Original source · versioned page text
Stormwater Report
Stormwater Management Report Proposed Residential Development 183 Weyba Road Noosaville For: Cooper & Small Pty Ltd 22 September 2021 Ref: S21-074
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 39 pages
Page 2
DO C UM E NT I NFO RM ATIO N
Project Name: Proposed Residential Development
Westera Partners Ref: S21-074
Westera Partners Contact:
Jared Hill Phone: 0437 335 403
Email: [email protected]
Certified for Issue by:
Jared Hill RPEQ 19891
22 September 2021
Document Control:
Revision Author Certified for Issue Date
A J. Hill RPEQ 19891 J. Hill RPEQ 19891 22.09.2021
This report has been prepared for Cooper & Small Pty Ltd for the purpose of accompanying a
development application lodged to Noosa Council. This report must only be used by Cooper & Small
Pty Ltd for this purpose and must not be used or relied upon by any other person for any other purpose.
The assessment, conclusions or recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered
and information received at the time of preparing the report and may not be relied upon as site
conditions or operations vary over time.
ii
Page 3
CO NT E NT S
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Location and Land Use ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Lawful Point of Discharge ........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Upstream Drainage Connection .............................................................................................. 2
2.4 Flooding ................................................................................................................................... 2
3 STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 2
4 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 2
4.1 Operational Phase ................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 Construction Phase ................................................................................................................. 3
4.2.1 Design Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3
4.2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................................................. 5
4.2.3 Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................ 6
5 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 7
6 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B – Flood Information Certificate ........................................................................................ B-1
Appendix C – Engineering Plans ........................................................................................................ C-1
Appendix D – Site Survey & Architectural Drawings .......................................................................... D-1
List of Tables
Table 1 – Pollutants Typically Generated During the Construction Phase ............................................. 3
Table 2 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 1 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
.............................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 3 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 2 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Temporary Drainage Works ............................................................................................ 5
Table 4 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 3 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Emergency Spillways on Temporary Sediment Basins................................................... 5
Table 5 - ESC maintenance requirements. ............................................................................................. 6
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Indicative site location (Nearmaps, 2021) ............................................................................. 1
iii
Page 4
1 INT RO D UC TIO N
Westera Partners Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Cooper & Small Pty Ltd to prepare a Stormwater
Management Report to accompany a development application to Noosa Council for a proposed
residential development.
The proposal involves the construction of a duplex on an existing lot along with new access driveway
and ground level features. Driveway access will be provided via a single, shared access crossover from
Weyba Road.
This report documents how stormwater runoff will be managed on site in accordance with Noosa
Council’s (NC’s) requirements.
2 SI T E D ES CR I PT IO N
2. 1 Loc at i on an d L and U se
The proposed development site is located at 183 Weyba Road, Noosaville, also known as Lot 8
rp113358. The proposed development area is approximately 607m2 and is currently occupied by a
detached dwelling. The site currently generally falls to the north towards Weyba Road at approximately
1.0% grade.
The site is bound by residential properties to the east and south, a commercial property to the west and
Weyba Road to the north. Refer to Figure 1 for an indicative site location and Appendix C for detailed
site survey information.
SITE
Figure 1 – Indicative site location (Noosa Mapping, 2021)
1
Page 5
2. 2 Law fu l P oint of D is ch ar ge
Under existing site conditions, roofwater runoff from the existing dwelling appears to discharge to the
Weyba Road kerb and channel with runoff from ground level areas discharging towards Weyba Road
as sheet flow.
The proposed lawful point of discharge for the site shall be the Weyba Road kerb and channel in line
with existing conditions. Roofwater runoff from the proposed development shall be collected on site
and directed to the kerb and channel via the construction of new on site drainage. Refer to Appendix B
for further information regarding the proposed stormwater works for the development.
2. 3 Ups tr e am D r ain ag e C onn e ct ion
The development site does not have any upslope, unimproved properties unable to gravity drain to a
lawful point of discharge.
2. 4 Flood ing
The proposed development site is impacted by NC flood overlay mapping for both river flooding and
stormtide sources. The proposed development will need to adequately achieve immunity to these flood
events in accordance with the Noosa Council Flood Overlay Code. The Flood Information Certificate
(refer Appendix B) obtained from Council has identified a Defined Flood Level (DFL) of 2.40m AHD and
an applicable immunity level for habitable rooms of 2.70m AHD (300mm freeboard). The proposed
duplex will need to have a minimum floor level of 2.70m AHD to comply with the Flood Overlay Code
requirements. A reduced floor level of 2.60m AHD is proposed for the garages to assist with driveway
grading.
3 STO R M WAT E R Q UA N TIT Y M AN AG E ME NT
A detailed stormwater quantity analysis of the existing and developed site conditions has not been
undertaken as the proposal is for a residential duplex on an existing residential lot without substantial
change in site impervious fraction as a result of the development.
4 W AT ER Q U AL IT Y M A NAG E M EN T
4. 1 O pe r at io na l Ph a se
The development is not required to meet the Queensland Government’s State Planning Policy (July
2017) as the site does not exceed the 2,500m2 minimum site area. However stormwater quality
management must still be undertaken via the application of best management practices (BMPs) to
ensure no adverse impacts to the downstream environment.
