Council archive · source document
geotech report · MCU15/0087
Annette Warner Pty Ltd Slope Stability & Geotechnical Assessment 1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads 12 August 2015
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of pages 2 to 33 (of 52)
Page 2
This page has been left intentionally blank [OCR of page images] This page has been left intentionally blank
Page 3
Slope Stability & Geotechnical Assessment
Prepared for
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads QLD 4567
Prepared by
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
Unit 1, 36 Kerryl Street
Kunda Park QLD 4556 Australia
t: +61 7 5445 4952 f: +61 7 5445 3764
ABN: 93 056 929 483
12 August 2015
Document authorisation
Our ref: GEOTKPAR02068AA/A
For and on behalf of Coffey
Ron McMahon
Principal Engineer
Quality information
Revision history
Revision Description Date Author Reviewer Signatory
00 GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 12/08/2015 OP RFM RFM
Distribution
Report Status No. of copies Format Distributed to Date
FINAL 1 PDF Annette Warner 12/08/2015
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
i
ABN: 93 056 929 483
Page 4
Table of contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Proposed Design ......................................................................................................................... 1
3. Fieldwork ..................................................................................................................................... 1
4. Surface Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 2
5. Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2
5.1. Geology ............................................................................................................................. 2
5.2. Subsurface Profile ............................................................................................................. 2
5.3. Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 2
6. Design Considerations ................................................................................................................ 3
6.1. Shrink Swell Movements ................................................................................................... 3
6.2. Allowable Bearing Capacity .............................................................................................. 3
6.3. Settlements ....................................................................................................................... 3
6.4. Site Classification .............................................................................................................. 3
6.5. Founding Conditions and Footing Systems ...................................................................... 3
6.6. Cut and Fill Earthworks ..................................................................................................... 3
6.7. Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................. 3
6.8. Piled Footings.................................................................................................................... 4
7. QUALITATIVE SLOPE STABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 6
7.1. Introduction to Qualitative Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 6
7.2. Risk Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................... 6
7.3. Implications of Risk Assessment....................................................................................... 6
7.4. Identification of Hazards .................................................................................................... 7
7.5. Property at Risk ................................................................................................................. 7
7.6. Results of Risk Assessment.............................................................................................. 7
7.7. Special Requirements for Construction and Site Drainage with Respect to Slope Stability
8
7.8. Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................... 10
8. Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 10
References ...................................................................................................................... 10
Important information about your Coffey Report
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
ii
ABN: 93 056 929 483
Page 5
Figures
Figure 1: Test Location Plan
Appendices
Appendix A – Proposed Dwelling Plans
Appendix B – Engineering Logs and Explanation Sheets
Appendix C – DCP Test Results
Appendix D – Appendix C from AGS 2007
Appendix E – Good Hillside Practice
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
iii
ABN: 93 056 929 483
Page 6
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
1. Introduction
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (Coffey) was commissioned by Ms Annette Warner to undertake a slope
stability and geotechnical assessment for the proposed residence at 1 Natasha Avenue at Noosa
Heads. A multi-level building is proposed for the site. The location of the proposed building is shown
on a site layout and contour plan (see Appendix A) provided by Ms Annette Warner.
The geotechnical slope stability assessment and associated geotechnical model are based on the
subsurface investigations and visual observations made by Coffey during field inspections of the site.
This slope stability assessment has been prepared by Coffey, a specialist geotechnical engineering
consultant with extensive experience in slope stability assessment in this area. The slope stability
has been assessed using a framework guided by a process developed by the Australian
Geomechanics Society - “A National Landslide Risk Management Framework for Australia”; Volume
42 March 2007 (AGS2007).
The aim of this study was to assess the slope stability risk of the proposed structure and adjacent
areas along with providing design parameters for foundation design.
2. Proposed Design
The building concept design (attached in Appendix A) depicts a single storey structure across the
southern end of the site with a dual storey portion overlooking the escapement of the dune to the
north.
3. Fieldwork
The investigation was carried out under the direction of a Principal Engineer from Coffey’s Kunda
th th
Park office on the 4 and 10 of August 2015. The fieldwork comprised:
th
Site walkover conducted on the 4 August 2015 by a Coffey Geotechnical Engineer and a
Principal Engineer. During this inspection, the general site conditions were observed, slopes
measured and features relevant to the stability of the proposed building area noted.
At the time of the site walkover, six Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were
undertaken to depths between 3.3 metres and 4.5 metres below the current surface level.
th
On the 10 August 2015, two boreholes were drilled to a depth of 6.0 metres below the
current surface level immediately adjacent to the dune escarpment.
Drilling was conducted in the full time presence of a Geotechnical Engineer from Coffey’s Kunda Park
office, who logged the materials encountered. Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of the DCP
tests and boreholes. Engineering logs are presented in Appendix B together with explanation sheets
defining the terms and symbols used in their preparation. DCP test results are attached in Appendix
C.
Each borehole was reinstated upon completion by backfilling using soil cuttings up to the ground
surface level.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 1
12 August 2015
Page 7
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment 1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads 4. Surface Conditions The site is located at the junction of Natasha Avenue and Banksia Avenue in Noosa Heads. It is bound by Natasha Ave in the south, Banksia Ave in the west, the Noosa River to the north and an adjacent vacant allotment to the east. The site has two distinct topographical zones. The southern part of the site adjacent to Natasha Avenue is at the top of the dune at an elevation of about 27 metres and is relatively flat with a gradient to the southwest between 5 and 8 degrees. This area has been recently cleared and is largely devoid of grass and trees with only a fringe of grasses and small trees along the Natasha Avenue frontage. The northern part of the site is on the escarpment and falls steeply to the Noosa River in the north. The gradient as measured in the field varies between 35 and 38 degrees. Narrow terraces formed from timber sleepers supported by steel star pickets have been constructed to provide access down the escarpment to the river. The escarpment is vegetated by medium to small trees and a ground cover of shrubs, grasses, weeds and forest debris is present. 5. Subsurface Conditions 5.1. Geology The site is located on a Pleistocene aged dune. According to the 1:100 000 Geological Series mapping, sheet 9444 and part 9545, prepared by the Department of Mines and Energy Queensland, the dune formation is mapped as Pleistocene Dune (mapping unit Qpd 2) and is made up of quartz sands. This is consistent with Coffey site observations. 5.2. Subsurface Profile The subsurface profile has been inferred from the geological mapping of the site, Coffey’s site observations and borehole and DCP testing undertaken on the site by Coffey. The profile consists of deep quartz sands to depths in excess of 6 metres. On the flatter area at the top of the dune, the sands are loose to depths up top 0.5 metres grading to medium dense, dense and very dense with depth. Dense sands were present at depths greater than 2 metres. Very dense sands were indicated at depths in excess of 4 metres. On the escarpment of the dune, loose sands were present to depths between 1.5 and 2.0 metres. The sands graded rapidly to very dense with depth. Very dense sands were present at depths greater than 2.5 metres. 5.3. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during investigations on the site. Due to the permeability of the sands and the high gradients, it is unlikely that high standing groundwater levels will occur on the site. However, saturation of the upper profile of the sands may occur in high intensity rainfall events or due to anthropogenic incidents. Coffey GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 2 12 August 2015
