C23-035 - Emerald - RFI Response Letter

         assist with delineation between the new footpath and the existing driveway to the immediate east and also allow better
         transition to the footpath continuation to the west. In addition, concrete was verbally approved by Council at the site
         meeting on 2 December 2022.

         b. clear delineation between the footpath (existing and proposed) and the existing driveway.
         Response: The proposed footpath will match neatly to the existing driveway on the eastern side of the site. As per
         Council standard drawings there will be a dowel joint at this location. The proposed change in footpath material will
         provide clear delineation between the proposed footpath and existing adjoining driveway.

Issue – Lowering of Services
CMT Engineers’ Roadworks, Drainage Layout Plan (C23‐035 C101, Revision D) indicate that existing services in the Emerald Street
frontage are to be ‘located and lowered if required’. Sections B and C demonstrate that the existing water and telecommunication
services do not comply with the minimum depths as described in IPWEAQ RS‐101 and require lowering.

Council has not received any ‘statement of support’ or the like from Telstra and Unitywater demonstrating they would be supportive
of any works to their infrastructure.

Information Required
     3. Provide an amended plan demonstrating that the existing services (pits and lines) in the Emerald Street frontage are to be
         lowered to comply with IPWEAQ RS‐101 and the requirements of their respective owner(s). The amended plan must be
         prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland).
         Response: CMT Plan C23‐035‐C101 has been amended to indicate lowering of existing services and lid levels to comply
         with standard cover and finished levels as requested.

    4.   Provide a ‘statement of support’ or the like from Telstra and Unitywater demonstrating they are supportive of the
         proposed works to their infrastructure.
         Response: ‘Statements of support’ have been requested from both Unitywater and Telstra. These will be forwarded to
         Council as soon as they are received however, we do not want this to delay the Operational Works process. On behalf of
         our client, we request the submission of these documents to Council is Conditioned in the OPW approval.

Issue – Emerald Street Footpath
The section of transitional footpath that extends beyond the western prolongation of the property boundary of the subject site does
not comply with longitudinal grades required by the DDA.

Information Required
     5. Provide an amended plan demonstrating that the western section of transitional footpath complies with the longitudinal
         grades required by the DDA. The amended plan must be certified by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
         Professional Engineer of Queensland).
         Response: The section of transitional footpath that extends beyond the western prolongation of the property boundary of
         the subject site has been amended on CMT Plan C23‐035‐C101 to show a longitudinal grade of 3% which is less than the
         maximum allowable DDA compliant grade.

Issue – Internal Footpath Crossfall
The submitted documentation does not include a typical crossfall and section(s) for the proposed internal footpath. Council is
concerned stormwater captured on the proposed footpath will be unable to drain towards the proposed stormwater drainage pits.

Information Required
     6. Provide an amended plan detailing the typical crossfall and section(s) for the proposed internal footpath. The amended
         plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include,
         but not be limited to:
         a. DDA‐compliant typical crossfall and section(s); and
              Response: CMT Plan C23‐035‐C101 has been amended to show maximum internal footpath crossfall of 2.5% which is
              compliant with IPWEA Standard drawing RS‐065.

         b.   grades to demonstrate how stormwater capture on the footpath will be controlled.
              Response: Stormwater pits 1/A to 3/A are not intended to capture stormwater. As per the DA Approved Stormwater
              Report 2213 SWQMP_Rev1 prepared by Callaghan and Toth, runoff from the footpath is to sheet flow over the carpark