Pollutants typically generated during the operational phase of the development include:
• Litter/gross pollutants;
• Sediment;
• Nutrients (N & P);
• Hydrocarbons (oils and grease); and
• Heavy metals.
Stormwater quality best management practices may be implemented for the development as follows:
• First flush diversion system for roof water diverting the roof water for irrigation purposes
• Rainwater storage tanks may be used to collect rainwater for landscape irrigation.
2
Page 6
Best management practices have been deemed sufficient for the site area and land use. Refer to
Appendix B for the stormwater management drawing.
4. 2 Con st ruc t io n Ph a se
Management of stormwater runoff during construction and the implementation of an erosion & sediment
control program is necessary to avoid impacts to receiving waters from pollutants typically generated
during the construction phase. Typical pollutants are described in Table 1 below:
Table 1 – Pollutants Typically Generated During the Construction Phase
Pollutant Sources
Litter (Gross Pollutants) Paper, construction packaging, food packaging, cement bags.
Sediment Unprotected exposed soils and stockpiles during earthworks and building.
Hydrocarbons Fuel and oil spills, leaks from construction equipment.
Toxic materials Cement slurry, asphalt prime, solvents, cleaning agents, wash waters.
pH altering substances Acid sulphate soils, cement slurry and wash waters.
In addition to the degradation of receiving waters, impacts of inadequate erosion and sediment control
downstream from the site include:
• traffic safety problems;
• blocked drains;
• local flooding problems;
• aesthetic pollution of drainage paths; and
• damage to local ecosystems.
4.2.1 De si gn O bj e ct i v es
Management of stormwater runoff during construction should be undertaken in accordance with
Appendix 2 of the SPP (July 2017). The SPP outlines the design objectives for construction phase
stormwater management. These are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 2 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 1 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
Issue Desired Outcomes
Drainage Control 1. Manage stormwater flows around or through areas of exposed soil to
avoid contamination.
2. Manage sheet flows in order to avoid or minimise the generation of rill or
gully erosion.
3. Provide stable concentrated flow paths to achieve the construction
phase stormwater management design objectives for temporary
drainage works (part 2).
3
Page 7
Issue Desired Outcomes
4. Provide emergency spillways for sediment basins to achieve the
construction phase stormwater management design objectives for
emergency spillways on temporary sediment basins (part 3).
Erosion Control 1. Stage clearing and construction works to minimise the area of exposed
soil at any one time.
2. Effectively cover or stabilise exposed soils prior to predicted rainfall.
3. Prior to completion of works for the development, and prior to removal
of sediment controls, all site surfaces must be effectively stabilised
using methods which will achieve effective short-term stabilisation.
Sediment Control 1. Direct runoff from exposed site soils to sediment controls that are
appropriate to the extent of disturbance and level of erosion risk.
2. All exposed areas greater than 2500 metres must be provided with
sediment controls which are designed, implemented and maintained
to a standard which would achieve at least 80% of the average annual
runoff volume of the contributing catchment treated (i.e. 80%
hydrological effectiveness) to 50mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or
less, and pH in the range (6.5–8.5).
Litter, Hydrocarbons and 1. Remove gross pollutants and litter.
other contaminants
2. Avoid the release of oil or visible sheen to released waters.
3. Dispose of waste containing contaminants at authorised facilities.
Waterway Stability and 1. Where measures are required to meet post-construction waterway
flood flow management stability objectives, these are either installed prior to land disturbance
and are integrated with erosion and sediment controls, or equivalent
alternative measures are implemented during construction.
2. Earthworks and the implementation of erosion and sediment controls
are undertaken in ways which ensure flooding characteristics
(including stormwater quantity characteristics) external to the
development site are not worsened during construction for all events up
to and including the 1 in 100 year ARI (1% AEP).
4
Page 8
Table 3 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 2 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Temporary Drainage Works
Temporary Drainage Works Anticipated Operation Design Life and Minimum
Design Storm Event
<12 Months 12-24 Months >24 Months
Drainage Structure 1 in 2 year 1 in 5 year 1 in 10 year
ARI/39% AEP ARI/18% AEP ARI/10% AEP
Where located immediately up-slope of an 1 in 10 year ARI/10% AEP
occupied property that would be adversely
affected by the failure or overtopping of the
structure
Culvert Crossing 1 in 1 year ARI/63% AEP
Table 4 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 3 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Emergency Spillways on Temporary Sediment Basins
Drainage Structure Anticipated Operation Design Life and Minimum
Design Storm Event
<3 Months 3-12 Months >12 Months
Emergency spillways on temporary 1 in 10 year 1 in 20 year 1 in 50 year
sediment basins ARI/10% AEP ARI/5% AEP ARI/2% AEP
Best practice erosion and sediment controls must be installed to minimise the discharge of sediment
laden runoff during construction and to achieve the objectives outlined in Tables 2-4. This is discussed
in the following section.
4.2.2 E ro sio n and Se dim en t Co ntr ol
Management of stormwater runoff during construction is necessary to avoid pollution of downstream
waterways from sediment and gross pollutant loading. Impacts of inadequate erosion and sediment
control downstream from the site include:
• traffic safety problems;
• blocked drains;
• local flooding problems;
• aesthetic pollution of drainage paths; and
• damage to local ecosystems.
Best practice erosion and sediment controls must be installed to minimise the discharge of sediment
laden runoff during construction. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be developed during detailed
design phase and must be continually maintained and amended as required to minimise environmental
harm.