Page 8
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment 1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads 6. Design Considerations 6.1. Shrink Swell Movements The site is underlain by clean quartz sands. These materials are non-reactive and shrink swell movements on the site will be negligible. 6.2. Allowable Bearing Capacity The allowable bearing capacity at the crest of the escarpment in the loose sands to depths up to 0.5 metres has been assessed to be less than 40 kPa. Founding of structures in these upper loose sands is not recommended. At depths greater than 0.5 metres, medium dense to dense sands are present. An allowable bearing capacity of 100 kPa may be adopted for design in these deeper sands. Higher allowable bearing capacities are available at depth over most of the site. Coffey should be consulted should higher bearing capacities be required. 6.3. Settlements Compressible strata were not encountered on the site. Some minor settlements less than 10 mm can be anticipated under likely structural loads on the site. 6.4. Site Classification Sites for domestic dwelling may be classified for footing design purposes in accordance with Australian standard AS2780-2011. This site has been classified as Class P in accordance with AS2780-2011. This classification is due to low allowable bearing capacity in the upper sand profile and the potential instability of the dune escarpment on the northern side of the proposed housing envelope. 6.5. Founding Conditions and Footing Systems As the footing requirements will be dictated on this site by slope stability considerations, recommended footing systems and founding conditions are provided in Section 7.8 following discussion of the stability risks. 6.6. Cut and Fill Earthworks Soils on the site are clean sands. These soils are suitable for reuse as structural fill providing that they are handled and managed in according with Australian Standard AS3798-2007. A minimum compaction requirement of 70% Density Index is recommended for any structural fill. 6.7. Retaining Walls The following design parameters set out in Table 1 may be adopted for retaining wall design on the site. Retaining structures would be designed by a professional engineer in accordance with the requirements of AS4678-2002: Earth-Retaining Structures and adequately designed for earth pressures, surcharges and elevated ground water conditions. The adopted design should also include drainage and maintenance measures. Coffey GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 3 12 August 2015
Page 9
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
Table 1: Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Friction
Effective Unit Active Passive
Angle, *At Rest
Cohesion Weight Pressure Pressure
Description
(’ 3 Ko
(c’, kPa) ( kN/m ) Ka Kp
degrees)
Controlled Sand Fill 0 33 19 0.3 0.5 3.3
Alluvium Sand - Loose 0 28 18 0.36 0.5 2.8
Alluvium Sand – Medium 0 33 19 0.3 0.5 3.3
Dense
Alluvium Sand – Dense to 0 35 20 0.27 0.5 3.7
Very Dense
* These are modified rather than in-situ Ko values, assuming that at least a small amount of wall
movement (say about 0.1 to 0.3% of the wall height) could occur.
6.8. Piled Footings
Should piled footings be adopted, it is recommended that all piles be designed in accordance with the
requirements of AS2159 – 2009. Using methods described in Woodward and Boitono (1961) and
Zhang and Einstein (1998), the geotechnical parameters recommended for the pile design are shown
in Table 2.
It is likely that bored piles (non-displacement type) will be adopted on the site. The parameters
assume that the pile base is clear of debris. If seepage occurs in the pile base, dewatering should be
conducted prior to pouring concrete.
Vibrations associated with driven piles could cause instability in the dune escarpment. They should
only be adopted in consideration of all risks. Coffey should be consulted for advice on the use of
driven piles if this option is to be considered.
Screw piers may also be suitable providing they are able to meet the load requirements, that they
have the structural capacity and that they can met the design life requirements.
It should be noted that unit stress design values will vary for different pile diameters and founding
depths, and different values may be applied depending on the type of pile adopted, founding depth,
installation method, level of supervision, static load and pull-out testing (depending on the design
philosophy i.e. pile spacing and whether uplift is the critical load). Pile design should be checked for
serviceability, and for lateral loading that may potentially occur.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 4
12 August 2015
Page 10
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
Table 2: Summary of Pile Design Parameters
Non Displacement Piles
Depth to Base of Unit
Material Type Average Ultimate Skin Ultimate End Bearing at
(metres)
Friction fs Strata Base fb
(kPa) (kPa)
Not Not
Fill Materials NA
Recommended Recommended
Not Not
Loose Sand 0.5
Recommended Recommended
Medium Dense
2.0 25 1500
Sands
Dense to Very >4.0 (top of dune) 5000
40
Dense Sands >2.5 (dune escarpment) 4000
In order to assess pile capacity, a geotechnical strength reduction factor (Фg) should be applied to the
ultimate unit stresses in Table 2 in accordance with Table 4.3.2 of AS2159 – 2009. This code
requires the designer to evaluate the risk rating for nine factors which are listed in the table, and
calculate an average risk rating (ARR). This ARR is used to determine the basic geotechnical
strength reduction factor Фgb. This Фgb value is used for the geotechnical strength reduction factor
Фg, if no load testing is to be carried out on the piles. Where load testing will be carried out, AS2159
– 2009 allows the Фg to be increased.
Information on the project specifics, which would allow all nine risk factors to be evaluated, is currently
not available to Coffey. Consequently, this risk evaluation must be undertaken by the designer when
these details are known. That said, three of the risk factors relate to the site investigation, and
guidance on the risk ratings for these is provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Some Suggested Risk Ratings for ARR Calculation
Risk Factor1 Risk Rating
Geological complexity of the site 3
Extent of ground investigation 3
Amount and quality of geotechnical data 3
Note: 1 – Refer to Table 4.3.2(A) in AS2159-2009 for details on risk factors.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 5
12 August 2015
Page 11
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
7. QUALITATIVE SLOPE STABILITY RISK
ASSESSMENT
7.1. Introduction to Qualitative Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is a process where potential hazards are observed and/or assessed, and a
judgement made as to the likelihood of that event occurring, and an assessment made of what the
consequences of such an event might be. The ‘risk’ assigned (say high, medium or low) is a means
of explaining the combination of likelihood and consequences in a relatively simple form.
7.2. Risk Assessment Methodology
This qualitative risk assessment has been carried out to assess the geological hazards on the site
and attempt to define the likelihood of that hazard becoming an event, and as a consequence the
resultant risk to property. A qualitative assessment ranks risk on a scale as opposed to a quantitative
risk assessment that defines the risk as a numerical probability.
A risk is made up of the product of the likelihood of an event, and the consequences of that event
occurring. We have used a methodology guided by the paper ‘A National Landslide Risk
Management Framework for Australia’; Volume 42 March 2007 published by the Australian
Geomechanics Society in 2007 (AGS 2007).
This document was created in an attempt to standardise the terms and methodologies used for risk
assessment for landslide events in Australia, and also to formalise the procedures in conducting risk
assessments. The guidelines use common terms and methods of assessment, combined with a risk
matrix to define risk. The terms used in this document that reference definitions in AGS 2007 are
written in bold.
For example, the likelihood of a small rock falling may be assessed as ‘likely’ (e.g. the assessment
that a rock will likely fall in the next significant rain event) whilst the consequences of that particular
rock impacting a building may be ‘insignificant’ (e.g. the rock is so small that the building damage
might be insignificant). The resultant risk relating to that particular hazard could then be assessed
using the matrix from Appendix C of AGS 2007 to be ‘low’ to ‘moderate’. A copy of Appendix C from
AGS 2007 is attached in Appendix D.
