the method is
further exacerbated.
The Subject Site is located entirely within the Erosion prone area as defined on Department of
Environment and Science Plan Number NOS3A dated 8 July 2015 (refer Figure 3-3). The Erosion
prone area for this section of coast is currently 175 metres measured inland from the seaward toe of
the frontal dune (refer Figure 3-3). The assessment of the components of the erosion prone area
presented in Plan Number NOS3A was originally undertaken in the 1980’s by the Queensland Beach
Protection Authority with only the recession due to sea level rise being updated in 2015.
28
127738:14917433_1
038
47
Page 50
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Noosa Shire Council is currently undertaking coastal investigations in preparation of a Coastal Hazard
Adaptation Strategy (CHAS) through the QCoast2100 program. Phase 3 of the CHAS involves refining
the coastal hazard mapping, including the erosion prone area. The Erosion prone areas for Noosa
Shire have been recently reviewed by BMT WBM (2018) on behalf of Noosa Shire Council as part of
the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Study (CHAS).
The following sections will review each component of the Erosion prone area based on site specific
conditions relevant to the Subject Site.
6.1. Long-term Erosion (N x R)
The long-term erosion component is based on the selected planning period (N) and the average
annual rate of long-term erosion (R).
In relation to the planning period, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013)
states, “The long-term erosion component (excluding sea level rise) of the calculation is often
cyclical in nature and typically of a decadal scale. For this reason, it is considered the estimated
annual rate of long-term erosion is only applied for a 50-year period”. Where there is no clear
evidence of log-term erosion trends the Department requires a nominal provision of 10 metres
which is not based on any scientific assessment. This nominal figure also increases the conservative
nature of the erosion prone area.
The annual rate of long-term erosion (R) reflects changes to sediment supply to a beach and where
there is a long-term deficit in sediment supply this results in a longer term recession of the shoreline.
BMT WBM (2018) has calculated the long-term erosion rate for Sunshine Coast at beach profile line
ETA 602. Table 5-1 provides a summary of BMT WBM (2018) estimated long-term erosion for 2040,
2070 and 2100.
Table 5-1 Summary of Long Term Recession Results from BMT WBM (2018)
Beach Profile Annual Long-Term Erosion (m)
Compartment Recession (m)
2040 2070 2100
N = 23 N = 53 N = 83
Sunshine Beach ETA 602.0 0.03 0.7 1.6 2.5
The calculation of an annual long-term erosion rate on 0.03 metres/year for Sunshine Beach by BMT
WBM (2018) has followed standard industry practice. However, the site is located approximately
400m south of Noosa Headland which will influence the sediment transport processes along this
section of coast by trapping sand moving north along the coast. It is therefore considered the
analysis of the long-term erosion component is conservative (i.e. by 7.5 metres) for the section of
beach adjacent to the site. This is supported by the assessment of aerial photography presented in
section 4 which has shown accretion of the beach adjacent to the site.
It is noted that BMT WBM (2018) had adopted a nominal 10m value for long-term erosion for
erosion prone area calculation over a 100 year planning period and this is in accordance with the
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) methodology. This is consistent with
the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) methodology however does not
consider the effect of the site’s proximity to Noosa Headland which will reduce long-term erosion.
29
127738:14917433_1
039
48
Page 51
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
A long-term erosion of 0 metres is considered more realistic given the effect of Noosa Headland
which would act in a similar fashion to a groyne by trapping sand moving north along the coast with
the prevailing south-easterly wave climate.
6.2. Short-term Erosion (C)
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) recommends the calculation of the
short-term erosion based on a 100 year ARI storm event using the methodology developed by
Vellinga (1983). Figure 5-1 shows a conceptual representation of the erosion and accretion zones
associated with storm induced erosion predicted by Vellinga (1983). The Department provides the
following recommendation in relation to defining a storm event:
“For a tide-dominated coast where storm tide levels can be large, the parameters
adopted for the minimum design storm are:
(i) storm tide level corresponding to an average recurrence interval of 1-in-100 years
(ii) wave height for a moderate storm using the 1-in-20-year significant wave height (Hs).
However, for wave-dominated coastlines where extreme storm tide levels can be
relatively minor, such as the Gold Coast, the significant wave height and duration of the
storm event are major factors influencing short term erosion, rather than storm tide.
Hence it may be necessary to consider a larger wave event (for example, a storm event
with a 1-in-100 ARI) and a moderate storm tide level. Decisions on appropriate
parameters to be used must be based on local conditions and the experience of the
coastal engineer undertaking the assessment.”
Figure 5-1 Sketch of pre-storm and predicted post-storm profiles based on Vellinga (1983)
In relation to the probability of such an event occurring the Department of Environment and
Heritage protection (2013) states:
30
127738:14917433_1
040
49
Page 52
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
“Although the abovementioned probability of occurrence may appear to be fairly
high, it is considered that this choice is reasonable when considered in conjunction
with the method used to determine erosion prone area widths. This method implies
that the erosion prone area has sufficient width to accommodate the design storm
erosion in 100 years time, when all of the estimated long-term erosion has occurred.
Therefore, it also follows that for much of the 100-year planning period, the erosion
prone area is sufficient to accommodate a larger storm than the one selected for
design purposes. In fact, in the most critical last 10 years of such a planning period,
there is only a 10% probability of occurrence of the design storm. Thus the risk of a
storm breaching the entire erosion prone area at some time during the 100-year
period will be significantly less than 63%.”
Sunshine Beach is a wave-dominated coastline and based on the methodology for calculating short-
term erosion the combination of storm tide and wave conditions must be based on local conditions.
It is noted that BMT WBM (2018) adopted a combination of a 100 year ARI Storm Tide level and 100
year ARI significant wave height as the 100 year ARI storm event for the entire Noosa Shire Council
area. The combination adopted by BMT WBM (2018) is more extreme than the combination
recommended by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015) as discussed
above. BMT WBM (2018) assessment is therefore more conservative than the requirements
specified by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015).
For this assessment a combination of a 100 year ARI storm tide and 20 year ARI significant wave
height have been adopted as the parameters for a 100 year ARI Storm Event for the following
reasons:
The tide range at Sunshine Beach is relatively low (i.e. 1.4 metres at Spring Tides) and as
such the effect of water level on beach erosion is likely to be more significant. The Beach
Protection Authority (1984) found that water level rather than waves has a greater influence
on beach erosion during storm events.
Sunshine Beach is located immediately south of Noosa Headland which will somewhat
protect the site from larger waves from the north. Previous work by Cardno (2009) had
shown that from Moreton Bay north, 100 year ARI storm events are dominated by tropical
cyclones with the more frequent events (i.e. 20 or 50 year ARI) being associated with east
coast lows. Tropical cyclones will form in the warm waters off the north Queensland coast
and as they travel south generate large waves. Noosa Headland will provide a level of
protection for Sunshine Beach from these northerly waves.
