Original source · versioned page text
4895_RAL20-0020Response
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot Response to Information Request - Report CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: MAX & BARBARA RICHARDSON 20.029 Long View DATE: 24 AUGUST 2021 Consulting Engineers
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 23 pages
Page 2
[This page intentionally left blank.] [OCR of page images] [This page intentionally left blank.]
Page 3
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report i
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
DOCUMENT Lodestar Meridian Pty Ltd t/a
Long View Consulting Engineers
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to
ABN: 87 711 552 832
Information Request – Report ACN: 643 438 206
334 Cooroy Belli Creek Rd
PO Box 963
PROJECT NUMBER Cooroy
QLD 4563 Australia
20.029
M +61 41468 1676
[email protected]
PROJECT ENGINEER www.longviewconsulting.com.au
Freeman McGrath
CLIENT
Max & Barbara Richardson
CLIENT CONTACT
Barbara Richardson
VERSION AUTHOR REVIEWED APPROVED DATE
1 Freeman McGrath Freeman McGrath 2/07/2021
2 Freeman McGrath G. Ainsworth (RPEQ 19204) G. Ainsworth (RPEQ 19204) 24/08/2021
3
© Long View Consulting Engineers
This document is and shall remain the property of Long View Consulting Engineers. This document may only be used for the
purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised
use of this document is prohibited.
The Client should balance the contents of this document with any other information which the Client may hold or seek that has
not informed this document. The Client is cautioned to exercise due commercial diligence in the interpretation of this document
and consider its contents in the full context of the Client’s own circumstances.
This document is prepared under the agreed Terms of Engagement with the Client and may not be used by any third party. Third
parties should obtain independent advice and no responsibility or liability is accepted by Long View Consulting Engineers for the
use of this document by a third party.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 4
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report ii
CONTENTS
1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Development application details.............................................................................. 1
1.2 Planning instrument details ..................................................................................... 1
1.3 Referral agencies .................................................................................................... 2
2 Site Details..................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Site description ....................................................................................................... 2
3 Proposed development details ....................................................................................... 3
4 Planning assessment ..................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Key issues .............................................................................................................. 4
4.1.1 Biodiversity and Riparian Buffer ....................................................................... 4
4.1.2 Site access ...................................................................................................... 5
4.1.3 House site access .......................................................................................... 14
4.1.4 Landslide hazard ........................................................................................... 14
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 5
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 1
1 SUMMARY
1.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS
Proposed development: RAL20/0020: Reconfiguring of a Lot – Boundary
Realignment (3 into 3)
Type of approval sought: Development Permit
Site address: 551, 563 & 571 Cooroy Belli Creek Road, Ridgewood
Real property description: Lot 158 MCH1321; Lot 429 MCH481; Lot 49 MCH1168
Site area: 73,595.66m2 (158MCH1321);
673,570.44m2 (429MCH481);
64,315.57m2 (49MCH1168)
Assessment manager: Tara Norley, Noosa Council
Owner details: Kevin Richardson Richardson, PR;
Max Neville Richardson, PR
Applicant details: Max Watterson & Associates
1.2 PLANNING INSTRUMENT DETAILS
State planning policy: State Planning Policy 2017
Regional plan: SEQ Regional Plan 2017, Regional Landscape and Rural
Designation: Production Area (RLRPA) designation.
Planning scheme: Noosa Plan 2020
Applicable preliminary None
approval:
Strategic framework: Economy & Employment: Land Use: Agricultural Land
Conservation Area;
Biodiversity & Environment: Ecological Linkage,
Connecting Habitat Area;
Zone: Rural zone
Local plan: Noosa Shire Part 3 Plan.
Level of assessment: Code assessable
Applicable overlays: Agricultural Land; Biodiversity, Waterways & Wetlands;
Bushfire Hazard Area (Medium/Potential Buffer);
Landslide Hazard Area.
Applicable codes: Works Codes: Driveways Code, Earthworks Code, Water
Quality & Drainage Code; Reconfiguring a Lot Code; Rural
zone Code
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 6
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 2
1.3 REFERRAL AGENCIES
Referral requirement Referral agency and role
None required.
2 SITE DETAILS
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Description
characteristic
Existing land use Rural activities – livestock, mixed cropping.
Existing structures Lot 429 MCH481 (present): One Class 1a detached house single dwelling, two
Class 10a non-habitable buildings (carport and dairy shed);
Lot 158 MCH1321 (present): One building (Class1a secondary dwelling or
Class 10a building, to be confirmed) associated with adjacent buildings on Lot
429;
Lot 49 MCH1168 (present): One Class 1a detached house single dwelling,
three Class 10a non-habitable buildings (machinery shed and other sheds);
Frontage and Lot 429 MCH481 (present): 293m frontage to Old Ceylon Rd, 230m aggregated
access frontage to Belli Creek Rd. Original driveway access to the old dairy exists on
Eastern frontage to Belli Creek Rd, adjacent (North) to Lot 158 boundary;
Lot 158 MCH1321 (present): 52m frontage to Belli Creek Rd, presently
inaccessible. Frontage is also grade-separated by a high cut embankment to
the road reserve below, with mature vegetation along the boundary;
Lot 49 MCH1168 (present): 159m frontage to Belli Creek Rd, grade-separated
by a high cut embankment to the road reserve below. Access is via a long
driveway ramp that climbs along the top of embankment in the road reserve.