5
Page 9
Erosion and sediment control plans are based on three sets of control measures:
• drainage control;
• erosion control; and
• sediment control.
These control measures must be maintained in an effective operational condition. Sediment disposal
from site is to occur to the satisfaction of Noosa Council. Defects in erosion and sediment control
devices, such as sediment fences, are to be inspected and documented. Upon Inspection, the
Contractor is to determine whether the device should be replaced or repaired. Documentation is to
include how the damage was caused and what measures can be implemented to reduce the possibility
of repeat occurrences. Any damage to either permanent or temporary water quality control structures
or devices is to be immediately rectified at the contractor’s expense.
The effectiveness of the erosion and sediment control devices can be monitored by visual audits. All
ESC measures are to be inspected:
• at least daily (when work is occurring on site) or weekly (when work is not occurring on site);
• within 24 hours of expected rain; and
• within 18 hours of a rainfall event (i.e. an event of sufficient intensity and duration to mobilise
sediment on site).
Drainage paths are to be inspected to ensure the sediment fences are not being bypassed as a result
of soil erosion.
Sediment laden runoff shall be prevented from entering neighbouring properties. This shall be achieved
by landscaping disturbed areas immediately and prior to a rainfall event.
The proposed development has scored a 13 on the IECA erosion hazard assessment with no trigger
score values exceeded (refer Appendix A for details). Further details of proposed on site erosion and
sediment control measures will be required at the detailed design phase of the development.
4.2.3 Ma int en an ce and M o nit o ri ng Re qui r em ent s
Periodic maintenance and monitoring of stormwater devices proposed in this report is crucial to ensure
effective operation and design life.
Inspect field inlet grates, pits and underground pipes for blockage or damage at least 6 monthly or after
significant rainfall event. The filter baskets shall be inspected and maintained preferably by the
manufacturer to avoid damage to units and to ensure adequate cleaning and record keeping. For the
first 12 months routine inspections of filter baskets shall be carried out monthly with routine clean out
at alternate months. Results of the initial 12 months maintenance program shall be used to determine
future maintenance intervals. Refer manufactures maintenance and monitoring methodology for
specific details.
Maintenance of ESC measures must occur in accordance with Table 5.
Table 5 - ESC maintenance requirements.
ESC Measure Maintenance Trigger Timeframe for Completion
of Maintenance
Sediment basins When settled sediment exceeds Within 7 days of the
the volume of the sediment inspection.
storage zone
6
Page 10
Other ESC measures The capacity of ESC measures By the end of the day.
falls below 75%.
Sediment accumulation on ESC devices is to be removed and disposed of to the satisfaction of Noosa
Council.
5 CO N CLU S IO N
This SWMP outlines how stormwater runoff from the site will be managed in order to not adversely
impact the receiving environment.
The proposed lawful point of discharge for the development shall be the Weyba Road kerb and channel.
Stormwater detention is not considered to be required as the proposal is for a residential duplex on an
existing lot. Stormwater runoff from the development site will need to be collected on site and directed
to the kerb and channel at the build phase to ensure no adverse impacts to neighbouring properties as
a result of the development.
The development will need to comply with the necessary flood immunity levels in line with the
requirements of the Noosa Flood Overlay Code as outlined on the Flood Information Certificate.
Stormwater treatment should be managed through the implementation of best management practices
on site. Based on the scale of the proposed development, and typical pollutants produced, these
measures are considered adequate.
By implementing the proposed stormwater management system, and providing adequate maintenance,
the downstream environment and neighbouring properties will not experience any adverse deterioration
of water quality as a result of the proposed development.
7
Page 11
6 AP P E ND IC E S
App end ix A – E ro sio n H az ar d As s es sm en t
A-1
[OCR of page images]
Us WESTERA
PARTNERS
6 APPENDICES
Appendix A — Erosion Hazard Assessment
Page 12
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Condition Points Score Trigger
value
AVERAGE SLOPE OF DISTURBANCE AREA [1]
• not more than 3% [3% 33H:1V] 0
• more than 3% but not more than 5% [5% = 20H:1V] 1
1 4
• more than 5% but not more than 10% [10% = 10H:1V] 2
• more than 10% but not more than 15% [15% 6.7H:1V] 4
• more than 15% 6
SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP (AS1726) [2]
• GW, GP, GM, GC 0
• SW, SP, OL, OH 1 3
• SM, SC, MH, CH 2
• ML, CL, or if imported fill is used, or if soils are untested 3
EMERSON (DISPERSION) CLASS NUMBER [3]
• Class 4, 6, 7, or 8 0
• Class 5 2 4 6
• Class 3, (default value if soils are untested) 4
• Class 1 or 2 6
DURATION OF SOIL DISTURBANCE [4]
• not more than 1 month 0
• more than 1 month but not more than 4 months 2 2 6
• more than 4 months but not more than 6 months 4
• more than 6 months 6
AREA OF DISTURBANCE [5]
• not more than 1000 m2 0
• more than 1000 m2 but not more than 5000 m2 1 0 4
• more than 5000 m2 but not more than 1 ha 2
• more than 1 ha but not more than 4 ha 4
• more than 4 ha 6
WATERWAY DISTURBANCE [6]
• No disturbance to a watercourse, open drain or channel 0
0 2
• Involves disturbance to a constructed open drain or channel 1
• Involves disturbance to a natural watercourse 2
REHABILITATION METHOD [7]
Percentage of area (relative to total disturbance) revegetated by seeding
without light mulching (i.e. worst-case revegetation method).