The risk assessments are based on our assumptions and judgements. The risks assessed using
these methods are generally ranges, and in some cases span two or more categories of risk. The
range of values indicates the uncertainty in the data used to estimate the likelihood and
consequences of events. In some cases, further investigation work may be required to reduce this
uncertainty.
Despite this inclusion, Coffey believes that the stability assessment using the methods set out in AGS
2007 to be the most reliable and representative means of expressing slope stability risks.
7.3. Implications of Risk Assessment
The implications of the risk levels are discussed in AGS 2007, and a table describing commonly
accepted levels of risk is included in Appendix C of that document. Generally where risk is assessed
as greater than Low risk, some form of detailed investigation is required and treatment options are
implemented. Where risk is Low or Very Low, the risk is often accepted. Moderate risk or higher
commonly requires investigation and treatment to reduce the risk to Low or less.
AGS 2007 provides example implications for risk levels low and moderate risk levels as follows:
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 6
12 August 2015
Page 12
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
Very Low Risk: Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
Low Risk: Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce
risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is required.
Moderate Risk: May be tolerated by regulators (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires
investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to low.
Treatment options to reduce to low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.
The decision as to the level of risk to be accepted or tolerated needs to be considered by both the
owner, consent authorities, insurance companies and other parties involved. The decision should be
based on a number of factors, not limited to: the cost of repair of structures, the legal ramifications of
accepting the risk, the effect of the consequences on people, and the future implications of damage to
structures to further development. Also required to be considered, though not covered in this
assessment, is the risk to the lives of people with access to the property. Ultimately the decision to
accept or remediate the risk is taken by the owner of the site. The following section presents a
summary of the slope stability hazards and a slope stability risk assessment for the site.
7.4. Identification of Hazards
The only significant hazard on this site is considered to be the instability of the dune escarpment. This
is the risk assessed in this report.
7.5. Property at Risk
The items at risk in this assessment are considered to be the proposed new residence buildings,
swimming pool, driveways, any proposed retaining walls and services.
We have also assumed that any retaining structures would be designed by a professional engineer in
accordance with the requirements of AS4678-2002: Earth-Retaining Structures and adequately
designed for earth pressures, surcharges and elevated ground water conditions. The adopted design
should also include drainage and maintenance measures.
7.6. Results of Risk Assessment for Dune Escarpment
7.6.1. Instability Mechanism
The slope of the dune escarpment is currently lying at a slope of some 35 to 38 degrees. The surface
sands to a depth of some 2 metres consist of loose sands with an internal angle of friction of about 28
degrees. These surface sands are thus currently unstable and at risk of sliding. It is likely that the
vegetation that is holding the upper sands in place.
The deeper sands on the escarpment are dense to very dense with an internal angle of friction of
some 38 degrees. These deeper sands are marginally stable.
The failure mechanism is thus likely to be a translational slip of the loose sands down the interface
with the denser deeper sands.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 7
12 August 2015
Page 13
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
7.6.2. Risk Factors
Based on the discussion in Section 7.6.1, the dune escarpment is unstable and has the potential to
slip under adverse conditions. The conditions likely to trigger failure are:
Increasing the load on the upper sand profile. This could be long term structural or fill loads
associated with building footings or retained soil. Or short term loads on or close to the batter
associated with construction equipment such as excavators or piling rigs.
Undercutting the toe of the batter, such as by scouring during flood flows in the Noosa River,
could remove the support at the toe of the batter and trigger a longitudinal slide on the face of
the batter.
Removing vegetation from the batter face would reduce the vegetative reinforcement in the
loose sand profile and could trigger a slide.
Erosion of the escarpment by trafficing the slope, the concentration of flows down the batter
or the removal of vegetative groundcover could cause localised steepening of the batter and
trigger a longitudinal landslide.
Saturation of the upper loose sands by intense rainfall events or localised water
concentrations such as swimming pool overflow or failure of the stormwater collection system
would increase the weight of the sands on the batter and reduce their shear resistance thuis
triggering a slip.
7.6.3. Landslip Risk – Current Situation
The landslide risk has been assessed in accordance with AGS 2007. A likelihood of Almost Certain
to Likely has been assessed based on consideration of the above risk factors. The consequences
associated with a landslip assuming a structure constructed on a standard footing system as per
AS2870-2011 are assessed as Major. The risk for development without consideration of the stability
risks are thus Very High as per AGS 2007.
Such a risk rating is unacceptable by almost any criteria.
7.7. Slope Stability Mitigation Recommendations
Given the risks assessed for the site, consideration should be given to the results of the risk
assessment when planning the proposed development. With regards to slope stability we
recommend the following mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of landslip and provide footing
systems to reduce damage should a slip occur.
7.7.1. Slip Mitigation Measures
The following risk mitigation measures are recommended:
Vegetation should be established at the toe of the escarpment to reduce the risk of scouring
at the toe.
Clearing of vegetation on the escarpment should be minimised and should only be
undertaken after alternative species with a suitable holding root network has been
established.
A suitable groundcover should be established over the escarpment to prevent erosion.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 8
12 August 2015
Page 14
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
Access to the dune escarpment should be limited and restricted to established pathways
suitably protected from erosion.
Short term or long term loads should not be placed on or near the top of the escarpment.
Any retaining structure greater than 0.6 metres in height should be designed and certified by
a professional engineer in accordance with the requirements of AS4678-2002: Earth
Retaining Structures. The engineer designing the retaining wall should treat the retained soils
as saturated.
Earthworks on the site be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of AS3798-2007
“Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments”. In particular, the
subgrade under the fill must be cut into a series of horizontal benches prior to fill placement.
All roof water and concentrated water runoff should be direct into the stormwater system.
Roof water may also be retained by storage tanks (rainwater tanks) however the tank
overflow must be redirected into the stormwater. Coffey recommend that overflow lines have
twice capacity of all inflow lines to ensure the tanks do not overtop and saturate the soils near
the structure or tanks.
Any tanks should be located away from the escarpment.
Control of surface water flows is important for slope stability control. We recommend the use
of well designed and engineered surface water controls that would aim to divert runoff away
from the escarpment, retaining walls and footings. The use of self-flushing spoon drains or
diversion bunds is recommended. All runoff should be diverted to the street or stormwater
system on the site
Any swimming pool overflow should be controlled and diverted to the stormwater system.
All stormwater systems including guttering, down pipes and overflows must be regularly
maintained.
All household waste water must be directed to the sewer system.
We recommend the observation and adherence to Good Hillside Practice as published by the
Australian Geomechanics Society in 2007 along with Australian Geoguides attached in
Appendix E.
7.7.2. Footing Systems
Footing systems should be designed in accordance with the following recommendations.
As far as feasible, any section of the house or pool which is located over the escarpment
should be cantilevered from footings constructed at the top of the escarpment.
A piled footing system is recommended for the structure. Due to the risks associated with
vibrations, a bored pile system is recommended. Screw piers could also be considered.
A minimum embedment of 8 metres is recommended for piles located on the escarpment
slope or within 3 metres of the top of the escarpment.
A minimum embedment of 5 metres is recommended for piles within 8 metres of the top of the
escarpment.