Topography and Steep-sloped topography for all three Lots. Distant views predominantly to the
views West, some North-east aspect from existing houses on Lot 429 and Lot 49.
70m level difference from ridgelines to gullies, producing natural drainage
lines, some dams.
Existing vegetation Property is mostly cleared except for small areas of remnant forest on natural
drainage gullies and watercourses.
Existing waterways Natural drainage lines feed towards a seasonal watercourse that exits the Lot
429 at the Southwest boundary. There are several existing dams in the gullies
of Lot 429.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 7
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 3
3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DETAILS
The proposed development is reconfiguration of a lot, comprising reconfiguring the boundaries
of the existing 3 lots to produce 3 revised allotments with better overall planning and use
outcomes. The below Figure shows the proposed reconfiguration (notated in black print)
overlaid on the existing boundaries (notated in white print).
Figure 1: Proposed Reconfiguration of Lots (courtesy of Max Watterson & Associates) overlaid on existing Lot
boundaries.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 8
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 4
4 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
4.1 KEY ISSUES
Noosa Council issued an information request on 2 October 2020 raising concerns in four main
areas. The primary purpose of this report is to respond to these concerns with supporting
engineering advice.
4.1.1 Biodiversity and Riparian Buffer
The first issue raised by Noosa Council’s Information Request relates to dissection of the
Riparian Buffer:
The proposed new boundary layout dissects the Riparian Buffer Area which is contrary
to Acceptable Outcomes AO2 and AO6.1 of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands
Code Overlay Code and Acceptable Outcomes AO7.5 and AO26 of the Reconfiguring
a Lot Code.
1. Provide an updated plan realigning the boundaries so as to avoid transecting the
Riparian Buffer Area.
4.1.1.1 Response
Figure 2 below overlays the proposed boundary reconfigurations on the Biodiversity,
Waterways and Wetlands Code Overlay Map. Transections with Riparian Buffers and Areas
of Biodiversity Significance are shown red for existing boundaries, yellow for proposed.
Figure 2: Riparian Buffer = purple, Areas of Biodiversity Significance = green.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 9
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 5
It is assumed that Council’s reference to the Riparian Buffer dissection refers to the 100m of
proposed new boundary for Lot 158. A comparison is made between the proposed and
existing boundary impacts with respect to Riparian Buffer crossings:
• The transection of Lot 158 proposed re-aligned boundary with the Riparian Buffer is
approximately 100m long. There are no other transections of the Riparian Buffer by
any other of the Lot realignments, so the total impact is approximately 100m.
• The existing boundary for Lot 49 encroaches on the Riparian Buffer for 156m along its
end boundary and a further 31m as it returns uphill along the existing side boundary.
There are no other transections of the Riparian Buffer by any other existing Lot
boundaries, so the total existing impact is approximately 187m.
In terms of geometric impacts to the Riparian Buffer Zone, the proposed reconfiguration of lots
therefore offers a 46% improvement on the existing situation.
It is also noted that Areas of Biodiversity Significance are impacted due to the existing
boundary alignments of the 3 allotments: over a length of 80m at the bottom end of Lot 49 and
for 27m across the Northern gully between Lots 429 and 158. A total impact on these Areas
of approximately 107m. The reconfigured boundaries reduce this impact by moving Lot 49’s
boundary out of the gully and while there is a small increase in transecting length between
Lots 429 and 158, overall, the impact by proposed boundaries is reduced to 32m.
In terms of geometric impacts to Areas of Biodiversity Significance, the proposed
reconfiguration of lots therefore offers a 70% improvement on the existing situation.
Revision options to avoid transecting the Riparian Buffer Area, specifically for the proposed
new Lot 158, were explored in response to the Information Request. A feasible alternative
that offers a more desirable balance of compliance compromises was not found due to
numerous limiting factors:
• The proximity of separate detached dwellings on adjacent lots;
• Constraints on property frontages for access to the existing dwellings
• Steep, hilly topography falling away from the existing lot house sites
• Riparian Buffer is extensive across the three lots due to the branching drainage lines
• A minimum 2Ha is required under AO2 of the Rural Activities Use Code 9.3.13 to
continue to provide for Rural Activities on the proposed lots.
On the balance of the above assessment, the current proposal appears to present a better
environmental outcome for a reconfiguration of the three lots.
4.1.2 Site access
The second issue raised by Noosa Council’s Information Request relates to the existing
vehicle access driveways to the properties:
The existing vehicle access driveways to the properties are not in accordance with the
Council’s standard drawings and their location may not be suitable for the intended
use.