• not more than 1% 0 0
• more than 1% but not more than 5% 1
• more than 5% but not more than 10% 2
• more than 10% 4
RECEIVING WATERS [8]
• Saline waters only 0 0
• Freshwater body (e.g. creek or freshwater lake or river) 2
SUBSOIL EXPOSURE [9]
• No subsoil exposure except of service trenches 0 2
• Subsoils are likely to be exposed 2
EXTERNAL CATCHMENTS [10]
• No external catchment 0
0
• External catchment diverted around the soil disturbance 1
• External catchment not diverted around the soil disturbance 2
ROAD CONSTRUCTION [11]
• No road construction 0 0
• Involves road construction works 2
pH OF SOILS TO BE REVEGETATED [12]
• more than pH 5.5 but less than pH 8 0 1
• other pH values, or if soils are untested 1
Total Score [13] 13
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 1
Page 13
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Explanatory notes
Requirements: Specific issues or actions required by the proponent.
Warnings: Issues that should be considered by the proponent.
Comments: General information relating to the topic.
[1] REQUIREMENTS:
For sites with an average slope of proposed land disturbance greater than 10%, a
preliminary ESCP must be submitted to the regulatory authority for approval
during planning negotiations.
Proponents must demonstrate that adequate erosion and sediment control
measures can be implemented on-site to effectively protect downstream
environmental values.
If site or financial constraints suggest that it is not reasonable or practicable for
the prescribed water quality objectives to be achieved for the proposal, then the
proponent must demonstrate that alternative designs or construction techniques
(e.g. pole homes, suspended slab) cannot reasonably be implemented on the
site.
WARNINGS:
Steep sites usually require more stringent drainage and erosion controls than
flatter grade sites.
COMMENTS:
The steeper the land, the greater the need for adequate drainage controls to
prevent soil and mulch from being washed from the site.
[2] REQUIREMENTS:
If the actual soil K-factor is known from soil testing, then the Score shall be
determined from Table 1.
If a preliminary ESCP is required during planning negotiations, then it must be
demonstrated that adequate space is available for the construction and operation
of any major sediment traps, including the provision for any sediment basins and
their associated embankments and spillways. It must also be demonstrated that
all reasonable and practicable measures can be taken to divert the maximum
quantity of sediment-laden runoff (up to the specified design storm) to these
sediment traps throughout the construction phase and until the contributing
catchment is adequately stabilised against erosion.
WARNINGS:
The higher the point score, the greater the need to protect the soil from raindrop
impact and thus the greater the need for effective erosion control measures. A
point score of 2 or greater will require a greater emphasis to be placed on
revegetation techniques that do not expose the soil to direct rainfall contact
during vegetation establishment, e.g. turfing and Hydromulching.
COMMENTS:
Table 2 provides an indication of soil conditions likely to be associated with a
particular Soil group based on a statistical analysis of soil testing across NSW.
This table provides only an initial estimate of the likely soil conditions.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 2
Page 14
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
The left-hand-side of the table provides an indication of the type of sediment
basin that will be required (Type C, F or D). The right-hand-side of the table
provides an indication of the likely erodibility of the soil based on the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) K-factor.
Table 3 provides some general comments on the erosion potential of the various
soil groups.
Table 1 – Score if soil K-factor is known
RUSLE soil erodibility K-factor
K < 0.02 0.02<K<0.04 0.04<K<0.06 K > 0.06
Score 0 1 2 3
Table 2 – Statistical analysis of NSW soil data [1]
Unified Likely sediment basin Probable soil erodibility K-factor (%) [2]
Soil classification (%)
Class Dry Wet Low Moderate High Very High
System
Type C Type F Type D K < 0.02 0.02<K<0.04 0.04<K<0.06 K > 0.06
GM 30 58 12 12 51 26 12
GC 42 33 25 13 71 17 0
SW 40 48 12 49 39 12 0
SP 53 32 15 76 18 5 1
SM 21 67 12 26 48 25 1
SC 26 50 24 16 64 18 2
ML 5 63 32 4 35 45 16
CL 9 51 39 12 56 19 13
OL 2 80 18 34 61 5 1
MH 12 41 48 15 19 41 25
CH 5 44 51 39 43 11 7
Notes: [1] Analysis of soil data presented in Landcom (2004).
[2] Soil erodibility based on Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) K-factor.
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures
SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures
ML Inorganic silts & very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity
CL Inorganic clays, low–medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 3
Page 15
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Table 3 – Typical properties of various soil groups [1]
Soil Groups Typical properties [2]
GW, GP • Low erodibility potential.
GM, GC • Low to medium erodibility potential.
• May create turbid runoff if disturbed as a result of the release of silt
and clay particles.
SW, SP • Low to medium erodibility potential.
SM, SC • Medium erodibility potential.
• May create turbid runoff if disturbed as a result of the release of silt
and clay particles.
MH, CH • Highly variable (low to high) erodibility potential.
• Will generally create turbid runoff if disturbed.
ML, CL • High erodibility potential.
• Tendency to be dispersive.
• May create some turbidity in runoff if disturbed.