For these reasons the parameters chosen for the design storm event are a 100 year ARI storm tide
level of 1.74 metres AHD, consistent with BMT WBM (2018) and a 20 year ARI significant wave
height of 5.5 metres. The probability of occurrence of this event during the 30 year lifespan of the
swimming pool is estimated to be 25% based on Patterson (1986) and this is therefore a
conservative assessment.
Figure 5-2 and Table 5-2 present the results of the modelled storm erosion associated with the
above design event. This shows a storm erosion cut of 41 metres is predicted to occur. This
represents a conservative estimate of storm erosion for the life of the swimming pool.
31
127738:14917433_1
041
50
Page 53
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
ETA 602.00
8
7 Elevation (m AHD)
6 HAT (m AHD)
5 Vellinga Storm Profile
Dune
4 Storm Tide (m AHD)
Elevation (m AHD)
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)
Figure 5-2 Modelled post-storm profiles at Sunshine Beach based on Vellinga (1983)
Table 5-2 Summary of Long Term Recession Results from BMT WBM (2018)
Beach Profile Storm Tide Significant Wave Modelled Short-term
Compartment (m AHD) Height (m) Erosion (m)
Sunshine Beach ETA 602.0 1.74 5.5 41
6.3. Recession due to Sea Level Rise
As discussed in section 3.1.3 sea levels are predicted to rise in response to climate change and the
Queensland Government have adopted a sea level rise of 0.8 metres above present day mean sea
level by the year 2100. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) requires the
shoreline response to sea level rise be considered when assessing erosion prone area widths.
An industry standard practice for the assessment of shoreline recession due to sea level rise is to use
the ‘Bruun Rule’ developed by Bruun (1962), see Figure 5-3. The ‘Bruun Rule’ was adopted by BMT
WBM (2018) for phase 3 of the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Strategy investigations.
32
127738:14917433_1
042
51
Page 54
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Figure 5-3 Conceptualisation of recession due to sea level rise due to Bruun Rule (1962)
The Bruun Rule assumes an equilibrium beach profile is maintained with sea level rise resulting in an
elevation and landward movement of the profile, as shown in Figure 5-3. The Bruun Rule is given by
equation 2 below:
𝑟= equation 2
Where:
r= shoreline recession due to sea level rise (m)
B= horizontal distance of the active beach profile (m)
a= rise in mean sea level (m)
D= vertical height of the active beach profile (m)
The Bruun Rule assumes that the beach and dune consist of a uniform loose sand material. It is also
applicable to long straight sections of beach. The geotechnical assessment which is supported by
aerial photography from 1974 has shown the underlying soil profile includes indurated sand layers
(i.e. coffee rock).
The assessment of recession due to sea level rise is presented in Table 5-3. The profile adopted has
been based on ETA 602.0 for Sunshine Beach supplemented with site survey and bathymetric LiDAR
data for the Sunshine Coast obtained from the QSpatial Catalogue. Based on the information
available an active beach height of 29m has been adopted from the depth of closure of -12m AHD to
the dune height at the rear of the subject property of 17m AHD. This provides an active beach
profile width of 550 metres.
Two sea level rise scenarios have been assessed; 0.3 metres by 2050 and 0.8 metres by 2100. The
2050 scenario accommodates the projected asset lifespan of the proposed swimming pool. This
shows that the position of Highest Astronomical Tide will be 5.7 metres closer to the site’s property
boundary by the year 2050.
33
127738:14917433_1
043
52
Page 55
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Table 5-3 Summary of Shoreline Recession due to Sea Level Rise
Beach Profile Profile Dune Depth of Bruun Rule Recession
Compartment Width Height Closure (m)
(m) (m AHD) (m AHD)
2050 2100
(SLR 0.3m) (SLR 0.8m)
Sunshine ETA 550 17 -12 5.7 15.2
Beach 602.0
6.4. Dune Scarp Component
The methodology for calculating the erosion prone area includes an allowance for slumping of the
frontal dune following a short-term erosion event. The Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection (2013) states, “The short-term erosion calculation permits the assessment of shoreline
recession as far as the limit of wave run-up for those cases where the frontal beach ridge is not
overtopped. To allow for slumping of the frontal dune beyond this design run-up level, and the
possible undermining and collapse of structures founded on the dune, a dune scarp component
should be included in the erosion prone area width”.
The angle of repose for dry sand is 35o and this has been used to determine the dune scarp
component of the erosion prone area for the design lifespan of the swimming pool. The short-term
erosion calculations shown in Figure 5-2 and Table 5-2 indicate a dune scarp of approximately 1
metre based on ETA 602.0 and this would result in a dune scarp recession of approximately 1.4
metres.
6.5. Summary of the Erosion Prone Area Assessment
The erosion prone area reassessment for this appeal has been undertaken in accordance with the
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013) requirements with a planning period of
30 years to accommodate the asset lifespan of the swimming pool. We have also considered the
effect of shoreline recession due to 0.8 metres of sea level rise, short-term erosion associated with a
100 year ARI storm event and dune scarp recession.
Through this assessment there has been careful consideration of the previous assessment
undertaken by BMT WBM (2018). Some components of the erosion prone area have been
calculated by BMT WBM (2018) are considered overly conservative, these include:
The combination of a 100 year ARI storm tide level and 100 year ARI wave height to define a
100 year ARI storm event. This is not consistent with the Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection’s (2013) guidance on this component of the erosion prone area.
The dune height used for the calculation of recession due to sea level rise was 4.5m which is
much lower that the actual dune height at Sunshine Beach. This results in an
underestimation of the volume of sand in the dune system that will accommodate changes
in the profile position associated with sea level rise.
The erosion prone area calculated for a 30 year planning period is presented in Table 5-4 and Figure
5-4.
34
127738:14917433_1
044
53
Page 56
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Table 5-4 Summary of Erosion Prone Area calculations for the 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Component 2050 Calculated
Erosion Distances
Long-term Erosion (m) 0.9
Short-term Erosion (m) 41
Recession due to 0.3m SLR (m) 5.7
Dune Scarp (m) 1.4
Erosion Prone Area width (m) 70
Figure 5-4 Extent of the predicted 2050 erosion prone area
This assessment is based on a shorter planning period than the planning period adopted by the
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection in the calculation of the erosion prone area
shown on Plan Number NOS3A. This is due to the lifespan of the swimming pool. The assessment
has also been based on a larger dataset of wave and water level conditions which has resulted in a
more refined assessment of the short-term erosion estimate. This assessment still provides a
conservative estimate of erosion vulnerability.
35
127738:14917433_1
045
54
Page 57
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
7. Coastal Building Line
Coastal building lines were introduced as a planning control by the former Beach Protection
Authority under the provisions of the Beach Protection Act 1968 (repealed) and were continued
through transitional provisions in the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995. The Coastal
Building Lines were an arbitrary line placed over properties with the intention to accommodate
natural erosion and accretion processes associated with storm events (i.e. the short-term erosion
component of the erosion prone area).
The Coastal Building Line was defined in the 1980’s by the Beach Protection Authority under the
provisions of the Beach Protection Act 1968. The Coastal Building Line has not been reviewed or
updated to include new information since that time.