2. Provide an assessment of the existing vehicle access driveways. The assessment
must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e., a registered professional
engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
2.1 Available site lines/distances and their compliance with Council’s
standards drawings
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 10
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 6
2.2 The current formation of the driveways in the road reserves and
recommendations for any necessary improvements
2.3 A conclusion that the driveways, including any necessary improvements
are safe and suitable for the intended use.
4.1.2.1 Assessment criteria
As a local distributor road through a Rural zone, Cooroy Belli Creek Rd is considered for the
purposes of this assessment to have a daily traffic volume of less than 4000vpd, with a
maximum posted speed limit of 80km/hr. Traffic counts may be available to confirm traffic
volume.
Noosa Council’s standard drawing RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways nominates a Safe
Site Distance (SSD) of 181m for an 80km/h speed limit. Council’s PSP6 Engineering Design
Standards (Schedule 6.7 of the Noosa Plan 2020) state the driver’s point of reference for
determining SSD as “…seated in a standard vehicle at the entrance to the
road carriageway with the vehicle 30 millimetres (sic) in distance back from the edge of the
shoulder...”
The vehicle setback of 30mm is incorrect: the previous edition of Council’s standards PSP5
Engineering Design Standards more accurately interprets AUSTROADS Guide to Road to
Design (AGRD) to require SSD to be measured “…with the front of the vehicle 0.3m clear of
the edge of the bitumen…”.
Council’s Rural Driveways standard drawing which is the reference for compliance does not
describe the driver’s point of reference in either of these terms; however, it is consistent with
the current Austroads requirements for Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) as follows:
Designers should note that SISD….
assumes the driver on the minor road is situated at 7.0m (minimum of 5.0 m) from
the conflict point on the major road. SISD allows for a 3 sec observation time for a
driver on the priority legs of the intersection to detect a problem ahead (e.g. car from
minor road stalling in through lane), plus the SSD.
Driver’s point of reference is also described in the below SSD diagram in terms of a 5m (3m
min.) distance from the edge line. This definition is adopted for measuring SSD for the existing
driveways. SISD is measured from a 1.1m of a driver’s eye height to 1.25m top of the
oncoming vehicle.
Figure 3: Extract from Department of Main Roads 2006 Fig.3.2 showing measurement references for Safe Sight
Distance, reproduced by Austroads 2017.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 11
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 7
AGRD Part 4 section 3.4 Sight Distance at Property Entrances describes the process for
design compliance in more detail. Sight distance is defined in three ways:
• Approach Sight Distance (ASD)
• Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD – the basis of SSD for the standard drawing)
• Minimum Gap Sight Distance (MGSD)
Safe Sight Distance tabulated on RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways is described as
SISD in AGRD Part 4 2017 using a conservative observation time of 3 seconds, a
deceleration coefficient of 0.36 and a reaction time of 2 seconds. ASD is not relevant, as it
relates to sight distance for approach to the intersection with the major road: a driveway user
is already aware of its access point.
For property entrances, AGRD recommends a minimum compliance with MGSD and
Extended Design Domain (EDD) values of SISD base cases. These are referred to where
the general SSD compliance with RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways is not met.
4.1.2.2 Site access: Lot 429 MCH481 (existing)
4.1.2.2.1 Sight distances
Approximate sight distances for the existing access driveway were taken off Noosa Council
mapping using measurement tools to dimension sight lines according to the SISD
measurement reference points shown in Figure 3 above.
The sight distance from an entering driver’s reference position to the centreline of an oncoming
lane is shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Approximate sight distances from driveway access to existing Lot 429 MCH481.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 12
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 8
• Sight distance West to inbound vehicle = 133m, < [SSD = 181m]
• Sight distance East to outbound vehicle = 105m, < [SSD = 181m]
Sight distance therefore does not comply with the general SSD nominated on the RS-056.
To check compliance in accordance with AGRD procedure property entrances, the following
design values are nominated from AGRD Appendix A:
• Appendix A 2.4 Observation time (OT) for EDD SISD, T-intersection to single
carriageway, two-lane, two-way roads with less than 4000vpd = 1.5 seconds
• Appendix A 3.4 Driver reaction times (RT) for ‘normal rural driving’ = 2.0 seconds
• Coefficient of deceleration:
o 0.36 (cars braking on flat);
o 0.34 (cars braking on 2% downhill grade, outbound);
o 0.29 (truck braking on flat)
o 0.27 (truck braking on 2% downhill grade, outbound);
Safe Intersection Sight Distance for the existing property entrance to Lot 429 is calculated
from the AGRD Appendix A 2.5 for the normal case (day) and a range of check scenarios.
EDD SISD Sight Norm-day Norm-night Mean-day Mean-night
distance (base case) (check) (check) (check)
Car inbound 134m 113m 144m 133m
133m
Truck inbound 165m N.C. N.C. N.C.
Car outbound 135m N.C. N.C. N.C.
105m
Truck outbound 171m N.C. N.C. N.C.
N.C. = Non-compliant with base case
Assuming a critical gap acceptance time of 5s for both left and right turns from the driveway,
the minimum gap sight distance (MGSD) at 80km/hr is 111m.