Note: [1] After Soil Services & NSW DLWC (1998).
[2] Any soil can represent a high erosion risk if the binding clays or silts are unstable.
Table 4 provides general guidelines on the suitability of various soil groups to various
engineering applications.
Table 4 – Engineering suitability based on Unified Soil Classification [1]
Embankments
USC Fill Slope Untreated
Unified Soil Class Water Non
Group stability roads
retaining water
retaining
Well graded gravels GW Unsuitable Excellent Excellent Excellent Average
Poorly graded gravel GP Unsuitable Average Excellent Average Unsuitable
Silty gravels GM Unsuitable Average Good Average Average
Clayey gravels GC Suitable Average Good Average Excellent
Well graded sands SW Unsuitable Excellent Excellent Excellent Average
Poorly graded sands SP Unsuitable Average Good Average Unsuitable
Silty sands SM Suitable [2] Average Average Average Poor
Clayey sands SC Suitable Average Average Average Good
Inorganic silts ML Unsuitable Poor Average Poor Unsuitable
Inorganic clays CL Suitable [2] Good Average Good Poor
Organic silts OL Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable
Inorganic silts MH Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Unsuitable
Inorganic clays CH Suitable [2] Average Unsuitable Average Unsuitable
Organic clays OH Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Highly organic soils Pt Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Notes: [1] Modified from Hazelton & Murphy (1992)
[2] Suitable only after modifications to soil such as compaction and/or erosion protection
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 4
Page 16
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[3] If the soils have not been tested for Emerson Class, then adopt a score of 4.
REQUIREMENTS:
Works proposed on sites containing Emerson Class 1 or 2 soils have a very high
pollution potential and must submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority
for review and/or approval (as required by the authority) during planning
negotiations.
WARNINGS:
Class 3 and 5 soils disturbed by cut and fill operations or construction traffic are
highly likely to discolour stormwater (i.e. cause turbid runoff). Chemical
stabilisation will likely be required if these soils are placed immediately adjacent
to a retaining wall. Any disturbed Class 1, 2, 3 and 5 soils that are to be
revegetated must be covered with a non-dispersive topsoil as soon as possible
(unless otherwise agreed by the regulatory authority).
Class 1 and 2 soils are highly likely to discolour (pollute) stormwater if exposed to
rainfall or flowing water. Treatment of these soils with gypsum (or other suitable
substance) will most likely be required. These soils should not be placed directly
behind a retaining wall unless it has been adequately treated (stabilised) or
covered with a non-dispersible soil.
[4] The duration of disturbance refers to the total duration of soil exposure to rainfall
up until a time when there is at least 70% coverage of all areas of soil.
REQUIREMENTS:
All land developments with an expected soil disturbance period greater than 6
months must submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review
and/or approval (as required by the authority) during planning negotiations.
COMMENTS:
Construction periods greater than 3 months will generally experience at least
some significant storm events, independent of the time of year that the
construction (soil disturbance) occurs.
[5] REQUIREMENTS:
Development proposals with an expected soil disturbance in excess of 1ha must
submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review and/or approval
(as required by the regulatory authority) during planning negotiations.
The area of disturbance refers to the total area of soil exposed to rainfall or dust-
producing winds either as a result of:
(a) the removal of ground cover vegetation, mulch or sealed surfaces;
(b) past land management practices;
(c) natural conditions.
WARNINGS:
A Sediment Basin will usually be required if the disturbed area exceeds 0.25ha
(2500m2) within any sub-catchment (i.e. land flowing to one outlet point).
COMMENTS:
For soil disturbances greater than 0.25ha, the revegetation phase should be
staged to minimise the duration for which soils are exposed to wind, rain and
concentrated runoff.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 5
Page 17
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[6] REQUIREMENTS:
All developments that involve earthworks or construction within a natural
watercourse (whether that watercourse is in a natural or modified condition) must
submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review and/or approval
(as required by the regulatory authority) during planning negotiations.
Permits and/or licences may be required from the State Government, including
possible submission of the ESCP to the relevant Government department.
[7] REQUIREMENTS:
No areas of soil disturbance shall be left exposed to rainfall or dust-producing
winds at the end of a development without an adequate degree of protection
and/or an appropriate action plan for the establishment of at least 70% cover.
COMMENTS:
Grass seeding without the application of a light mulch cover is considered the
least favourable revegetation technique. A light mulch cover is required to
protect the soil from raindrop impact, excessive temperature fluctuations, and the
loss of essential soil moisture.
[8] COMMENTS:
All receiving waters can be adversely affected by unnatural quantities of
sediment-laden runoff. Freshwater ecosystems are generally more susceptible to
ecological harm resulting from the inflow of fine or dispersible clays than saline
water bodies. The further inland a land disturbance is, the greater the potential
for the released sediment to cause environmental harm as this sediment travels
towards the coast.
For the purpose of this clause it is assumed that all sediment-laden runoff will
eventually flow into saline waters. Thus, sediment-laden discharges that flow first
into freshwater are likely to adversely affect both fresh and saline water bodies
and are therefore considered potentially more damaging to the environment.
This clause does not imply that sediment-laden runoff will not cause harm to
saline waters.
[9] COMMENTS:
This clause refers to subsoils exposed during the construction phase either as a
result of past land practices or proposed construction activities. The exposure of
subsoils resulting from the excavation of minor service trenches should not be
considered.