Figure 6-1 shows the extent of short-term erosion, dune scarp recession and shoreline recession due
to sea level rise of 0.8 metres by the year 2100. The site is located outside of the zone that may be
vulnerable to short-term erosion and as such it is unlikely that the coastal building line would have
been applied to the site by the former Beach Protection Authority with the information currently
available.
Site
Figure 6-1 Extent of short-term erosion combined with shoreline recession of 0.8 metres
36
127738:14917433_1
046
55
Page 58
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
Coastal Building Lines are declared under section 66 of the Coastal Protection and Management Act
1995. The Coastal Building Line at 42 Seaview Terrace is located 15 metres measured from the
seaward property boundary. It is used as a development trigger under the Planning Act 2016 for
assessment of building works within a Coastal Management District against the provisions of the
State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP).
Performance Outcome PO6 of SDAP State Code 8 states, “In areas where a coastal building line is
present, building work is located landward of the coastal building line unless coastal protection work
has been constructed to protect the development”. This is the only performance outcome that
relates to Coastal Building Lines.
A review of neighbouring properties along Seaview Terrace indicates that there has been significant
development seaward of the coastal building line. This previous development has significant
implications on the design of coastal protection works along this section of coast. Coastal protection
works, such as seawalls, perform best when constructed along a consistent straight alignment and as
such previous development on the neighbouring properties will determine the location of future
works when required.
Figure 6-2 shows the proposed development in relation to the existing coastal building line and the
relaxation proposed by Reel Planning based on development on neighbouring properties. Based on
the information available relating to erosion vulnerability and development precedents on
neighbouring properties the proposed relaxation is considered a reasonable coastal management
option for this section of coast.
Coastal Building
Line Relaxation
Figure 6-2 Review of proposed development and previous relaxation of the coastal building line
37
127738:14917433_1
047
56
Page 59
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
8. Conclusion
A detailed coastal engineering assessment has been undertaken to assess the erosion vulnerability
of Sunshine Beach, Noosa Shire. The assessment is considered to be best practice, robust and
appropriate for use in the assessment of the erosion prone area for the section of beach in the
vicinity of 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach.
This assessment has found that the proposed swimming pool is unlikely to be subject to erosion
from the sea during the asset lifespan of 30 to 40 years. The assessment also found that the
proposed development as shown in Figure 2-5 will not impact on the future coastal management
option for this section of Sunshine Beach.
It is therefore concluded that relaxation of the coastal building line to allow for construction of the
proposed pool at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach as shown in Figure 2-5 will not adversely
impact on coastal processes and will not affect the future coastal management options for this
section of Sunshine Beach.
38
127738:14917433_1
048
57
Page 60
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
9. Qualifications
9.1. The Report
Omtrek Pty. Ltd. is not responsible and will not be liable to any other parties for or in
relation to any matter dealt within this report, or for any loss or damage suffered by any
other parties arising from matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in this report. Other
parties should not rely upon the report or the accuracy or completeness of any
conclusions and should make their own inquiries and obtain independent advice in
relation to such matters.
Except where expressly stated, Omtrek Pty Ltd has not verified the validity or accuracy
of any information supplied to Omtrek Pty Ltd by the client or other parties for this report.
9.2. Limitations, Qualifications and Reservations
This report has been prepared specifically to provide justification for a relaxation of the
coastal building line at Sunshine Beach, Noosa.
The report is based on the following studies and information prepared by others:
1. BMT WBM (2013), “Coastal Processes Study for the Sunshine Coast”.
2. LiDAR and beach profile survey information supplied by the Queensland Government
3. Design drawings supplied by the client
The accuracy of the report is dependent upon the accuracy of this information.
……………………………………….
Paul Prenzler B.Eng.(Env.), M.Eng.(Coastal), RPEQ
Director (Coastal Engineering)
Omtrek Pty Ltd
39
127738:14917433_1
049
58
Page 61
Working Notes:
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee v Noosa Shire Council -
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
10. References
Allen, M. and Callaghan, J. 2001: Extreme Wave Conditions for the South Queensland Coastal Region,
Environmental Technical Report 32, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.
Aurecon, 2013: Sunshine Coast Storm Tide Study – Storm Tide Definition, prepared for Sunshine
Coast Regional Council, April, 21pp.
Beach Protection Authority, 1984: Hervey Bay Beaches Report, Queensland Government, Brisbane.
BMT WBM, 2013: Coastal Processes Study for the Sunshine Coast. Brisbane, Queensland.
BMT WBM, 2018: Noosa Shire Council Coastal Hazards Risk, Vulnerability and Adaptation
Assessment Coastal Hazard Mapping Refinement. Brisbane, Queensland.
Bruun, P., 1962: Sea level rise as a cause of shoreline erosion. ASCE Journal, Waters and Harbours
Division, vol. 188, pp. 117–130.
Cardno, 2009: Storm Tide Hazard Study Moreton Bay Regional Council (incorporating Caboolture,
Pine Rivers & Redcliffe Councils), Queensland, Brisbane.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013: Coastal hazard technical guide,
Determining coastal hazard areas, prepared by Environmental Planning, Queensland Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection, April 2013.
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastalplan/pdf/hazards-guideline.pdf
Patterson, C., 1986: Storm tide statistics. Beach Conservation, Issue No.62, January 1986, Beach
Protection Authority of Queensland
40
127738:14917433_1
050
59
Page 62
Attachment 2 – Core Consultants Geotechnical Report of 24 September 2019
355
11
051
60
[OCR of page images]
355
Attachment 2 — Core Consultants Geotechnical Report of 24 September 2019
051
11
60
Page 63
Geotechnical Report
Proposed Swimming Pool
42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach
UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO JOINT INFORMATION REQUESTS BY COASTAL
ENGINEERING EXPERTS
UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO JOINT INFORMATION REQUESTS BY COASTAL
ENGINEERING EXPERTS
Prepared for:
Trevor Gallienne
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Level 23, Central Plaza One
345 Queen Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
Report Number: J000867-003-R-Rev0
September 2019
052
61
Page 64
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment for a proposed
swimming pool at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, Queensland. This report includes information that
specifically addresses the joint information requests made by the nominated coastal engineering experts on
11 August 2019 and 2 September 2019, being:
1. The stability implication of a horizontal erosion cut of 60 metres measured inland from
the plan position of Highest Astronomical Tide (i.e. 1.16m AHD) associated with a
storm event (i.e. combination of a 100 year ARI storm tide level and 100 year ARI
wave condition) occurring with a sea level rise of 0.3 metres by the year 2050.
2. The likelihood of sea erosion extending 60 m inland taking into
account the underlying soil conditions. Specifically addressing the
effect of the underlying soil and rock profiles on the extent of
erosion.
3. Design of the piling and footing details for the swimming pool are
to be shown on a drawing. The piling details must demonstrate
how the pool will withstand the erosion cut detailed in item 1
above.