Sight distance to the West is therefore compliant for inbound cars only; not trucks. Sight
distance to the East for all outbound traffic remains less than acceptable values.
4.1.2.2.2 Existing driveway formation in the road reserve
The existing driveway to Lot 429 comprises a formed and gravelled crossover, at-grade with
the verge.
The formation at property boundary entrance is 5.8m wide and widens to approximately a 16m
length of the road shoulder. The widening is a result of appropriately formed radii of approx.
5m to both sides of the crossover.
Drainage is provided by a pipe culvert setback approx. 3.5m from the edge of sealed shoulder
which carries table-drain runoff under the crossover. There is no fall away from the road
shoulder to create a low point – the driveway and crossover gradient is uniform at approx. 8%
and falls toward the road shoulder.
The standard of pavement is similar to a Class ‘U3’ unsealed road per Table 2.1 of the
Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 6: Unsealed Pavements:
• Natural gravels, pit materials or quarry wastes;
• 40 mm max. size wearing course, min. 100 mm thick;
• 55 mm max. size subbase, min. 150 mm thick.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 13
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 9
Figure 5: Lot 429 Property Access: road reserve crossover as viewed from road.
4.1.2.2.3 Required safety improvements
The driveway crossover is like many existing property crossovers along Cooroy Belli Creek
Rd; gravelled only from the road shoulder to the property boundary. Notwithstanding this
precedent, certain improvements to the crossover will increase the level of safety for the
property owner and road users, particularly considering the sight distance limitations to traffic
in the outbound direction. The following recommendations are made to improve safety:
• Take up existing wearing course and base course to a minimum of 150mm depth plus
profile as required to provide for a setback invert:
• Reform the crossover to provide a 3% fall to an invert at minimum 2.8m from the
sealed road shoulder in accordance with RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways and
direct fall of invert to connect with culvert outlet/drain – this will reduce quantity of
runoff flowing onto the main road during rain;
• Clean out adjacent table drain to ensure good flow to culvert;
• Amend driveway longitudinal profile as required to conform with Typical Driveway
Section – Road in Cut as shown on RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways.
• Reinstate a 150mm thick basecourse of compacted Type 2.1 gravel in accordance
with minimum formation requirements and provide a 2-coat bitumen seal for full extent
of crossover up to the property boundary per RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways
• Install a guidepost in front of each culvert headwall for night visibility.
It is also recommended that traffic advisory warning signage is installed at the corner of the
outbound lane just past the access to Lot 49 (approximately 300m ahead of the corner – refer
to Figure 9). This will also alert drivers to the hidden property access on the opposite side of
road between the Lot 49 and Lot 429 accesses, which has even worse sight distance. The
following advisory signage is required:
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 14
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 10
• TC-1209B(L)
• W8-17-2B (300m)
4.1.2.3 Site access: Lot 158 MCH1321 (non-existing)
The existing property Lot 158 MCH1321 is currently inaccessible due to the poor extent and
position of frontage. As shown in the Figure below, the limited 52m frontage is grade-
separated from the roadway by a 4m high cut embankment and vegetation. Any driveway
through cut would be of such depth that no viable alignment would be able to pass the ‘throat’
created between the dwellings on adjacent Lots 429 and 49, beyond which there is also no
viable driveway down the hillside due to its steepness. The limited sight distance to outbound
traffic from this access location would also be unacceptable.
The boundary alignment of Lot 158 should not have been allowed, as the inaccessibility
violates the owner’s common property rights. Alleviating this problem is one of the compelling
objectives of the proposed Reconfiguration of Lots.
Figure 6: Lot 158 road frontage: property inaccessible due to poor boundary alignment.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 15
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 11
4.1.2.4 Site access: Lot 49 MCH1168 (existing)
4.1.2.4.1 Sight distances
The property access location for the existing Lot 49 on MCH1168 is proposed to be a shared
crossover for the new Lots 49 and 429. A detailed contour survey was undertaken to provide
for the preliminary design of the proposed driveway and property access for new Lot 429 and
included surveyed measurements of sight distances from a driver reference point at the
proposed property entrance.
Figure 7: Survey extract showing sight distances for existing access point to Lot 49.
• Sight distance West to inbound vehicle = 110m, < [SSD = 181m]
• Sight distance East to outbound vehicle > SSD = 181m
Sight distance therefore does not comply with the general SSD nominated on the RS-056 for
the inbound lane but complies for the outbound lane.
To check compliance of the inbound lane in accordance with AGRD procedure property
entrances, the following design values are nominated from AGRD Appendix A:
• Appendix A 2.4 Observation time (OT) for EDD SISD, T-intersection to single
carriageway, two-lane, two-way roads with less than 4000vpd = 1.5 seconds
• Appendix A 3.4 Driver reaction times (RT) for ‘normal rural driving’ = 2.0 seconds
• Coefficient of deceleration (from AGRD Pt.3 Table 5.3):
o 0.32 (cars braking on 4% downhill, inbound);
o 0.25 (truck braking on 4% downhill, inbound);
Safe Intersection Sight Distance for the existing property entrance to Lot 49 is calculated from
the AGRD Appendix A 2.5 for the normal case (day).