A minimum embedment of 1.5 metres is recommended for piles more than 8 metres from the
top of the escarpment.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 9
12 August 2015
Page 15
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
Footing systems more than 8 metres from the top of the escarpment may be designed as a
stiffened piled raft system.
All floors within 8 metres of the top of the escarpment should be designed as fully suspended
floors.
The tops of all piles must be tied into the raft footing slab to provide lateral restraint to the pile
head.
It is noted that the operation of a piling rig or heavy machinery near the top of the escarpment carries
a significant risk of instability. In the design of any piles over the escarpment, a piling contractor
should be consulted as to the reach from the rig that can be achieved.
7.8. Impact Assessment
The adoption of the mitigation measures and the construction of the proposed dwelling in accordance
with the recommendations of this report has been assessed in accordance with the method set out in
AGS 2007. The likelihood of failure within a 100 year design life has been assessed to be Unlikely.
The consequences have been assessed to be Minor. A Low to Very Low risk due to landslip is thus
assessed if the recommendations of this report are adopted.
Your client may deem this risk level as acceptable however all opportunities to reduce risk should be
undertaken if reasonable and practicable. On the basis of the Low to Very Low risk of landslide at
this site, the proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the adjacent lots, provided
the recommendations outlined in this report are adopted. No specific design requirements are
necessary for the access to the site or for service connections to the structures.
8. Limitations
The assessment presented in this report is based on a limited number of investigation locations and
observations. Engineering judgement has been made to assess potential conditions between
investigation sites, but variability should be expected in the nature and depth of the soil units within
natural geological environments. Should significant variations be noted during construction works on
the site, Coffey should be contacted to reassess the site recommendations.
This report presents a risk assessment of slope stability for the specific proposed development of the
site. This information is intended to be used for design of the nominated structure formulating the
development and is not appropriate for all design conditions that may be constructed. Geotechnical
assessment by a competent and experienced geotechnical practitioner will be required to confirm that
the actual conditions encountered during construction are within the design assumptions.
Consideration should be given to these factors when following recommendations in this report.
We draw your attention to the fact sheet entitled “Important information about your Coffey Report”
attached to this document. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this report, please contact Ron
McMahon at Coffey’s Kunda Park office.
References
AGS 2007 Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) “A National Landslide Risk Management
Framework for Australia”; Volume 42 March 2007.
Coffey
GEOTKPAR02068AA/A 10
12 August 2015
Page 16
Important information about your Coffey Report
As a client of Coffey you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more
construction problems than any other factor. These notes have been prepared by Coffey to
help you interpret and understand the limitations of your report.
Your report is based on project specific Your report will only give preliminary
criteria recommendations
Your report has been developed on the basis of your Your report is based on the assumption that the
unique project specific requirements as understood by site conditions as revealed through selective point
Coffey and applies only to the site investigated. Project sampling are indicative of actual conditions
criteria typically include the general nature of the throughout an area. This assumption cannot be
project; its size and configuration; the location of any substantiated until project implementation has
structures on the site; other site improvements; the commenced and therefore your report
presence of underground utilities; and the additional recommendations can only be regarded as
risk imposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed preliminary. Only Coffey, who prepared the report,
by the client. Your report should not be used if there is fully familiar with the background information
are any changes to the project without first asking needed to assess whether or not the report's
Coffey to assess how factors that changed subsequent recommendations are valid and whether or not
to the date of the report affect the report's changes should be considered as the project
recommendations. Coffey cannot accept responsibility develops. If another party undertakes the
for problems that may occur due to changed factors if implementation of the recommendations of this
they are not consulted. report there is a risk that the report will be
misinterpreted and Coffey cannot be held
Subsurface conditions can change responsible for such misinterpretation.
Subsurface conditions are created by natural
Your report is prepared for specific
processes and the activity of man. For example, water
levels can vary with time, fill may be placed on a site purposes and persons
and pollutants may migrate with time. Because a To avoid misuse of the information contained in
report is based on conditions which existed at the time your report it is recommended that you confer with
of subsurface exploration, decisions should not be Coffey before passing your report on to another
based on a report whose adequacy may have been party who may not be familiar with the
affected by time. Consult Coffey to be advised how background and the purpose of the report. Your
time may have impacted on the project. report should not be applied to any project other
than that originally specified at the time the report
Interpretation of factual data was issued.
Site assessment identifies actual subsurface
conditions only at those points where samples are Interpretation by other design
taken and when they are taken. Data derived from professionals
literature and external data source review, sampling Costly problems can occur when other design
and subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by professionals develop their plans based on
geologists, engineers or scientists to provide an misinterpretations of a report. To help avoid
opinion about overall site conditions, their likely impact misinterpretations, retain Coffey to work with other
on the proposed development and recommended project design professionals who are affected by
actions. Actual conditions may differ from those the report. Have Coffey explain the report
inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter implications to design professionals affected by
how qualified, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock them and then review plans and specifications
and time. The actual interface between materials may produced to see how they incorporate the report
be far more gradual or abrupt than assumed based on findings.
the facts obtained. Nothing can be done to change the
actual site conditions which exist, but steps can be
taken to reduce the impact of unexpected conditions.
For this reason, owners should retain the services of
Coffey through the development stage, to identify
variances, conduct additional tests if required, and
recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.
Page 17
Important information about your Coffey Report
Data should not be separated from the report* Rely on Coffey for additional assistance
The report as a whole presents the findings of the site Coffey is familiar with a variety of techniques and
assessment and the report should not be copied in part approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for
or altered in any way. Logs, figures, drawings, etc. are all parties to a project, from design to construction. It is
customarily included in our reports and are developed common that not all approaches will be necessarily
by scientists, engineers or geologists based on their dealt with in your site assessment report due to
interpretation of field logs (assembled by field concepts proposed at that time. As the project
personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. progresses through design towards construction,
These logs etc. should not under any circumstances speak with Coffey to develop alternative approaches to
be redrawn for inclusion in other documents or problems that may be of genuine benefit both in time
separated from the report in any way. and cost.
Geoenvironmental concerns are not at issue Responsibility
Your report is not likely to relate any findings, Reporting relies on interpretation of factual information
conclusions, or recommendations about the potential based on judgement and opinion and has a level of
for hazardous materials existing at the site unless uncertainty attached to it, which is far less exact than
specifically required to do so by the client. Specialist the design disciplines. This has often resulted in claims
equipment, techniques, and personnel are used to being lodged against consultants, which are
perform a geoenvironmental assessment. unfounded. To help prevent this problem, a number of
Contamination can create major health, safety and clauses have been developed for use in contracts,
environmental risks. If you have no information about reports and other documents. Responsibility clauses
the potential for your site to be contaminated or create do not transfer appropriate liabilities from Coffey to
an environmental hazard, you are advised to contact other parties but are included to identify where Coffey's
Coffey for information relating to geoenvironmental responsibilities begin and end. Their use is intended to
issues. help all parties involved to recognise their individual
responsibilities. Read all documents from Coffey
closely and do not hesitate to ask any questions you
may have.
* For further information on this aspect reference should be
made to "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical
information in Construction Contracts" published by the
Institution of Engineers Australia, National headquarters,
Canberra, 1987.