In summary, the pool may be constructed with an adequate Factor of Safety (FOS) against slope instability
provided the recommendations given in this report are followed.
The geotechnical investigation fieldwork comprised seismic testing, borehole drilling and in-situ testing
(standard penetration and dynamic cone penetration tests).
The ground investigation results indicate that the upper portion of the dune, in the vicinity of the existing
residence/proposed pool, comprises about 1 m to 2 m depth of very loose or loose sand from the ground
surface, over medium dense to very dense sand. The sand shows some variability in density but appears to
generally increase in density with depth. At about 8 m to 10 m below ground level (BGL), the sand typically
becomes very dense and weakly cemented in parts. Groundwater seepage was encountered in borehole
BH1 at about 8.5 m BGL during drilling.
The lower portion and toe of the dune generally encountered about 1 m to 2 m depth of very loose or loose
sand from the ground surface, over medium dense sand. From about 3 m to 4 m BGL, the sand becomes
dense with zones of very dense sand (including inferred cemented sand ‘coffee rock’) and increases in
density with depth. The seismic testing results indicate that the coffee rock is consistently present at the toe
of the dune below the site, but may vary in thickness and density. Coffee rock is generally significantly more
resistant to erosion than typical beach or dune sands. This is evidenced by its long term (years) exposure at
around mean sea level at many locations along the sunshine coast.
Shear-wave velocity values and patterns typically associated with weathered sedimentary rock were
encountered from depths ranging between about 12 m to 20 m BGL. The testing indicates that the rock dips
towards the ocean and that its strength generally increases with depth.
Details of the investigation test locations and the ground conditions are given in Figures 1 and 2 and in
Appendix A.
Quantitative slope stability modelling was undertaken to analyse factor of safety (FOS) values for the sand
dune and the proposed development, as follows:
▪ Case 1: Vertical cut into the slope caused by erosion and subsequent failure of
the slope above the cut. The horizontal extent of erosion was based on
information provided by Omtrek Pty Ltd.
▪ Case 2: Lower slope failure following reprofiling of the slope due to the
lower failure/erosion from Case 1.
▪ Case 3: Retrogressive upper slope failure following reprofiling of the
slope due to the lower failure from Case 2.
▪ Case 4: Slope analysis following reprofiling of the slope from Case 1 and
Case 2, with the proposed pool supported on micro-piles (10 m in length and
with 100 kN shear force resistance).
J000867-003-R-Rev0 053
Page ii
62
Page 65
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
The vertical cut adopted in Case 1 assumes that erosion of the coffee rock will occur during the storm event.
This is a conservative approach as coffee rock is known to be resistant to erosion. The ‘conservative’
approach does, however, account for possible variation in coffee rock thickness/density at the toe of the
dune.
The modelling (refer Appendix B) indicates an acceptable FOS for the proposed pool supported on micro-
piles. The micro-piles will also improve the overall stability of the dune in this area, and will not impact
adjacent properties. The micro-piles must be founded into the underlying natural dense or very dense sand.
Micro-piles can be installed using equipment to suit the site’s access constraints. A conceptual micro-pile
design provided by PCA Ground Engineering is attached in Appendix C. Detailed design will be required by
the piling contractor.
The following additional recommendations are made for the proposed development:
▪ Disturbance to the surrounding slopes should be kept to a minimum (vegetation must be maintained
below the proposed pool)
▪ Revegetation of any bare slopes around the development should be undertaken
▪ Additional fill must not be placed on the slope
▪ Excavations into the upper slope should be limited, with adequate
temporary/permanent support provided. Excavations in the middle or lower
portions of the slope must be avoided
▪ Concentrated stormwater flows down the slope must be prevented
▪ Ground vibrations from earthworks should be minimised and monitored. Dilapidation surveys of
adjacent buildings/structures are recommended prior to construction works.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page iii
054
63
Page 66
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................................1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................................2
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHOD......................................................................................4
4.1 Seismic (MASW) Testing........................................................................................................................4
4.2 Borehole Drilling .....................................................................................................................................5
4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP Testing) .........................................................................................5
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS.....................................................................................5
6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................7
6.1 Method ....................................................................................................................................................7
6.2 Results ....................................................................................................................................................8
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................9
8.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................10
Figures
Figure 1: Test Location Plan
Figure 2: Seismic Testing Results
Appendices
Appendix A Reports of Boreholes and DCP Testing
Appendix B Slope Stability Modelling Output
Appendix C Conceptual Micro-Pile Design
Appendix D Limitations
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page iv
055
64
Page 67
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) was engaged by McInnes Wilson Lawyers, on behalf of Fourteen
Enterprises Pty Ltd, to undertake a geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment for a proposed
swimming pool at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach.
A Minor Change Application was submitted to Noosa Shire Council (Council), by M Design, on
18 September 2018 to change a Development Approval over land situated at 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine
Beach. Council refused the Minor Change Application on 20 December 2018 (refer Noosa Council Decision
Notice Minor Change – Reference No. 51987.2951.01, dated 21 December 2018).
M Design and Fourteen Enterprises Pty Ltd have commenced an appeal in the Planning and Environment
Court against Council’s decision to refuse the Minor Change Application (Brisbane Appeal No. 245 of 2019).
Core previously undertook a site walkover, review of available information, and numerical stability modelling.
Results of that work have been presented in Core report J000867-001-R-Rev0, along with geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed development.
This report presents the results of a subsequent geotechnical investigation and further slope stability
modelling, along with associated geotechnical comments and recommendations which address the joint
information requests made by the nominated coastal engineering expert witnesses during their joint meeting.
This report provides an assessment of opinion regarding possible slope failure following a hypothetical future
sea surge/storm event provided by the coastal engineering expert witnesses, and responds to further
information requests those experts have made. The report is not an individual statement of evidence.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development comprises the addition of a swimming pool adjacent to the eastern edge of the
existing residence, along with an extension of the existing deck (refer Image 1 below).
Image 1: Extract from M Design drawing 2.2 (18/9/18) showing proposed pool layout.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 1
056
65
Page 68
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
General site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown in Photographs 1 to 3 below.
The eastern portion of No. 42 Seaview Terrace (east of the existing dwelling), where the proposed pool is to
be constructed, comprises vegetated steep slopes and two retaining walls running north to south.
The slope at the proposed pool location is between about 8° and 15° towards the east, where an
approximately 1 m high timber sleeper wall is situated. Below the sleeper wall the site slopes towards the
eastern property boundary at about 25° to 27°. A lower retaining wall is located about 2 m east of the timber
sleeper wall. Further east of the property boundary towards the beach, the slope angle was measured to be
about 30° with localised steeper areas up to 37°.
No signs of global instability were observed within the property boundary, although the leaning eastern
boundary fence (refer Photograph 3) indicates possible slope instability.
To the east of the property boundary, on the steeper part of the slope, there is evidence of erosion and
possible previous instability in the surficial dune sands beyond the site boundary (refer Photograph 2).
