Original source · versioned page text
Part 3 - A - Information Response
Attached to the e-mail OPW20/0117 - Information Response - 37 Mossman Court Noosa Heads.
Tuesday, 6 October 2020 Our Ref: 20153 / Office: Sunshine Coast Council Ref: OPW20/0117 NOOSA COUNCIL PO BOX 141 TEWANTIN QLD 4565 ATTENTION: Mark Lewis Dear Mark INFORMATION RESPONSE 37 MOSSMAN CRT, NOOSA HEADS LOT 83 N21847 Further to your information request for the abovementioned development application we now respond to all of the information requested. 1. Council has some concerns with the proposed retaining wall replacing the existing revetment wall. The proposed wall appears to be significantly higher than the original revetment wall that stood approximately 500mm above the beach profile and there is some concern with the new wall being sufficient to cater for the expected loadings form tidal and flood waters. At this location, Council has advised that the original revetment wall level is RL0.9m (AHD). In this immediate area, the original revetment wall boundary is completely covered with sand and not visible. The wall currently lies beneath the rock edging and grassed area evident in Figure 1. Subject Site Figure 1: Foreshore in Mossman Court area
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 3 pages
Page 2
In this location, the sand leading up to the wall is much higher than typically found in other areas so the
original revetment wall does not sit 500mm above the sand height as suggested by Council. The images
below show the location of the revetment wall at nearby properties confirming that the sand level is
much higher up the original revetment wall and in some cases, completely covers the top of the wall.
Masonry wall built off the
top of the revetment wall
Top of original
revetment wall
Scouring to base of
wall
Figure 2: Original wall on nearby property in Mossman Court
Just visible top of Top of original
revetment wall with revetment wall
masonry wall above covered by sand
Scouring to base of wall
Figure 3: Original wall on other nearby properties in Mossman Court
It is evident that the tidal levels come right up to (and above) the top of this original wall level and
evidence of scouring is also noticeable. It seems that many properties in the area have built additional
masonry walls above this to keep the adjoining property safe from tidal inundation. With HAT at
1.08m (AHD) this evidence shows that the tides come over the height of the revetment wall at RL 0.9m
AHD.
Page 3
The amenity of this area would suggest that a higher boundary wall would be deemed necessary for the very protection of the property against the tidal levels. Our client has agreed to lower the height of the proposed new wall to an RL of 1.3m AHD (see attached plans). This level is 220mm above HAT but will ensure that the property is protected from the higher tides similar to the nearby properties that have built even higher masonry walls above the original wall for this protection. In relation to the proposed wall being suitably designed, the engineer’s certificate included with the application documents, includes statements in relation to the design of the wall being suitable for flood, tidal conditions and expected use. Please refer to “Certification of design of prescribed tidal work” dated 7 July, 2020 signed by Sean Richardson which is attached for your convenience. In addition, we attached a Form 15 that has been provided by the engineer with the amended plans. 2. The design plan 30153-J7 includes detail of a “boat tie post” but the location and number of boat tie posts is not clearly indicated on the site and section plans. Please find attached amended plans showing the location of the “boat tie post” locations (noted as P3 on the jetty framing plan) as requested. We trust that we have provided sufficient evidence for Council to agree that our client’s proposal is suitable for its purpose and suitably meets with Council requirements. Our client is also happy to meet with Council on site if they believe that this would give them further insite into the proposal. Please let me know if you wish to organise such a meeting. We do not believe that it is in the interest of any of the involved parties for a refusal to be issued on this Development Application. Rather, should Council wish to discuss this matter further or have any further questions, please contact me in the first instance. We also wish to advise Council that as advised by SARA we have had to request Owner’s Consent from Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Energy for the proposed new boundary wall and Department of Environment & Science for the proposed new jetty. Once we have the letter for owner’s consent in both instances, SARA will in a position to process the referral response for this application. Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct. Yours faithfully PROJECT URBAN Trish Belt Licensing & Permits Officer Email: [email protected] Cc:- David & Louise Hales
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1
Amended proposal plans
ATTACHMENT 2
Engineer’s Form 15
[OCR of page images]
ATTACHMENT 1
Amended proposal plans
ATTACHMENT 2
Engineer’s Form 15