[10] WARNINGS:
The greater the extent of external catchment, the greater the need to divert up-
slope stormwater runoff around any soil disturbance.
COMMENTS:
The ability to separate “clean” (i.e. external catchment) stormwater runoff from
“dirty” site runoff can have a significant effect on the size, efficiency and cost of
the temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment control measures.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 6
Page 18
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[11] REQUIREMENTS:
Permission must be obtained from the owner of a road reserve before placing
any erosion and sediment control measures within the road reserve.
WARNINGS:
Few sediment control techniques work efficiently when placed on a road and/or
around roadside stormwater inlets. Great care must be taken if sediment control
measures are located on a public roadway, specifically:
• safety issues relating to road users;
• the risk of causing flooding on the road or within private property.
The construction of roads (whether temporary or permanent) will usually modify
the flow path of stormwater runoff. This can affect how “dirty” site runoff is
directed to the sediment control measures.
COMMENTS:
“On-road” sediment control devices are at best viewed as secondary or
supplementary sediment control measures. Only in special cases and/or on very
small projects (e.g. kerb and channel replacement) might these controls be
considered as the “primary” sediment control measure.
[12] WARNINGS:
Soils with a pH less than 5.5 or greater than 8 will usually require treatment in
order to achieve satisfactory revegetation. Soils with a pH of less than 5
(whether naturally acidic or in acid sulfate soil areas) may also limit the choice of
chemical flocculants (e.g. Alum) for use in the flocculation of Sediment Basins.
[13] REQUIREMENTS:
A preliminary ESCP must be submitted to the local government for approval
during the planning phase for any development that obtains a total point score of
17 or greater or when any trigger value is scored or exceeded.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 7
Page 19
App end ix B – F lood I nf or ma t io n Ce rt ifi ca t e
C-1
[OCR of page images]
Us WESTERA
PARTNERS
Appendix B — Flood Information Certificate
Page 20
Noosa Council documents
Flood Information Certificate
This certificate is issued in response to an information request for a property which is located within the
geographical boundaries of Noosa Council.
Applicants Name Adapt Town Planning + Issue Date 14 July 2021
Development Management
Applicants PO Box 7618 Property Number
137114
Address SIPPY DOWNS QLD 4556
Property
Lot 8 RP 113358
Description
Address 183 Weyba Rd
Noosaville Qld 4566
Our Reference Cer21/2699
Email Address [email protected] Issuing Officer Mark Lewis
Your Reference 20210417
This certificate is issued in response to an enquiry for the above property:
REGISTERED OWNER/S NAME: MM Mbye
DEFINED FLOOD LEVEL: 2.4m AHD
DEFINED FLOOD EVENT: 1% AEP Under 2100 Climate Change Conditions
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Noosa River Flood Study 2016, WMA Water
HIGHEST HISTORICAL FLOOD A flood level has not been recorded for this property
LEVEL:
LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF
A flood level has not been recorded for this property
RECORDED HISTORICAL EVENT:
DATE OF HISTORICAL EVENT: A flood level has not been recorded for this property
FREEBOARD: 0.3m
APPLICABLE MINIMUM FLOOR
LEVEL FOR HABITABLE ROOM /
*2.7m AHD (as required by The Noosa Plan)
AREA:
THIS CERTIFICATE IS VALID FOR 6 MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE.
*Velocity note:
The subject property is located in an active water flow area and the velocity of the water is up to approximately
0.3m/s for the 1% AEP Defined Flood Event.
www.noosa.qld.gov.au [email protected] T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Flood Information Certificate (FSCV3-0809) Page 1 of 3
Document Set ID: 21526047
Version: 2, Version Date: 14/07/2021 Print Date: 14 July 2021, 2:10 PM
Page 21
Noosa Council documents
CLIMATE CHANGE
The advice provided in this certificate is based upon information relating to historically recorded flood events and
future climate condition. The defined flood event incorporates an allowance for climate change for the 1% AEP at
year 2100. Climate change projections include increased rainfall intensity, higher mean sea level and more
extreme weather conditions (e.g. storm surge and tropical cyclones).
NOTES FOR FLOOD INFORMATION
1. The absence of Highest Historical Flood Level information does not imply that the above property is not
subject to flooding, simply that Council has no record of this property flooding. Applicants are encouraged to
make their own local enquiries.
2. In accordance with the Low Density Housing Code, the MINIMUM FLOOR LEVEL is calculated as
whichever is greater of either:
(a) 300mm freeboard added to the Defined Flood Event for the site; or
(b) 500 mm freeboard added to the Highest Historical Flood Level appropriate to the site; or
(c) If the property is intended for use as a Hospital, Aged Residential Care Facility or Emergency
Services Facility then the Council should be contacted to determine this level.
3. Council advises that if stormwater drainage pipelines/easements exist on the property then no earthworks or
building are permitted in the easement.
4. All buildings shall conform to the relevant Planning Scheme Code in The Noosa Plan.
5. Please be aware of the natural topography in your area. Water runoff which exceeds the capacity of the
underground drainage system (if present) and which concentrates in surface depressions and gullies as it
flows down a catchment can cause localised flooding and is not identified in this certificate.