Photograph 1: View north-east across proposed pool location.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 2
057
66
Page 69
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Photograph 2: View east across lower parts of the slope showing signs of instability and erosion.
Photograph 3: Leaning boundary fence (eastern site boundary) showing possible signs of slope
instability.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 3
058
67
Page 70
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHOD
The investigation fieldwork undertaken since the initial geotechnical report was produced (ref J000867-001-
R-Rev) has comprised seismic testing, borehole drilling and in-situ testing.
Test locations are shown on the attached Figure 1. The investigation was designed to accommodate the
significant access limitations associated with the site (e.g. overhead/underground services, limited space
between existing structures, sloping ground and retaining walls, and limited heavy vehicle access along
Seaview Terrace).
The fieldwork was undertaken under the direction of a geotechnical engineer from Core who logged
subsurface conditions encountered in accordance with AS1726-2017; directed the field testing; and made
groundwater observations during drilling. Test positions were recorded in the field using a handheld GPS
unit, and offsets from site features where possible.
The investigation fieldwork is discussed in more detail below.
4.1 Seismic (MASW) Testing
Seismic testing in the form of multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) was undertaken on 10 July
2019.
The seismic testing was undertaken along four alignments (designated Line 1 to Line 4, refer Figure 1), as
follows:
▪ Line 1: Along Seaview Terrace, west of No. 42 (about 60 m lineal length)
▪ Line 2: Along the southern boundary of No. 42 (about 60 m lineal length)
▪ Line 3: Along the toe of the dune, approximately a south-north alignment (about 60 m lineal length)
▪ Line 4: Across the lower portion/toe of the dune, approximately an east-west alignment (about 30 m
lineal length).
The seismic testing investigation depth varied between about 25 and 35 m below ground level (BGL).
The seismic survey equipment and data acquisition parameters are summarised in Table 1.
The SurfSeis software by Kansas Geological Survey (MASW) was used to process the field data.
Experimental dispersion curves were obtained by selecting the peak amplitudes of the frequency-wavelength
spectrum of the fundamental mode. Inversion of the dispersion curves was then undertaken to estimate the
strata shear-wave velocities (vs) values.
Results of the seismic testing were correlated with the available geotechnical data, our previous experience,
and published information to provide an inferred subsurface profile along the test alignments.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 4
059
68
Page 71
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Table 1: Seismic Data Acquisition Parameters.
Seismic source: 10 kg sledgehammer on aluminium plate
Geode-24 seismograph using Geometrics Seismodule Controller software; 24-bit 24-channel
Recording system:
recorder
Recording channels: 24 per record
Sampling rate: 0.25 ms
Record length: 2 seconds
Geophone type: 4.5 Hz single geophones
Initial offset: 12 m
Source interval: 12 m
Geophone interval: 1.5 m
4.2 Borehole Drilling
One borehole (designated BH1) was drilled on 19 July 2019, using a trailer-mounted auger drill rig to a depth
of 13 m below ground level (BGL) (refer Figure 1). Standard penetration testing (SPT) was undertaken at 1.5
m intervals starting from 1 m BGL.
Prior to drilling, a licenced underground service locator was engaged to assess underground services in the
driveway area to select a suitable drilling location.
Driveway pavers were temporarily removed to allow for drill rod access. The borehole was backfilled with
spoil on completion, and the brick pavers then placed back in position.
4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP Testing)
Two DCP tests (designated DCP1 and DCP2) were undertaken on 19 July 2019 (refer Figure 1). The DCP
tests were undertaken to practical refusal at about 7 m and 4 m BGL, respectively.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Reports of Boreholes and DCP Tests are attached in Appendix A.
Seismic survey results for Line 1 to Line 4 are presented as two-dimensional cross sections in the attached
Figure 2.
The ground investigation results indicate that the upper portion of the dune, in the vicinity of the existing
residence/proposed pool, comprises about 1 m to 2 m depth of very loose or loose sand from the ground
surface, over medium dense to very dense sand. The sand shows some variability in density but appears to
generally increase in density with depth. At about 8 m to 10 m below ground level (BGL), the sand typically
becomes very dense and weakly cemented in parts. Groundwater seepage was encountered in borehole
BH1 at about 8.5 m BGL during drilling.
The lower portion and toe of the dune generally encountered about 1 m to 2 m depth of very loose or loose
sand from the ground surface, over medium dense sand. From about 3 m to 4 m BGL, the sand becomes
dense with zones of very dense sand (including inferred cemented sand ‘coffee rock’) and increases in
density with depth. The seismic testing results (Line 3) indicate that the coffee rock is consistently present at
the toe of the dune below the site, but may vary in thickness and density. Coffee rock is generally
significantly more resistant to erosion than typical beach or dune sands. This is evidenced by its long term
(years) exposure at around mean sea level at many locations along the sunshine coast. Refer to the
information box below for further, general information on coffee rock.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 5
060
69
Page 72
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Shear-wave velocity values and patterns typically associated with weathered sedimentary rock were
1
encountered from depths ranging between about 12 m to 20 m BGL (refer Figure 2). Available information
indicates that the rock is inferred to be Late Triassic to Jurassic age Myrtle Creek Sandstone The testing
indicates that the rock dips towards the ocean and that its strength generally increases with depth.
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 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. Coffee rock is generally significantly more resistant to erosion than typical beach
or dune sands, thereby providing a ‘barrier’ to erosion during storm events.
Previous investigations have found 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.
1
Wilmott and Stevens, 1988
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 6
061
70
Page 73
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
6.1 Method
Quantitative slope stability modelling was undertaken to analyse factor of safety (FOS) values for a
hypothetical storm and wave scenario nominated by the coastal engineering experts for the proposed
development, as follows:
▪ Case 1: Vertical cut into the slope caused by erosion and subsequent upslope failure.
▪ Case 2: Lower slope failure following reprofiling of the slope due to the lower failure/erosion from
Case 1.
▪ Case 3: Retrogressive upper slope failure following reprofiling of the slope due to the lower failure
from Case 2.
▪ Case 4: Slope analysis following reprofiling of the slope from Case 1 and Case 2, with
the proposed pool supported on micro-piles (10 m in length and with 100 kN shear
force resistance).
The modelling was undertaken using Geostudio’s Slope/W software.
The horizontal extent of erosion adopted in Case 1 (as shown in Image 2 below) was based on information
provided by Omtrek Pty Ltd via email dated 16 August, 21 August and 11 September 2019 (60 m west of
highest astronomical tide, based on ‘100 year storm tide and 100 year wave condition with 0.3 m sea level
rise by 2050’). The horizontal extent of erosion is approximately at the western end of seismic Line 4 (refer
Section 4.1 and Figure 1).
The model ground surface profile was based on available survey information (M Design drawings 2.2 and
5.1), Noosa Council web mapping, information provided by Omtrek Pty Ltd (email dated 26 August and 11
September 2019), and site observations (including measured slope angles).
The vertical cut adopted in Case 1 assumes that erosion of the coffee rock will occur during the storm event.