Page 18
Figures [OCR of page images] Figures
Page 19
BH02/DCP3
DCP2
DCP6
1 Natasha Avenue
BH01/DCP4
DCP1
DCP5
description drawn approved date drawn OP client: Annette Warner Pty Ltd
approved RFM
Slope Stability and Geotechnical Assessment
revision
project:
1 Natasha Avenue, Noosa Heads
date 10/08/2015
scale NTS title: Test Location Plan
original
A3 project no: GEOTKPAR02068AA-A figure no: FIGURE 1
size
Page 20
Appendix A – Proposed Dwelling
Plans
[OCR of page images]
Appendix A — Proposed Dwelling
Plans
Page 21
This page has been left intentionally blank [OCR of page images] This page has been left intentionally blank
Page 22
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
&281&,/68%0,66,21
LOCATION PLAN PROPOSED SITE N 352-(&7$''5(66
TH
1DWDVKD$YH
LOT 1 1RRVD+HDGV4OG
UE NOR
$8675$/,$
RP92804 &/,(17
0U- -3UHVFRWW
32%R[
A AVEN
&ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
1320m2 '(6,*1(5
UP $QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
%XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
DW
UP 32%R[
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
BANKSI
SK
'5$)7,1*
H
32%2;
WM
1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
JOB NO.
NATA ./%
SHA A
VENU
E DRAWING TITLE
6,7(3/$1
N
DRAWING NUMBER
A100
NOTES 6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA 4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
&21&(37'(6,*1
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
7. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSULTANT / ENGINEERS 1
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS DRAWINGS. SITE CONTOURS TO SITE SURVEY DRAWINGS
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
NOTES
1, GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED,
4, ALLLEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
[AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
6, ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
ITIS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
7. TOBE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSULTANT / ENGINEERS
DRAWINGS. SITE CONTOURS TO SITE SURVEY DRAWINGS
NO. | DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT ADDRESS:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
DRAFTING:
on
SS
Prone ry De]
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
SITE PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER
A100
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Dak Rev No
21/05/15 1
Drawn by : Checked by :
AXK / AW
Page 23
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
&281&,/68%0,66,21
LL: 27.58
IL:26.00
By Unitywater
MH
OPEN SPACE LOT 7 SEMI-ATTACHED
RP107007
CONSERVATION 2
HOUSING ZONE
ZONE A100.2
A100.3
27
7
.8
26
66655
1
.6
8
27
.3
28
28
28
Wattle
7
.0 27
4
Palm
Frangipani
.3
1
28
.9
1
0
180°00'00"
27
Exotic 7.3
28
27
2
0
66.385 Creek
AVENUE
7
1585
.1
.7
Palm
28
28
5
.7
9
.6
26
28
0
6
.3
.1
27
27
2
WM
27
.1
27
26
25
24
352-(&7$''5(66
9
.8
23
26
Exotic
22
Fig
1
21
1DWDVKD$YH
6
20
.3
19
26
1RRVD+HDGV4OG
18
A100.2
A100.3
27
17
NATASHA
16
26 $8675$/,$
15
6
14
.1
LOT 1
13
26
93°56'00"
12
22.128
11
22130
8
10
.8
25
9
8
&/,(17
7
6
6
0U- -3UHVFRWW
NOO
4
5
.4
RP92804
Lilly Pilly
26
32%R[
3
&ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
2
1320m2 1500
3
.8
SA
setback
25
'(6,*1(5
$QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
LL: 26.15
%XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
2 SWP 5.4 0
7
3
2 .3
.4
25
RIV
25
32%R[
IO
setback
3
3000
25
.3 1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
3
setback
.7
304
SK
8
1000
BM: Nail in Kerb 255.4
25
.3
25
.
H
53.326 Creek
ER
6
6
.8
0°00'00"
.3
Unitywater
25
Frangipani
IL: 24.01 25
6
Palm
.0
53325 '5$)7,1*
26
RL: 25.45
42 6
25 5. 5
LL: 25.43 By
7
0
9
2
.7
.3
.2
26
.
25
26
26
.6 7
25 5.7
.9 8
2
.8 8
25 26.0
25 5.9
2
3
26
5
.2
4
32%2;
2
MH
26
7
.3
1226$+($'64/'
26
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
BANKSIA AVENUE JOB NO.
2
./%
DRAWING TITLE
352326('6,7(3/$1
A100 - Site Plan
1 1 : 250
DRAWING NUMBER
A100.1
N
NOTES 6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA 4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
&21&(37'(6,*1
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
7. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSULTANT / ENGINEERS 1
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS DRAWINGS. SITE CONTOURS TO SITE SURVEY DRAWINGS
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
|) A100 - Site Plan
OPEN SPACE
CONSERVATION
ZONE
YY
—v,
SEMI-ATTACHED
HOUSING ZONE
&
e
Lily Pilys 93
setback
/
/
/ |
—
“ee
BANKSIA AVENUE
NOTES
GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
(OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
(ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
‘TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
1
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED.
4, ALLLEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES:
5, BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
ITIS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
7. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSULTANT / ENGINEERS
DRAWINGS. SITE CONTOURS TO SITE SURVEY DRAWINGS
NO. | DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT ADDRES:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER
A100.1
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date: Rev N
21/05/15 1
Drawn by : Checked by :
AXK AW
Page 24
90 30 90 90 90
90 2965 610 760 2920 90 1900 410 4515
2
1995
RETAINING WALL A300
1880 DIMENSION FROM NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
690 CORNER BOUNDARY
90 1200 90
90 1200 90
&281&,/68%0,66,21
TO FACE OF WALL
1220
'3 '3
90
700
-2,1(5< )3 &2857<$5' '3
90
6+(/9,1*
(16
WY
3620
678'<
2800
&+
&+
6RXQGSURRI
ZDOOW\SH
/,9,1* 5,
5100
&+
0$67(5.,1*
90
+6&5((1
&+
7500
*$//(5<
90
1580
(1
.%
'5<,1*&2857
+6&5(
90
%%4 ',63/$<
90
4200
$LUORFN
1820
5 32:'(5 352-(&7$''5(66
9( &+ :,5
2 '5: &+
/2**,$ ,'
1DWDVKD$YH
90
92
17100
&+ 1665
6725$*( '3
/& +:6 6%
/2&.$%/( 1RRVD+HDGV4OG
200
1200
S. $8675$/,$
5
+6&5((1
90
5000
9(
2475
.,7&+(1
)2
92,'29(5
20080
PRWRULVHG
2
87,/,7< VWHS
52
UROOHUGRRU
6 &+
&/,(17
/,)7&$502725
90
1600 0U- -3UHVFRWW
:,1(
81'(567$,5 1500 32%R[
*$5$*( SETBACK &ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
&+
90
CONC.
800
1400 3$175< )5,'*( '(6,*1(5
1400 $QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
7800
7500
*$//(5< 1 %XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
',63/$<
A300 32%R[
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
2625
(175< SK
5000
1750
',1,1* &+ VWHS
&+
27000 '5$)7,1*
'HFN
/2%%<
1500
1000
&+
32%2;
1226$+($'64/'
200
200
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
1200
ZHWHGJH
/,)7 JOB NO.