EDD SISD Sight Norm-day Norm-night Mean-day Mean-night
distance (base case) (check) (check) (check)
Car inbound 156m N.C. N.C. N.C.
110m
Truck inbound 178m N.C. N.C. N.C.
N.C. = Non-compliant with base case
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 16
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 12
Assuming a critical gap acceptance time of 5s for both left and right turns from the driveway,
the minimum gap sight distance (MGSD) at 80km/hr is 111m; sight distance approximately
complies.
Sight distance to the West is therefore non-compliant for inbound cars and trucks. Sight
distance to the East for all outbound traffic complies.
4.1.2.4.2 Existing driveway formation in the road reserve
The existing driveway to Lot 49 comprises a broadly formed and gravelled crossover, at-grade
with the verge, followed by a gravelled access that ramps up approximately 90m along the top
of road embankment to reach the existing property boundary of Lot 49.
The formation at the road shoulder is approximately 16m; the gravelled ramp formation is an
average of 2.8m, being constrained between embankment and property boundary.
There is no table drain to carry under the crossover as the road cambers to the opposite side;
the limited runoff from the embankment catchment is assumed to sheet-flow across the road.
The ramp crossfalls away from the embankment, toward a small table drain on the boundary.
There is no fall away from the road shoulder to create a low point – the area adjacent the
shoulder has a slight fall (<1%) toward the property boundary.
The standard of pavement is similar to a Class ‘U3’ unsealed road per Table 2.1 of the
Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 6: Unsealed Pavements:
• Natural gravels, pit materials or quarry wastes;
• 40 mm max. size wearing course, min. 100 mm thick;
• 55 mm max. size subbase, min. 150 mm thick.
Figure 8: Lot 49 Property Access: road reserve crossover as viewed from road, outbound lane.
4.1.2.4.3 Required safety improvements
Improvements to the crossover are proposed to be incorporated in its redesign as a shared
property access with the new Lot 429. The changes will increase the level of safety for the
property owner of Lot 49 and road users, particularly considering the sight distance limitations
to traffic in the inbound direction
Modifications will include the to the following recommendations to improve safety:
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 17
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 13
• Take up existing wearing course and base course to a minimum of 150mm depth plus
profile as required to provide 3% fall for a 5m distance away from the road shoulder –
this will reduce quantity of runoff flowing onto the main road during rain;
• Install subsurface drainage from the toe of embankment to the other end of the
crossover;
• Widen the ramp formation in the direction of the boundary to 4.0m to allow vehicles a
wider berth from the top of embankment, while complying with RS-056 Driveways –
Rural Driveways.
• Reinstate a 150mm thick basecourse of compacted Type 2.1 gravel
• Profile ramp access as required to conform with Typical Driveway Section – Road in
Cut as shown on RS-056 Driveways – Rural Driveways.
• Reinstate a 150mm thick basecourse of compacted Type 2.1 gravel in accordance
with minimum formation requirements and provide a 2-coat bitumen seal for full extent
of crossover and access ramp up to the property boundary of Lot 49 per RS-056
Driveways – Rural Driveways
• Install an edge barrier along the top of embankment and guideposts at either side of
the bottom of ramp for night visibility.
• Provide for a wider radius for ramp approach to road shoulder:
o Presently the ramp alignment is oblique to the road edge rather than meeting
it perpendicular.
o This increases the likelihood of a driver turning left having to cross into the
inbound lane to do so.
o This can be improved by increasing the area of the shared crossover zone
adjacent to the shoulder and adjusting the alignment away from road, to allow
a wider turn before it meets the shoulder.
o Refer to the preliminary driveway design, Control Line 2.
It is also recommended that traffic advisory warning signage is installed ahead of the curved
section of the inbound lane (approximately opposite the existing access to Lot 429). This will
alert drivers also to driveways which have insufficient sight distance on the opposite, East
side of the road. The following advisory signage is required:
• TC-1209B
• W8-17-2B (300m)
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 18
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 14
4.1.3 House site access
The third issue raised by Noosa Council’s Information Request relates to provision of vehicle
access necessary for the proposed house site on new Lot 429:
Access to the proposed house site on Lot 429 appears lengthy and needs to traverse
across sloping land and potentially parts of the site mapped as being in a Landslide
Hazard area. No detail has been provided in regard to the access to the house site.
3. Provide a preliminary design of the access to the proposed house site on Lot 429.
The design must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (Registered
Professional Engineer of Queensland) and extend from the driveway in the road
reserve to the approximate house site. The design must include but not be limited
to: 3.1. Longitudinal section; 3.2. Typical cross section; 3.3. Any required cuts or
fills; 3.4. Typical formation; 3.5. Any specific measures to address the potential for
landslide.
A preliminary design for a new driveway to the proposed house site has been completed.