This is a conservative approach as coffee rock is known to be resistant to erosion. The ‘conservative’
approach does, however, account for possible variation in coffee rock thickness/density at the toe of the
dune.
The soil strength parameters were estimated based on the subsurface conditions encountered, in-situ testing
and Appendix D of Australian Standard AS4678-2002 Earth retaining structures. Due to the relatively steep
slopes and high permeability soils, a groundwater table is not anticipated in the slope and was not included
in the model.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 7
062
71
Page 74
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
No. 42 Seaview Terrace
Horizontal extent of erosion (Case 1)
Image 2: Horizontal extent of erosion adopted in Case 1 (based on information from Omtrek Pty Ltd).
6.2 Results
Limiting equilibrium theory indicates that FOS values of less than or equal to 1.0 result in failure. It is
generally recognised that long-term FOS values (e.g. over a project life) should be 1.5 or greater. Councils
normally require a minimum FOS of 1.5 or greater.
The modelling outputs are shown in Appendix B (Figures B1 to B4, representing Case 1 to Case 4,
respectively).
The results are summarised and discussed in Table 2 below.
It should be noted that the modelling results are based on the occurrence of the hypothetical storm and wave
scenario nominated by the coastal engineering experts.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 8
063
72
Page 75
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Table 2: Summary of modelling results.
Case Figure Description FOS Comments
The FOS value of 0.9 above the erosion cut indicates slope
failure. A vertical erosion cut will likely lead to a series of
retrogressive upslope translational failures in the loose or
Figure Vertical cut into slope medium dense sand, the exact nature of which will depend
Case 1 0.9
B1 caused by erosion on the impact of vegetation and localised variation in ground
conditions. The slip surface shown is considered a likely
outcome based on our previous experience in similar
Situations.
Lower slope failure
Following reprofiling of the slope as a result of the initial
following reprofiling of slope
Figure lower failure, retrogressive failure of the slope is likely (FOS
Case 2 due to failure from Case 1 0.8
B2 values of 1 or less indicate failure).
Retrogressive upper slope Following reprofiling of the slope as a result of the
downslope translational failure(s), further instability of the
Figure failure following reprofiling
Case 3 of slope due to lower 1.0 upper slope is likely (FOS values of 1 or less indicate
B3
translational failure from failure). Such failure is likely to extend under the proposed
Case 2 pool if founded on shallow footings.
Stability analysis If the pool is supported on appropriately designed micro-
following reprofiling of piles, the potential critical slip surface takes the form of a
Figure
Case 4 slope from Case 1 and 1.6 deep- seated failure. However the FOS is acceptable, even
B4
Case 2, with the pool with a reprofiled slope following the erosion cut and
supported on micro-piles subsequent retrogressive failures from Cases 1 and 2
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the proposed pool is supported on micro-piles founded into the underlying natural
dense or very dense sand, as per the recommendations below. The micro-piles will also improve the overall
stability of the dune in this area and will not impact adjacent properties.
Conceptual micro-pile design provided by PCA ground Engineering is attached in Appendix C. Detailed
design will be required by the piling contractor.
The micro-pile system should comprise an ‘A-frame’ structure at the eastern edge of the pool, including one
vertical and one raked pile to resist potential lateral movement in the sands, tied together with a steel-
reinforced concrete capping beam. A row of vertical piles and capping beam is recommended along the
western edge. Grout ‘columns’ should be installed between the micro-piles to prevent flow of sand between
piles. The piles should be at least 10 m deep, with minimum preliminary spacings as shown in Appendix C.
Micro-piles have been successfully used in similar slope stabilisation/remediation projects, including the Park
Road boardwalk and slope stabilisation in Noosa Heads and for a residential development at the northern
end of Seaview Terrace. Micro-piles are able to be installed using small installation equipment to suit the
site’s access constraints.
The following additional recommendations are made for the proposed development:
▪ Disturbance to the surrounding slopes should be kept to a minimum (vegetation must
be maintained below the proposed pool)
▪ Revegetation of any bare slopes around the development should be undertaken
▪ Additional fill must not be placed on the slope
▪ Excavations into the upper slope should be limited, with adequate
temporary/permanent support provided. Excavations in the middle or lower portions
of the slope must be avoided
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 9
064
73
Page 76
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
▪ Concentrated stormwater flows down the slope must be prevented
▪ Ground vibrations from earthworks should be minimised and monitored. Dilapidation surveys of
adjacent buildings/structures are recommended prior to construction works.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Should you require any further information please contact the undersigned. We draw your attention to the
document, Limitations, which is included in Appendix D.
J000867-003-R-Rev0 Page 10
065
74
Page 77
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Core Consultants Pty Ltd
Yours sincerely,
Geoff Hurley
MSC DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716
Managing Director
WM/GAH/wm
A.B.N. 75 603 384 050
J000867-003-R-Rev0
066
75
Page 78
C CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. UNAUTHORISED USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS PLAN EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION INFRINGES COPYRIGHT.
F002
L1
L3
2
F00
A
BH2
BH1
2
F00 DCP3
L2
DCP1
DCP1
BH1 DCP2
DCP2
2
F00
L4 A'
F002
2
F00
L1
L2
2
F00
L4
L3
2
F00
0 10 20 30 m
1:500
LEGEND
A-A
BH F0
03
'
Indicative Slope/W section line (Appendix B)
CLIENT PROJECT
Indicative borehole test location A-A
' PROPOSED POOL
MCINNES WILSON LAWYERS
F0
03
DCP
42 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH
DRAWN BY DATE DRAWING TITLE
Indicative DCP test location
F0
L4 HO 6/09/2019
02
L4
TEST LOCATION PLAN
F0
02
Indicative seismic line and direction (L1 - L4 F002) CHECKED BY DATE
BH
WM 10/09/2019
Indicative borehole test location (Tectonic 2018)
Notes:
DCP This document must be read in conjunction with document J000867-003-R-Rev0.
SCALE SHEET SIZE PROJECT No DOC No DOC TYPE FIGURE No REVISION
Indicative DCP test location (Tectonic 2018)
Aerial image sourced from Near Map Pty Ltd, image dated July 2019. Annotations by Core Consultants Pty Ltd. www.coreconsultants.com.au 1:500 A3 J000867 003 R 001 0 SHEET 1 OF 1
Plot Date: 12 September 2019 Time:3:39:35 PM By: CAD Path: J:\2019 - J822 -\J000867 - McInnesWilson-Expert Witness-Seaview Tce\PHASE 1000\Figures Drawings\003-Rev0 - File Name:J000867-003-R-RevB-F001.dwg
067
76
Page 79
BH1
Vs (m/s)
Loose SAND
Loose SAND
Medium Dense SAND
Medium Dense SAND Dense SAND
Dense SAND Very Dense SAND (including
cemented sand ‘coffee rock’)
Very Dense SAND (including
cemented sand ‘coffee rock’)
Possible residual soil
Inferred top of weathered bedrock
Possible residual soil
Inferred top of weathered bedrock
COMMENTS:
1. Results of the seismic testing generally
correlate with the borehole and DCP
results.