6. Filling must not cause actionable nuisance in accordance with Queensland Urban Drainage Manual.
7. Council advises that if there are openings to basements these openings require a minimum level at least
equal to the minimum floor level.
8. Please be aware that the reported flood information may vary in the future as new data becomes available.
9. Flood Hazard Maps within Council’s planning scheme are indicative only and should not be relied upon as a
guide to potential flooding.
www.noosa.qld.gov.au [email protected] T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Flood Information Certificate (FSCV3-0809) Page 2 of 3
Document Set ID: 21526047
Version: 2, Version Date: 14/07/2021 Print Date: 14 July 2021, 2:10 PM
Page 22
Noosa Council documents
DISCLAIMERS
Flood information provided by Council should only be used as a guide to the extent of flooding on the property. This
information may be inaccurate or incomplete and it is recommended that purchasers make their own local enquiries with
regard to the flooding and drainage history of the site. NO LIABILITY IS ACCEPTED FOR THIS INFORMATION.
The property information supplied does not represent the highest probable flood level that could occur on this property. A flood
more severe than the level described above may occur, although such events would be extraordinary.
The absence of flood information does not imply that the above property is not subject to flooding, simply that Council has no
flood information for this property flooding.
If there is a history of flooding or drainage issues, we recommend you seek professional advice on this matter.
COUNCIL ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THIS INFORMATION
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term Definition
The Australian Height Datum (AHD) is the reference level for defining reduced levels
AHD adopted by the National Mapping Council of Australia. The level of 0.0 m AHD is
approximately mean sea level.
Defined Flood Level A water level derived through mathematical modelling of the Defined Flood Event.
Terminology consistent with State Planning Policy (SPP, 2003) which states “Defined Flood
Defined Flood Event Event is the flood event adopted by a local government for the management of development
in a particular locality”.
The Annual Exceedance Probability is the likelihood of occurrence of a flood or storm tide
inundation event of a given size or larger in any one year, usually expressed as a
percentage. For example, if an event has an AEP of 1%, it means that there is a 1% risk
1% AEP (i.e. probability of 0.01 or a likelihood of 1 in 100) of this event occurring in any one year. A
1% AEP event should not be interpreted as only occurring once in 100 years.
This flood event is also commonly called the 100 year ARI (Average Recurrence Interval) or
Q100.
Is a reference to the document summarising the results of the anticipated flooding relevant
Source of Information
to this location.
Highest Historical Flood
The highest flood water level from all historic events for which Council has records.
Level
Location Description of
A description of the site where the Highest Historical Flood Level was recorded.
Recorded Historical Event
Date of Historical Event The date on which the Highest Historical Flood Level occurred.
The minimum floor level calculated in accordance with the Town Plan through the addition
Minimum Floor Level of the relevant freeboard to the Defined Flood Level and the Highest Historical Flood Level.
Council requires that the higher of these two levels be used as the minimum floor level.
A factor of safety usually expressed as a height above the adopted Defined Flood Level. A
Freeboard freeboard tends to compensate for factors such as wave action and historical and modelling
uncertainties.
In a residential situation: a living or working area, such as a lounge room, dining room,
Habitable Room/Area
rumpus room, kitchen, bedroom or workroom.
Where a ‘regulation line’ has been set by Council to define the limit to which development
Flood Regulation Line
may encroach onto a floodplain, development is undertaken outside such ’regulation line’.
Rainfall Intensity The amount of rainfall occurring in a unit of time, usually expressed in millimetres/hour.
A tidal datum; the arithmetic mean of hourly heights of the sea at the tidal station observed
Mean Sea Level
over a period of time (preferably 19 years). Source: BOM This is approximately 0.0 m AHD
The elevation of water generated by a tropical cyclone above or below the normal
Storm Surge
astronomical tide.
A tropical cyclone is a low-pressure system which develops in the tropics and is sufficiently
Tropical Cyclones intense to produce sustained winds of at least 63 km/h or greater and gusts in excess of 90
km/h near the centre.