1800H SCREEN
1810
1890
./%
SETBACK
6:322/
3000
3000
3000
3000
2990
1
DRIVEWAY
A400
6&5((1
DRAWING TITLE
1200
1000
785
JDWH 352326('*5281'
)/2253/$1
2200 90 3000 90 1200 90 1470 90 2930 35 1400 200 7000 200
DRAWING NUMBER
5230 DIMENSION FROM
19995 1295 A101
N
CORNER
BOUNDARY TO
FACE OF WALL 6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
&21&(37'(6,*1 1
4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
IT IS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
90 30 90 90 90
90 2965 1,810, 760 2920 90 1900 410, 4515 L
aa Ba 7 7H T A 7
+
( 8
RETAINING WALL A30! 2 2
G Nv DIMENSION FROM, NO. | DESCRIPTION DATE
690 —f=——_ CORNER BOUNDARY)
a 4+ - TO FACE OF WALL Sk sk ok 1 | councu susmission | 21.05.15
Dy g g
8 - - = g) 68
8 os Se Bk
oo”: JOINERY FP OP
8+
I | Q A
aL) 4 a 5 5
2 | = iF a e
S 4 Sound proof g
“ D | wall type =} °
| p
2 LIVING | ¥ j = =
8 cuz ee _| | hes “
0) Bk — MASTER KING v
|| CH 2850 a 2 g
8 % Se 8
8 ‘ |
KB
ak Lio)
BBQ DISPLAY
e : A
BF g y His 8
2 { | 5 .
ae st PROJECT ADDRESS:
o. { oO DRW
3 B= LOGGIA 7 xP 1665 a 1 Natasha Ave,
= Ta) + C 5 WwW: D STORAGE 7
& | 26 MeiTitites Lc HWS Sec KABLE ° Noosa Heads Qld
| = st
el » € { Q SSS 3 RF AUSTRALIA 4567
3| 5 8 i KITCHEN | an Be
& VOID OVER " . 2
S { motorised 3
| lot | | | ; TILITY er roller door 2
eae “ CLIENT:
8 se _ y LIFT CAR MOTOR -
a ] aieiaiaial 2 UNDER STAIR 1500 Maer
= PO Box 16127
i iy i | | | | | | | j —CARAGE ___—— SETBACK Collins St. West, Vic 8007
° ALLEL perusy
op 1400 | PANTRY | FRIDGE 8 | r
8 DESIGNER:
} dam \ { o s Annette Warner Pty Ltd
DISPLAY | | —e = NE iy a) \ 8 Rg Building Design Consultants
Lt oi i f h f | PO Box 1234
t ite = ; ] Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
° ENTRY gs] | {| I] {I ph: +61 7 5447 4893
é al Tt Eley jae
d ; 27000. | = t DRAFTING:
ig’ | Js
l | H B
i? LOBB 8 wo wo
* ; o ef ef NOOSA MEADS, aLO 4562
tot ed + Sst sx EMAIL: NFORKINGSLANE CO
3 LUFT a JOB NO.
2 Sis G 5
= uh
o 8 8 2) NS 2/2 s 2 KL15B06
3 3 j__ | Heed id DRIVEWAY 3/5 3 3
‘ ic rs
+ a 8 a DRAWING TITLE
g y ix} yp QR g WTA 2
x ae oe os o ZS] Toate) || PROPOSED GROUND
~ OF + oo ak FLOOR PLAN
/
, 22009 3000 9p 1200 99 1470_ 99 2930 35 1400 _ 200 7000 200 / SRAWING NUMBER
5230 DIMENSION FROM Al 01
——— 19995 p12) CORNER Z
BOUNDARY TO
FACE OF WALL —' Scale as shown @ A3
NOTES ——
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS Rev Date : Rev No:
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED, RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE CONCEPT DESIGN 21/05/15
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA 4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS /05/ 1
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED IAD VRIES ON OtE Be PORE BUR one Wome COMMENCES 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED 11S THE RESPOSEILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Drawn by : Checked by :
SOME DESIGN AUTIOBITY TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) y : y
AXK AW
Page 25
90 4220 90 2265 90 1720 90 4955 90
3720 100 5040 90 3655 90 3010 110
90 90
1720 600 1245 3020
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
2
&281&,/68%0,66,21
A300
90
90
800
790
700
DP
90
90
2570
DP
(16
&+
800 (16
1700 &+
%('
930 90
41 1700
1000
52%(
&+
4690
'5:
5180
5100
LINTEL
41
BELOW )DOO
1000
90
%('
&+ :,5
910
90
90 1210
6,77,1*50
&+
90
2790
1600 7(55$&( 352-(&7$''5(66
/2:/(9(/6+(/9,1*
PITCHED /2**,$
&+
ROOF OVER
2
: /1 1DWDVKD$YH
3505
(/ /& +:6
3855
% 1RRVD+HDGV4OG
72
,'
5185
$8675$/,$
5
92
9(
)2
2
52
&/,(17
0U- -3UHVFRWW
90 1145
%$/&21< 2000 600 32%R[
%$148(77(
&+
&ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
)DOO
(16 '(6,*1(5
79
&+ 1 $QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
1695 %XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
6480
A300 32%R[
%(' 1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
1000
&+ /,%5$5< SK
4910
5005
&+
52%(
41
800 *$//(5< '5$)7,1*
1205
1500
)($785(
6&5((1
/2%%<
LINTEL &+ *$//(5<
BELOW 32%2;
90
90
1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
800
4%&&
1200
/,)7
1900
6$6+/(66 JOB NO.
:,1'2:
1200 1 ./%
A400
90
90 1470 30 DRAWING TITLE
90 90
352326('),567
600 1805 )/2253/$1
90 3600 105 2390 90 2620 90 1415 90
DRAWING NUMBER
A102
N
NOTES 6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
&21&(37'(6,*1 1
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED IT IS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
90 4220 90 2265 90 1720 90 4955, 90
. oth = el ee eo - - © ae
3720 100 5040 90 3655 90 3010 110
Ht Ht “Ht Ht
1720 $070 1245, 3020
tee
SAS Se
al “2
78x
g
a
Se
8 8 3 LINTEL,
in b/g 4 BELOW
e
&
8 ae
©
N
+ 8S Be
_ TERRACE
PITCHED
ROOF
g| 8
3 8
8
&
a
~
2
+ Bt
3
g
é
s| 2
8} 8
LINTEL
BELOW
+ BE 8
3 SASHLESS,
2 WINDOW
Se
1470 30
-- - - . . . - = 80mm90 . .
600), 1805
90 3600 ir) 2620 90 1415 90
a Hf mt at At
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5, BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
‘THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED.
4, ALLLEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES.
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
‘TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS.
6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
ITIS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
90
4690
2790
No. | DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT ADDRES:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
DRAFTING:
KINGS
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL:
LANE
JOB NO.