Loose SAND 2. The upper portion of the dune
comprises about 1 m to 2 m of loose
Medium Dense SAND Loose SAND sand, over medium dense to very
Medium Dense SAND dense sand. The sand shows some
variability in density, but generally
Dense SAND with zones of Very Dense SAND (including cemented sand ‘coffee rock’) Dense SAND with zones of Very Dense increases in density with depth. At
SAND (including cemented sand ‘coffee about 8 m to 10 m BGL, the sand
Very Dense SAND (including cemented sand ‘coffee rock’) rock’) typically becomes very dense and
Very Dense SAND (including weakly cemented in parts
cemented sand ‘coffee rock’) 3. The lower portion and toe of the dune
Possible residual soil
comprises about 1 m to 2 m of loose
Possible residual soil
Inferred top of weathered bedrock sand, over medium dense sand. From
Inferred top of weathered bedrock about 3 m to 4 m BGL, the sand
becomes dense with zones of very
dense sand (including inferred
cemented sand ‘coffee rock’), and
increases in density with depth.
4. Inferred weathered sedimentary rock
was encountered from between about
12 m to 20 m BGL. The rock is inferred
to be of the Late Triassic to Jurassic
age Myrtle Creek Sandstone. The
testing indicates that the rock strength
generally increases with depth.
CLIENT PROJECT
McInnes Wilson Lawyers Proposed Pool, 42 Seaview Terrace
NOTES: DRAWN
WM DATE
23/07/2019 TITLE
1. Refer to Figure 1 for seismic line locations. SEISMIC (MASW) TESTING
CHECKED
GAH
DATE
23/07/2019
2. This document must be read in conjunction with document J000867-003-R-Rev0.
REV No
3. Subsurface profiles and densities shown are indicative and based on general correlation with borehole/DCP results. SCALE
As shown PROJECT No
J000867 FIGURE No
002 0 A3
068
77
Page 80
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Appendix A
Reports of Boreholes and DCP Testing
J000867-003-R-Rev0
069
78
Page 81
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1
EAST: 511309.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: MWL NORTH: 7080117.0 m LOGGED: HO
PROJECT: POOL CONTRACTOR: ALL-TECH LOGGED DATE: 19/07/19
LOCATION: 42 Seaview Tce, Sunshine Beach DRILL RIG: ID3300 CHECKED: WM
JOB NO: J000867 INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA. 100 mm CHECKED DATE: 19/09/19
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
STRUCTURE AND
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
OBSERVATIONS
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0
SP SAND (REWORKED NATURAL): fine to medium grained, brown,
L trace fines
0.50
SP SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, grey
1.00
SPT 1.00-1.45 m Grey to pale grey
1,2,3 D/M L
N=5
2
SPT 2.50-2.95 m
2,6,8
N=14
4.00
4 MD
SPT 4.00-4.45 m Pale brown
4,11,14
N=25
M
Groundwater seepage encountered at 8.5 m BGL
SPT 5.50-5.95 m
5,11,20
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000867 BH1.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/07/2019 10:08 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
6.00 N=31
6
Brown to dark brown
D
ADT
L-M
7.00
SPT 7.00-7.45 m SM SILTY SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, brown to
7,12,15 dark brown
N=27
MD
8
SPT 8.50-8.95 m
6,12,18
N=30
M / MD /
W D
10
SPT 10.00-10.40 m
11,26,30/100mm
VD
W
12
13.00
END OF [email protected] m
LIMIT REACH OF MACHINE
BACKFILLED
14
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess 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.
070
79
Page 82
CLIENT : MWL SHEET : 1 OF 1
CONTRACTOR : ALL-TECH
PROJECT : POOL
LOCATION : 42 Seaview Tce, Sunshine Beach
PROJECT No. : J000867
TEST: DCP1 TEST: DCP2
LOGGED: HO 19/07/2019 LOGGED: HO 19/07/2019
EASTING: 511335.0 m NORTHING: 7080106.0 m EASTING: 511362.0 m NORTHING: 7080098.0 m
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Blows per 100 mm (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997) Blows per 100 mm (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
HW HW
HW
1 1
2 2
3 3
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS DCP 3 PER PAGE J000867 BH1.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/07/2019 10:06 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
20/70
4 4
5 5
6 6
Comments Comments
071
80
Page 83
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Appendix B
Slope Stability Modelling Output
J000867-003-R-Rev0
072
81
Page 84
0.9 Factor of Safety (failure) Color Name Unit Cohesion' Phi'
Weight (kPa) (°)
(kN/m³)
Low Strength Rock 21 25 40
Medium Strength Rock 22 25 43
Existing Residence Residual Soil/Extremely 20 25 36
24 (indicative) Weathered Rock
Proposed Pool SAND (Dense/Very 19 0 38
22
Loose SAND (24 kN/m3) Dense)
SAND (Loose) 17 0 27
20
SAND (Medium 18 0 34
18 Medium Dense or Dense SAND Dense/Dense)
Very Low Strength 20 25 38
16 Sandstone
14
12 Dense or Very Dense SAND (including zones of cemented sand ‘coffee rock’) Initial slope failure
Erosion cut*
10
8
6
4
Elevation (AHD m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Medium Strength Rock
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NOTES: Distance (m)
CLIENT PROJECT
* Approximately 60 m west of Highest Astronomical Tide (from Paul Prenzler via email 16/8, 21/8 and 11/9) McInnes Wilson Lawyers Proposed Pool, 42 Seaview Terrace
Subsurface profiles shown are indicative and based on general correlation with borehole/DCP/MASW results presented in
DRAWN
WM DATE
17/09/2019 TITLE
CASE 1:
J000867-003-R-Rev0 CHECKED DATE
EROSION CUT & INITIAL SLOPE FAILURE
GAH 17/09/2019
REV No
Refer to Figure 1 for section alignment SCALE
As shown PROJECT No
J000867 FIGURE No
B1 0 A3
073
82
Page 85
0.8 Factor of Safety (failure)
Existing Residence
24 (indicative)
Proposed Pool
22
Loose SAND (24 kN/m3)
20
18 Medium Dense or Dense SAND
16
14
12 Dense or Very Dense SAND (including zones of cemented sand ‘coffee rock’)
10 Retrogressive slope failure
8
Reprofiled slope after initial failure
6
4
Elevation (AHD m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Medium Strength Rock
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (m)
CLIENT PROJECT
NOTES: McInnes Wilson Lawyers Proposed Pool, 42 Seaview Terrace
Subsurface profiles shown are indicative and based on general correlation with borehole/DCP/MASW results presented in
DRAWN
WM DATE
17/09/2019 TITLE
CASE 2:
J000867-003-R-Rev0 CHECKED DATE
RETROGRESSIVE LOWER SLOPE FAILURE
GAH 17/09/2019
REV No
Refer to Figure 1 for section alignment SCALE
As shown PROJECT No
J000867 FIGURE No
B2 0 A3
074
83
Page 86