www.noosa.qld.gov.au [email protected] T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Flood Information Certificate (FSCV3-0809) Page 3 of 3
Document Set ID: 21526047
Version: 2, Version Date: 14/07/2021 Print Date: 14 July 2021, 2:10 PM
Page 23
App end ix C – Eng in e er ing Pl an s
C-1
[OCR of page images]
Us WESTERA
PARTNERS
Appendix C —- Engineering Plans
Page 24
LEGEND
WEYBA ROAD
ROOF
CATCHMENT
TO STUB
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DOCUMENT CONTROL APPROVED SUNSHINE COAST GOLD COAST SURVEYOR DRAWING STATUS
Suite 2, Norval Corporate Centre, Level 3
PROJECT
DESIGNED 13 Norval Ct, Maroochydore 17 Welch St, Southport
T 07 5391 3777 F 07 5646 5857 T 07 5571 1599 F 07 5571 1330
DRAWN E [email protected] E [email protected] LOCATION DRAWING NUMBER
CHECKED PARTNERS BRISBANE NORTHERN NSW USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES CHECK WITH THE
DATE For and on behalf of Level 2 Limestore,
PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE
Suite 24, DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM TITLE SHEET NUMBER REVISION
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD. 33 Longland St, Newstead 11-13 Pearl Street, Kingscliff THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS
T 07 3852 4333 F 07 3852 4777 T 02 6674 8047 F 02 6674 8049 STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE
No. DATE REVISIONS FILE NAME www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 E [email protected] E [email protected] CARRIED OUT WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT
Page 25
App end ix D – Si t e Su rv e y & A rc hit ec tu ra l Dr aw ing s
D-1
[OCR of page images]
Us WESTERA
PARTNERS
Appendix D — Site Survey & Architectural Drawings
Page 26
Skyline Surveyors
Suite 11C
Brightwater Corporate Centre PHONE
07 5493 4877
69 Attenuata Drive
MOUNTAIN CREEK QLD 4557
E: [email protected]
W: www.skysurv.com.au
Page 27
183 WEYBA RD
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD COVER PAGE A.00.01 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:1 @A3
NTS 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 28
FLOOR AREAS
GROUND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR GFA SITE COVER LANDSCAPE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
Ground Floor: 59m² First Floor: 73m² Ground Floor: 59m² Site Area: 606m² Landscape area required: 242m2 (40%) Acess off ground living: >25m²
Garage: 51m² Balcony: 6m² First Floor: 73m² Footprint: 230m² Landscape area provided: 242m2 (40%)
Total: 124m² Total: 83m² Total: 132m² Total: 38% Soft Lansdcape required: 145m²
Plot ratio: 0.43:1 Soft Lansdcape provided: 145m²
02
510
9
RP136
6,000 6,000
S-06
setback setback
8,000 90 6,200 90 1,600 90 1,300 90 4,460 90 8,165
1,200 190 800
setback
1,500
8
1,500
BINS CLOTHESLINE
RP113358
90
90
WIP
2,640
bike
store
6,100
GARAGE
10,058
49.58 m2
64.91 m2
8,373
PWD
POOL
5X3
90
R D
2,183
W E Y B A
510
10
RP136
190
190
01
03
POOL
5X3
PWD
10,059
GARAGE
bike
store
WIP
BINS CLOTHESLINE
setback
1,500
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD GROUND FLOOR PLAN A.01.01 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:100 @A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 29
02
17,395
6,000 3,026 12,905 1,464 6,000
S-06
setback setback
6,000 1,035 90 3,510 90 2,080 90 3,500 90 3,500 90 3,320 780 6,000
2,175 90
1,500
setback
2,013
2,000
2,000
90
90
FALL 5°
693
500
VOID
90
600
SEAT ROBE
3,280
ENS
BED 2 BED 3
4,480
BALC. BED 1
5.97 m2
7,963
WIR
600
VOID
90
73.22 m2
BATH
90
3,300
skylights
VOID
skylight
190
190
01
VOID
03
BATH
VOID
WIR
BALC. BED 1
BED 2 BED 3
ENS
SEAT ROBE
FALL 5°
VOID
setback
2,000
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD UPPER FLOOR PLAN A.01.02 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:100 @A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 30
02
S-06
6,000 6,000
setback setback
6,000 3,040 14,355 6,780
setback
2,000
FALL 5°
6,960
7,960 FALL 5°
skylights
skylight
190
skylight
01
skylights
03
7,960
FALL 5°
FALL 5°
6,960
setback
2,000
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD ROOF PLAN A.01.03 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:100 @A3 25/08/2021 1:100 @
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 31
LANDSCAPING
Landscape area required: 242m2 (40%)
Landscape area provided: 242m2 (40%)
Soft Lansdcape required: 145m²
Soft Lansdcape provided: 145m²
02
510
9
RP136
6,000 6,000
S-06
setback setback
8,000 90 6,200 90 1,600 90 1,300 90 4,460 90 8,165
1,200 190 800
setback
1,500
8
1,500
BINS CLOTHESLINE
RP113358
90
90
WIP
2,640
bike
store
6,100
GARAGE
10,058
49.58 m2
64.91 m2
8,373
PWD
POOL
5X3
90
R D
2,183
W E Y B A
510
10
RP136
190
190
01
03
POOL
5X3
PWD
10,059
GARAGE
bike
store
WIP
BINS CLOTHESLINE
setback
1,500
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD LANDSCAPE AREAS A.01.04 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:100 @A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 32
+8,725
3 ROOF LEVEL
+6,025
2 UPPER FLOOR
+2,700
1 LOWER FLOOR
01 NORTH ELEVATION 1:100
Boundary
6,000
6,000
WB 01
02 EAST ELEVATION 1:100
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD ELEVATIONS A.04.01 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:100 @A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 33
+8,725
3 ROOF LEVEL
+6,025
2 UPPER FLOOR
+2,700
1 LOWER FLOOR
03 SOUTH ELEVATION 1:100
Boundary
Boundary
6,000
6,000
04 WEST ELEVATION 1:100
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD ELEVATIONS A.04.02 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
1:100 @A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 34
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.01 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
N.T.S.
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 35
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.02 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
N.T.S.
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 36
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.03 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 37
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.04 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 38
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.05 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 39
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.06 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020
Page 40
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT: DRAWING: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
HIVE ARCHITECTURE
SD1 08/07/21 CONCEPT DESIGN
DD1 25/08/21 DEVELOPED DESIGN 183 WEYBA RD PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A.09.07 DD1
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
SCALE: DATE:
LOT 8 RP 113358
@A3 25/08/2021
CLIENT: PROJECT NUMBER:
w w w . h i v e a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
MBYE 2115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © HIVE Architecture 2020