Refer to the attached drawings. As shown in the below Figure, the alignment generally avoids
all areas mapped by Council’s Landslide Hazard overlay by following the natural ridgeline.
Subsequent geotechnical assessment has also concluded the relevant area to be of Low Risk
of slope instability.
Figure 9: Council's Landslide Hazard Overlay map, proposed driveway alignment indicated.
4.1.4 Landslide hazard
The fourth and final issue raised by Noosa Council’s Information Request relates to landslide
hazard for the proposed house site on new Lot 429:
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 19
RAL20/0020 Reconfiguration of a Lot: Response to Information Request – Report 15
The submitted proposal plan does not indicate the extent of landslide hazard overlay
and Council has concerns that the proposed house site for Lot 429 may be affected by
the hazard.
4. Indicate on the plans: 4.1. the extent of the landslide hazard overlay from the Noosa
Plan 2020, and 4.2. the proposed house site for Lot 429.
5. If the house site is affected by the landslide hazard overlay provide a report from a
suitably qualified geotechnical engineer that addresses the hazard and includes
recommendations for the construction of any future dwelling to ensure the long-
term stability of the site and the dwelling.
The extent of the landslide hazard overlay is indicated in the above Figure 9. The proposed
house site is located at the end of the proposed driveway alignment (indicated by yellow line).
The proposed house site was also notated on the Plan of Proposed Reconfiguration…
previously submitted by Max Watterson & Associates, shown as ‘Possible House Site Area’
on plan.
For removal of doubt, a land slope stability assessment was conducted by Ashley Davey of
Tectonic Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers. Ashley Davey is a geotechnical RPEQ
with over 26 years of experience, including numerous similar assessments. The report, which
is attached, concluded the site to have a low risk of slope instability.
Long View
Consulting Engineers
Page 20
10 20
30
# ovis ony WARNING CONTROL LINE DETAIL: CONTROL 1,
SIGNAGE INSTMLED NF] cHaNAGE | Rar. | Leer. SON
AT INCOMING LANE -
TO WANIAGE SPEED OF SMF | Om = = us
VEHICLES To REDUCE L* Om Line Sm. TEC
WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LOM =
Fok MIMLALE SAFE sicett Ail Sm | Im. | W-8m. | Tee
> DISTANCE. Ca | tb78m | Im | as.idm. | 8c
A a ih, NX SSS ZE Zp, CH, | 364m | 78m | 28-Stm | ibd
+{& es SSS TRE fey Centre of Laqg ? Q
Ws f/ PSO SS \ Lt2 | 6S-Som | Line | 48.00m | cr
“lg, | / SS Ya eg 4 - -
al? - JO RES PET IILIN, harm CM | 3.50 98m | 3o. 2
"3 |: i alae “i980; IN yy om ™ tim
la FA 305: AND Baie 7 oe f es W4.D9m | 99m 75 -dbom TBC
8 ' x lo $ :
SS ls : 3]! cy | 219. 55m | 78m | 1b-34m FEC
Se x nt L#3 | 235.84m [une | 77-0om Bc
79. 4 \
a 5 un c#7 Bi2.84m | 109m | 4S-38m Be
+ eS = Gn K \ a AHO Derived Enp 388.24m, - -
& S
40 50 100
486500.00
1:1000
Lay SSS MX = = \
= ee “&
J| 4 uso. 18500 ==
~~
(rex BACKMAK
CONTROL Line 2.(/TBA)
GUARDRAIL To “TOT
or OF EMBANKMENT.
m ec
Te'2018
WARNING SIGNAGE? +W8 -1F-28 (200m)
N80 184.00 - z=
=~ 483. ont =
SW Pipes «
a ouTfAL-
a e. BA 2 CoAT BITUMEN SEAL OVER Nw
aR Ares UNSEMED PAVEMENT fod ExtstING
& RE SL SN. GeuisePOsTS. Studded Access UN TFoeautty pp
429 RS ANROX. EXTENT SHOWN .
MCH481 “B Ao - ~~ - REFER TO Cos
486600.00
PRoteRy Ow :
RELOCATED -
486700.00
Roundy FenceLiNE
INDENTED To Acco moDATE
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT POR LOT 449.
(© THIS DRAWING IS PROTECTED
UNDER COPYRIGHT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LONG
\VIEW CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Mf K RICHARDSON.
Long View
DRAWING TITLE
PRoPOseD nor 4aq MCHAS1
DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT PLAN ~ SHEET 1
PROJECT . .
FRoPosEeD RECONFGUKATI ON
LOTH29 MCHA, LOT 44 MCH 168, LOT IS8MCHI32Z1
Pry Ud, AND THE GUENT AS « Consulting Engineers Pty. Ltd.