1.0 Factor of Safety (unacceptable/possible failure)
Existing Residence
24 (indicative)
Proposed Pool
22
Loose SAND (24 kN/m3)
20
18 Medium Dense or Dense SAND Retrogressive slope failure (extending under proposed pool supported on shallow footings, i.e. no piles)
16
14
12 Dense or Very Dense SAND (including zones of cemented sand ‘coffee rock’)
10
Reprofiled slope after previous failures
8
6
4
Elevation (AHD m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Medium Strength Rock
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (m) CLIENT PROJECT
NOTES: McInnes Wilson Lawyers Proposed Pool, 42 Seaview Terrace
Subsurface profiles shown are indicative and based on general correlation with borehole/DCP/MASW results presented in
DRAWN
WM DATE
17/09/2019 TITLE
CASE 3:
J000867-003-R-Rev0 CHECKED DATE
RETROGRESSIVE UPPER SLOPE FAILURE
GAH 17/09/2019
REV No
Refer to Figure 1 for section alignment SCALE
As shown PROJECT No
J000867 FIGURE No
B3 0 A3
075
84
Page 87
1.6 Factor of Safety (acceptable)
Existing Residence
24 (indicative)
Proposed Pool
22 (24 kN/m3)
Loose SAND
20 Micro-piles (nominal 100 kN shear force, 10 m long)
18 Medium Dense or Dense SAND
Reprofiled slope after retrogressive failures
16
14
12 Dense or Very Dense SAND
(including zones of cemented sand ‘coffee rock’)
10
8
6
4
Elevation (AHD m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Medium Strength Rock
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (m)
CLIENT PROJECT
NOTES: McInnes Wilson Lawyers Proposed Pool, 42 Seaview Terrace
Subsurface profiles shown are indicative and based on general correlation with borehole/DCP/MASW results presented in DRAWN
WM DATE
17/09/2019 TITLE
J000867-003-R-Rev0 CHECKED DATE
CASE 4: PILED SUPPORT
GAH 17/09/2019
Refer to Figure 1 for section alignment SCALE
As shown PROJECT No
J000867 FIGURE No
B4
REV No
0 A3
076
85
Page 88
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Appendix C
Conceptual Micro-Pile Design
J000867-003-R-Rev0
077
86
[OCR of page images]
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Appendix C
Conceptual Micro-Pile Design
J000867-003-R-RevO
077
86
Page 89
078
87
[OCR of page images]
SITE LAYOUT
INDICATIVE PENDING DETAILED DESIGN
I POOL SHELL INDICITIVE ONLY
600
i
+
I
i
i
i
I
REAR PILE SPACING
|
TBC _ Ry
i &
| ( iia &
s
5 300_| ,
i
I
I
|
+
i
L
|
Se A es (7 EE (1 |] 600
I
|
i
i
I
i
REAR
Off fe pp LS
. y Y i MICROPILES
i i i
| | |
FRONT PILE SPACING
TBC
EE
TYPICAL MICROPILE/ FOOTING PLAN
PILE CONFIGURATION-CROSS SECTION
INDICATIVE PENDING DETAILED DESIGN
—=— 600
ram
:
a
90 DIA 500
LONG PVC
Opp,
SL One
LENGTH bar (f)
FRONT
MICROPILES
CLIENT:- DESIGNED:- PROJECT:-
CORE CONSULTANTS DRAWN:- 12737
CHECKED. 42 SEAVIEW TERRACE
SLOPE STABILISATION
SIGNED:-
= oe — = RPEQ:-
FIRST ISSUE 27-08-19 So ee
--/--]-—~ == Saal OrE:-
TITLE:-
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
A FRAME FOR SLOPE STABILISTION
DRAWING NUMBER:- P1001
STATUS EQR INFORMATION
Page 90
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Appendix D
Limitations
J000867-003-R-Rev0
079
88
[OCR of page images]
McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Appendix D
Limitations
J000867-003-R-RevO
079
88
Page 91
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
080 Printed
89
FRM-065 Uncontrolled When Issue: 1.02
Page 92
081
90
Page 93
Attachment 3 – Core Consultants email advice of 27 September 2019
12
082
91
[OCR of page images]
Attachment 3 — Core Consultants email advice of 27 September 2019
082
12
91
Page 94
Elizabeth Farla
From: Geoff Hurley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2019 11:09 AM
To: Neil Collins
Cc: Walter Mastenbroek
Subject: [External] FW: 42 Seaview Terrace - Confirmation of horizontal extent of erosion (J000867)
Attachments: 60m erosion width profile.xlsx; RE: Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach - DXF; Horizontal extent of
erosion.jpg
Hi Neil – Following our discussion this morning hopefully the info below and attached is sufficient. If you require any
further clarification please contact walter directly.
Regards,
Geoff Hurley | Managing Director
T: +61 7 5475 5900 M: +61 0415 586 225 E: [email protected] | W:
www.coreconsultants.com.au
From: Walter Mastenbroek <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2019 10:20 AM
To: Geoff Hurley <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 42 Seaview Terrace ‐ Confirmation of horizontal extent of erosion (J000867)
Geoff,
The attached data (spreadsheet) was sent to us on 26 August 2019 by Paul. The email is also attached for reference.
Based on that data, I updated our Slope/W model, and then sent an email to Paul on 10 September to confirm the
horizontal extent of erosion (blue line on aerial image, see attached photo. Also Image 2 in our report). Paul confirmed
this via email on 11 September. That email string is below.
Regards,
Walter
Walter Mastenbroek | MEngPr (Civil) MSc (Env) BSc (Hons) PMP MIEAust CPEng NER RPEQ | Associate, Senior
Geotechnical Engineer
T: +61 7 5475 5900 M: +61 409 947 351 E: [email protected] W:
www.coreconsultants.com.au
1
083
92
Page 95
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2019 9:50 AM
To: Walter Mastenbroek <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 42 Seaview Terrace ‐ Confirmation of horizontal extent of erosion (J000867)
Hi Walter
As discussed on the phone the blue line indicated in the photo attached to your email is representative of the 60m
horizontal cut for assessment
Regards
Paul Prenzler B.Eng. (Env.), M.Eng. (Coastal), RPEQ
Director (Engineering)
Omtrek Pty. Ltd.
e. [email protected]
m. 0422 220 438
www.omtrek.com.au
From: Walter Mastenbroek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Geoff Hurley <[email protected]>
Subject: 42 Seaview Terrace ‐ Confirmation of horizontal extent of erosion (J000867)
Hi Paul,
In the process of doing the sensitivity analysis/response to your email query dated 2/9/19, I noticed that there is a
relatively small discrepancy between the section provided by you (email dated 26/8/19) and our Slope/W model
section.
Some or all of this discrepancy could be due to the slightly different section alignments. We may also be using
different elevation data sources that differ slightly.
2
084
93
The text continues on page 96.
Used in these records
24-01-2020 - Appeal No. 245 of 2019 - Final Order of Judge RackemannRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 7.3 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.