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
PROPOSED FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER
A102
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date: Rev No:
21/05/15 1
Drawn by : Checked by :
AXK AW
Page 26
LINTEL 400
400
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
ROOF 4 ROOF 5 &281&,/68%0,66,21
)DOO
800
800
)DOO
)DOO
800 BOX GUTTER BOX GUTTER
LINTEL
SOLAR HWS ROOF 3
)DOO
)DOO
BBQ BELOW
ROOF 1
800
LINTEL
352-(&7$''5(66
)DOO
1DWDVKD$YH
TERRACE BELOW
1RRVD+HDGV4OG
$8675$/,$
)DOO )DOO
)DOO
&/,(17
0U- -3UHVFRWW
32%R[
&ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
ROOF 2 '(6,*1(5
$QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
)DOO
BOX GUTTER
800
%XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
)DOO 32%R[
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
SK
LINTEL '5$)7,1*
BOX GUTTER BOX GUTTER 32%2;
1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
800
4%&&
)DOO
JOB NO.
800
./%
ENTRY STAIRS
BELOW
1000
DRAWING TITLE
352326('522)
3/$1
Proposed Roof Level DRAWING NUMBER
1 1 : 100 A104
6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED.
&21&(37'(6,*1
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS 1
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED IT IS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
/q>
WD)
LINTEL
400
400,
s 3
g g
8 8
800 BOX GUTTER BOX GUTTER
UNTEL. ——}
SOLAR HWS:
Ag
soso = | ROOF
YN
a5
12° 12°
Fall Fall
AB
ae
UNTEL. |
BOX GUTTER BOX GUTTER
e
3
Proposed Roof Level
1:100
zy
Fall
ENTRY STAIRS
BELOW
cc
ity
yy
5
io
>
iS,
a
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5,
‘THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED.
4, ALLLEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES.
BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS.
‘ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
TIS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR,
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
LINTEL
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NO. ] DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
PROJECT ADDRES:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
DRAFTING:
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
PROPOSED ROOF
PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER
A104
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date: 7 RevNo:
21/05/15 1
Drawn by : Checked by :
AXK AW
Page 27
Area Schedule Gr Flr - Interior
Name Area
&2857<$5' NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
FOYER 13.46 m² Pò &281&,/68%0,66,21
GALLERY 3.02 m²
LOBBY 2.46 m²
DINING 15.68 m² 678'< (168,7(
KITCHEN 27.38 m² Pò Pò
/,9,1*
UTILITY 13.99 m² Pò
LIVING 44.14 m² 0$67(5.,1*
STUDY 11.15 m² Pò
'5<,1*&2857
POWDER RM 5.73 m²
MASTER KING 23.19 m²
Pò
:,5
W.I.R 10.68 m² 32:'(550 Pò
ENSUITE 12.22 m² Pò
183.10 m²
6+$)76
352-(&7$''5(66
/2**,$ .,7&+(1 Pò
Pò Pò 1DWDVKD$YH
87,/,7< 1RRVD+HDGV4OG
Area Schedule Gr Flr - Exterior
Pò $8675$/,$
Name Area
67$,56
&/,(17
Pò 0U- -3UHVFRWW
ENTRY 4.52 m² 32%R[
GARAGE 60.71 m² *$5$*( &ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
LIFT 3.42 m² *$//(5< Pò
Pò '(6,*1(5
LOGGIA 21.61 m² $QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
'(&. ',1,1* )2<(5 %XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
STAIRS 7.72 m² Pò Pò Pò 32%R[
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
DECK 11.23 m² SK
COURTYARD 11.74 m² (175<
/2%%< Pò '5$)7,1*
DRYING COURT 6.96 m²
Pò
SHAFTS 1.38 m²
129.29 m² /,)7
32%2;
Pò 1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
JOB NO.
./%
DRAWING TITLE
$5($3/$1*5281'
)/225
Proposed Ground Floor
1 1 : 100 DRAWING NUMBER
A105
6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
5HY'DWH 5HY1R
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
&21&(37'(6,*1 1
4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED IT IS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
Area Schedule Gr Flr - Interior
Name | Area
COURTYARD
FOYER 13.46 m2 11.74 m2
GALLERY 3.02 m2
LOBBY 2.46 m? |
DINING 15.68 m2 sTuDY ENSUITE
KITCHEN 27.38 m2 LIVING 11.19 my 12.22 mi
UTILITY 13.99 m2 44.14 m2
LIVING 44.14 m2 MASTER KING
STUDY 11.15 m2 23.19 m?
POWDER RM 5.73 m2 z
MASTER KING 23.19 m? WIR Oy
W.LR 10.68 m? owber RM 16.68 nf gs
ENSUITE 12.22 m2 5.73 me rc Zi
183.10 m2 ss z
6 | wep» [SHAFTS
LOGGIA KITCHEN L3d a2
21.61 me 27.382 E
Area Schedule Gr Flr - Exterior E UTILITY,
13.99 m?.
Name Area —_
STAIRS
ENTRY 4.52 me Hl y.72.00
GARAGE 60.71 m2 GARAGE
LIFT 3.42 m2 GALLERY | 60.71 m2
LOGGIA 21.61 m? soem
STAIRS 795 ma DECK DINING FOYER
[ifem | 11.23 m2 15.68 m2 18.46 m?
DECK 11.23 m2
COURTYARD 11.74 m2
DRYING COURT _[6.96 m2
SHAFTS 1.38 m? '
129.29 m? i
(1) Proposed Ground Floor
KE 1:100
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5, BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED.
4, ALLLEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
ITIS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
NO. ] DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
PROJECT ADDRESS:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
DRAFTING:
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
AREA PLAN - GROUND
FLOOR
DRAWING NUMBER
A105
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date: 7 RevNo:
21/05/15 /
Drawn by: / Checked by:
Axk/ AW
Page 28
Area Schedule Level 1 - Interior
Name Area NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
&281&,/68%0,66,21
SITTING ROOM 17.89 m²
LIBRARY 17.75 m²
LOBBY 3.30 m²
BED 2 28.85 m² (16
Pò
ENS. 2 8.33 m²
(16
BED 3 21.11 m² %('
Pò
ENS. 3 6.62 m² Pò
%('
BED 4 22.33 m² Pò
ENS. 4 6.58 m²
BALCONY 5.48 m²
138.22 m²
6,77,1*5220
Pò 7(55$&( 352-(&7$''5(66
Area Schedule Level 1 - Exterior Pò
92,' 1DWDVKD$YH
6+$)76 5,6(56 1RRVD+HDGV4OG
Name Area Pò
Pò $8675$/,$
/2**,$
Pò 67$,56
STAIRS 11.09 m² Pò
LIFT 3.42 m² &/,(17
0U- -3UHVFRWW
LOGGIA 19.44 m² %$/&21< 32%R[
&ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
TERRACE 9.04 m² Pò
VOID 17.05 m² '(6,*1(5
$QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
SHAFTS 1.78 m² (16 %XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
(RISERS) Pò 32%R[
%(' 1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
61.80 m² SK
Pò
'5$)7,1*
/,%5$5<
/2%%< Pò
Pò
32%2;
1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
/,)7 4%&&
Pò JOB NO.
./%
Proposed Level 1
1 1 : 100
DRAWING TITLE
$5($3/$1/(9(/
DRAWING NUMBER
A106
6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS &21&(37'(6,*1 1
4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
IT IS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
Area Schedule Level 1 - Interior
Name | Area
SITTING ROOM |17.89 m2
LIBRARY 17.75 m?
LOBBY 3.30 m?
BED 2 28.85 m?
ENS. 2 8.33 m?
BED 3 21.11 m?