NAMED HEREIN EXCLUS: g ALAN Ex . MAK WA TERN of DATI SCALE BAR DRAWING SCALES: DRAWING SIZE
USE IS GRANTED UNDER THE S “4 Post. PO Box 963 Cooroy QLD 4563 DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED 24) | As SHOWN . 121090 3 ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT ONLY FOR THE So ABN: 98 867 060.985 *
tuscan. | ASSOCIATES , a Aim alts piiee_| ae
NOTRE CONSTRUCTED UNLess | ‘ i at in@longviewconsuling com. RPEQ/ Cert. PROJECT NUMBE!
weaneseresanens| = | | PRELIM PZ, a, anaes a ee "30. 029 or PL
Issue". :
& | No.| DESCRIPTION REV. APP. :
REQITZON
Page 21
CONTROL LINE DETAIL : CONTROL l.
o¥ . START EASTING
Nek cuanace | Rar. | Lenert. - [Saar noentne
SAT) Om - — Tec
Lf, Om Line Sm. Tec
Ai| Sm Gn. | W78m. | Tec
g i2.| tb78m | tom | as-i3m. | 1Bc
. C3 36 Um 78m A8-STmn TBC
ita | O5.Som | Lime | 48.00m | 76¢
Ctb | 3-S0m | 18m | B0.7Am | 126
cts | 429m 198m | 75-kbm | C
chy | 214.S5m | Bm | 16-34m | Tec
L¥g 1 235.84m [une | 77-00m | T8e
CHT | 312-84 m | 100m | 4s-38m | TC |
358.24m,| — =
0.00
DRAINAGE “To TABLE DRAINS 4 RUNOFE \2\
DEEN To ARRS UNSEALED PAVEMENTS a, SVR oy
MaNUaL (2020), APPENDIX C.F, "B SSsci&
e WSss
NOT SHOWN ON CLAN , x 3 STs
oe Ss
ae ns eS ~S
a PASSING
eA].
Se | cotewr: M 1K Richa kOs0 a a an
saat |, Snaie: Aas nredion! Long View | (Fetter aE onsy | MoperED Lor a meneei
tere ceo oan 6 , 7 ASS OLANTES Consulting Engineers Pty. Ltd. ; ¥IMcHtOs, MenI32 DRVEwAY quenmenr PLAN — SHEET Z..
Noracconemeruniss| & 7 = oC aac ora SHEEKED, ‘APPROVED DATE, SCALE BAR DRAWING SCALES DRAWING SIZE
en |_| eeu Any Pi a xe 13/4/2s 1100 AS ORIGINAL
lo. REV. intemit ‘wiewloegdmicorwuting coma IGNED HECKE! EQ Cert. PROJECT NUMBER WING NI
—e Fa _|& ANawoqt. ("ou 20.029 camenaes [RY
Page 22
NOo2 PAVEMENT DESIGN CH. O- CH. 1b-78 “IWO-COAT SEAL “TO BE PLACED OVER N®1 GRAVEL FavVEMENT: = PRIMER SEAL, lomun SCREENINGS Q, [m3/109m2 ON BITUMEN 170@ /.64/m* - TOP cAT lOmm SCREENINGS@ Inn /MOm* ON BITUMEN [#0@ /.0 L/m2, ALC SCREENINGS Ple-coATED. CONTROL LINE 1.- a “ToPsoiz.: Vdrsoin SHALL BE REMOVED , STOCK/ILED ¥ KE~USED TO COVER (tte DISTURBED EARTUW ORKS To A Muy. COmPACIED OEPTH OF 75mm, of HypkomuccHeh, NANVE BUSS Mik, N21 PAVEMENT DESIGN (GeAVEL) . CH.1L.78 - 358 Nom. (00 WEARING COURSE: UNBOUND PAVEMENT TYPE 2-2 /CéR 4S) / MIN. ZOVPACTION 109% ROD. TPE 2.1 FoRN®.2 Pesky 7 BASE conse > UNBOUND PAVEMENT TYRE 2.5 (CBRiS) WN. comPAct en 100% Wp. NATURAL SUBGRADE MIN. COMPACTION: 777 ROD For C SusGMDE LACED FLL 4 SuRGRADE WITKIN Zoom OF FNisHeD NSAI SUBGRAPE LEVEL. (60 Dean eee \ > MINIMUM DE SIGhs DEPTH Be BY ENGINEER AFTER TESTING JN- SITU SURG RADE, DESTEN Ts PER ARKG UNSEALED ROADS MANUAL ASSUMING SUSGRADE CBR S77 (SOAKED) ROD = RELATIVE Dey DENSITY. \ " \MPoeTeD ALL SHALL HAVE MIN. SOAKED CBR 10% / We SHRINK-SWELL INDEX < 1% AND BE ComPAcTED | TO 987 OSC. MA PARTICLE Size $100me . “Wor Cont SER" vn ve DEAIGN _— Ti A a ee DATUM RL 182-00 ofe File VOLUME Cur volume Cur DEPTH al. A REA ¢ ANY Fin. DepTH ONY DESIGN F Se SURFACE —— RRA H/~ e hb =| oOo; b&b 2 2 Existing 88S wa Fo 8 3 § 8g S$ ¢ & a gs} 8 S| 8 ce g gf = 8} SS 3 * s gun [© SS gis S| S| OR s 3 3 =§ SF FF Fs fF F —Fy By ss 8 Rs § g ona ss ° 3 a el Ss ~ S| 5 S| ° 8 & gaiSsisis] & o § so $ 8 gy gs 8 a 8 a} 8) SoS] 3 al | Sf SI] g CHANGE SSS Sale] og OS x] #2 8 2 S| Rasy 83 Fey se Bo F 8 Seas & & SUPERELEVATION REFdR To oks secti SUPERELENATED FDR RANK itipnst AS RERUN | HORIZONTAL «= FOP pill be SHS L=|28-54n LE 1800 Ld b=" Lelb 34m = 77-00 L=HS-BSm « GEOMETRY. RF = Tam R= en R4 a n EB mn . Q=100fr SCALES: HORIZ. SLALE 1: lo00@ AS VERT. SCALE 1: 100@A3 UNDER COPRIGATIN QUENT: My K RIC HARD, * =: : Ar a SON Long View |, Pk0Posé> KecourrGuainion, Lor 424 | PRoposeD Lor 424 McK 18) musmonecuor | 6, PLANNER? (VAK WATTER Sony Zf Consulting Ragineers Pry. ira. CMS, LOT #4 Mee 168, LOT ¢S8 MCH 132) | DRE WAY VERNAL AUGNMENT: CONTROL | ee 3 Avs oO “A ATES . Pest (sso can Din it CHECKED APPROVED oe } 221 SCALE BAR AS NOTES DraNaN Hee Besesseo as cousTAUCTION] 7% PRELIM IA OY 2 adringlongviewcensuling com au CHECKED RpEa’ cent | PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION & | No. | DESCRIPTION Rev. [APP tenet atangdewconssing coma GAN Swv0erp (Lot 20.029 cr 3 !
Page 23
0.0% 0.07% RL 182.00 CH, 2-50 - RL 182.00 Pp enane ~4n CH. 30.00 CH. IS -> CH. LOO SIM. TA mask DREW RL (4-00 CH. 194.50 i\ “te Az SSS SSS SUBSOLL DRAIN « RL 194-00 CH.113-50 (veeies ) TH CH. 13S-00 -2 7 -d Y. ‘ NX 4: Yo RL 198.00 ; cH. 144.29 RL 193.00 A% 4 -3y CH. 160.00 TALE DOAWNS |, 127: GeADIENT STONE LINED Dope Zoomm | Ww CHECK DIMMS © 3om (K&S. “a7. CH. 210.00° TO END THP. © THIS DRAWING |S PROTECTED UNDER COPYRIGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN LONG \VIEW CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Ply. Lid. AND THE CLIENT AS. NAMED HEREIN, EXCLUSIVE USE Is GRANTED UNDER THE AGREEMENT ONLY FOR THE PROJECT. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNLESS DESCRIBED AS “CONSTRUCTION ISSUE’. REVISIONS PRELIMINARY vt No. | DESCRIPTION REV. APP. PLANNER : MAK WATTERSON Jf ASS BUATES, - Long View Consulting Engineers Pty. Ltd. . . f PROJECT ; ~ Aient: Mf K R/CHARD SON M2oPos eb RECONAGURATON, LOTHRI MLH M8 LOTHI MCH LO y Lot (SB MH 132, DRAWING TITLE PeoPegtb LOT 424 MCHYS | DRIVEWAY TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION S ~ CONTROL| PO Box 963 Cooroy QLD 4563, AGN: — 98 867 060 985 Mobile: 0414681 676 “PSM CHECKED Email. admin@longi Internet: wornlongviewe CHECKED GAIN SOR APPROVED DRAWING SIZE A3 ORIGINAL ae DATE SCALE BAR DRAWING SCALES 23/7/21 1-20 RPEQ/Cek. | PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING “Bh 19204 | Do. 024 c-0
Page 24
Ths oRAWNa Is PROTECTED mM ¥ K Ric HARDSON ie PROJECT i oN DRAWING TITLE UNDER COPYRIGHT IN. ae Lr ie Long, View ; \Memse doa ey UREREN OE LET Lots 44 44.29 SHARED Lor ACCESS PAN. u Petsson HEGLENTAS PLANNER . MAX WATE RSON Consulting Engineers Pty. Ltd. 424 mMcH 8 ', 44 MCH 1168 ‘ IS8MCH 132) wwiteovenen. excwsve | BD . ty GRANTED UNDER T act: PO Bor 963 Coo a DRAWN CHECKED ‘APPROVED DATE SCALE BAR DRAWING SCALES DRAWING SIZE permemmcens| & eee eo eee Fam 24) 21 250 Some besorned as "consTmUCTON oo FRE Mi WART Fe i Emaii: [email protected] DES|GNED CHECKED RPEQ / Cort. PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER neve IssuE~. (lol DESCRIPTION + Bey: ADE Internet: www longviewconsulting.com.au aM GAINS WORK i 12204 20 i“ 029 Cc oF 2,