ENS. 3 6.62 m?
BED 4 22.33 m?
ENS. 4 6.58 m?
BALCONY 5.48 m?
138.22 m?
Area Schedule Level 1 - Exterior
HAFTS (RISERS
LOGGIA
19.44 m?
BALCONY
5.48 m?
Name Area
STAIRS 11.09 m?
LIFT 3.42 m?
LOGGIA 19.44 m?
TERRACE 9.04 m?
VOID 17.05 m2
SHAFTS 1.78 m?
(RISERS)
61.80 m?
1
NT
17.75 mm?
»)_Proposed Level 1
)1:400
TERRACE
9.04 m?
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TOE USED, WITHNODIRECT SCALING FROM 5, BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY, THE CONTRACTOR REMANS
Te Bains aioe ReMRONBBET Rr eToES mio ATER SCONFOMNINO TO THE
REPRCPAATE CODES AND STANDARDS
4 ALLLEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARETO RECHECKED AIT SCHEDULES ARE PROWDED TO ASIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY
He SEE vor mi auuseN coNTmACTON
Toconruena cuanTines
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
NO. | DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
PROJECT ADDRESS:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
DRAFTING:
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA Hi
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
AREA PLAN - LEVEL 1
DRAWING NUMBER
A106
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date: J RevNo:
21/05/15 /
Drawn by: Checked by:
AXK / AW
Page 29
2
A300 8M HT From NGL
500
Proposed Roof Level 33000 NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
&281&,/68%0,66,21
SITE BOUNDARY
3000
%(' (16 /,%5$5<
6500
Proposed Level 1 30000
3000
'HFN ',1,1* (175< (175< *$5$*(
Proposed Ground Floor 27000
352-(&7$''5(66
1DWDVKD$YH
1RRVD+HDGV4OG
$8675$/,$
House Section A
1 1 : 100
1
A300
&/,(17
0U- -3UHVFRWW
32%R[
500 485
&ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
Proposed Roof Level 33000
'(6,*1(5
SITE BOUNDARY
SITE BOUNDARY
$QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
%XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
/,%5$5< 6,77,1*50 (16 32%R[
3000
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
SK
6985
Proposed Level 1 30000 '5$)7,1*
3000
32%2;
1226$+($'64/'
(175< 87,/,7< $LUORFN /,9,1* 678'< (0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
JOB NO.
Proposed Ground Floor 27000 ./%
DRAWING TITLE
352326('6(&7,21
House Section B
2 1 : 100 DRAWING NUMBER
A300
6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5. BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS 5HY'DWH 5HY1R
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED. RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS &21&(37'(6,*1 1
4. ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED 6. ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES
IT IS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
Proposed Root Level WW” 33000 _
2
Proposed Level 1 v 30000 _
2
2
Proposed Ground Floor “QM 27000 _
1:100
»)_House Section A __
LIBRARY
GARAGE
Proposed Roof Level SQ 33000 _
SITE BOUNDARY
Proposed Level 1 WW 30000
Proposed Ground Floor W@W 27000 |
LIBRARY
Airlock
1:100
(9 _House Section B
2)
>
&
<
3
2
3
5
a
w
E
@
NOTES
1. GENERALLY THE BUILDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA
2. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED
ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES, ANY QUIERIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED
TO THE DESIGN AUTHORITY.
3. FIGURE DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE USED, WITH NO DIRECT SCALING FROM 5.
‘THE DRAWINGS ALLOWED.
4, ALL LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED
AND VERIFIED ON SITE BEFORE BUILDING WORK COMMENCES.
BUILDING METHODS ARE SUGGESTED ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR REMAINS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS CONFORMING TO THE
APPROPRIATE CODES AND STANDARDS
ALL SCHEDULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH ESTIMATION ONLY.
ITIS THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER / CONTRACTOR
TO CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES
SITE BOUNDARY
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
NO. | DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
PROJECT ADDRES:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
PROPOSED SECTION
DRAWING NUMBER
A300
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date Rev N
21/05/15 / 1
Drawnby: / Checked by:
AXK / AW
Page 30
2190 4380 9245 4185 1500
522)3,7&+
8M HT from NGL
(AT CORNER INTERSECT.)
500
Proposed Roof Level 33000 NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
&281&,/68%0,66,21
SITE BOUNDARY
2200
6985
800
Proposed Level 1 30000
3800
3000
Proposed Ground Floor 27000
352-(&7$''5(66
1DWDVKD$YH
1RRVD+HDGV4OG
$8675$/,$
West Elevation
2 1 : 100
&/,(17
1985 920 5965 5200 7005 1000 0U- -3UHVFRWW
32%R[
522)3,7&+ &ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
'(6,*1(5
$QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
500
Proposed Roof Level 33000 %XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
32%R[
SITE BOUNDARY
SITE BOUNDARY
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
SK
3000
'5$)7,1*
6985
Proposed Level 1 30000
32%2;
1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
3000
LIFT JOB NO.
./%
Proposed Ground Floor 27000
DRAWING TITLE
WET EDGE
POOL
352326('
(/(9$7,216
DRAWING NUMBER
1 North Elevation A310
1 : 100
6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
5HY'DWH 5HY1R
&21&(37'(6,*1 1
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
Proposed Ground Floor.
oy
Proposed Level 1 WW” 30000 _
Proposed Ground Floor SW 27000
1: 100
Proposed Root Level WW” 33000
Proposed Level 1 W@W 30000
3000
2190 4380
NO. ] DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
_West Elevation _
SITE BOUNDARY
27000,
fa»
{ \
\
1: 100
1 ) North Elevatig
L L L 9245 L 4185 , 1500 ff
7t t t
ROOF PITCH
12.0° SS Saat) Slee Saft) Gime Sie pers 8M HT from NGL
.—
ae
| 2
We 5
uy it WH | 4
2
&
T ope
i ] ez
25
a. | aS
l Be
e 8
3
| 8
i
. =
.
a
Bp 1985 920 5965 5200 7005 1000 g
pO y p
7 1 1 7 ROOF PITCH 7 1
e 120° z
SITE BOUNDARY
TR wsserce |
—e-
vg CONCEPT DESIGN
8 | NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT ADDRES:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
‘JOB NO.
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
DRAWING NUMBER
A310
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Date
21/05/15
Rev N
{
Drawn by :
AXK
Checked by :
AW
Page 31
8m HT from NGL
522)3,7&+
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
&281&,/68%0,66,21
500
Proposed Roof Level 33000
SITE BOUNDARY
3000
1000
6985
Proposed Level 1 30000
3000
Proposed Ground Floor 27000
352-(&7$''5(66
1DWDVKD$YH
1RRVD+HDGV4OG
East Elevation $8675$/,$
2 1 : 100
&/,(17
0U- -3UHVFRWW
32%R[
522)3,7&+ &ROOLQV6W:HVW9LF
'(6,*1(5
$QQHWWH:DUQHU3W\/WG
985
%XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ&RQVXOWDQWV
Proposed Roof Level 33000 32%R[
1RRVD+HDGV4OG$XVWUDOLD
SITE BOUNDARY
SITE BOUNDARY
SK
3000
'5$)7,1*
6985
Proposed Level 1 30000
32%2;
1226$+($'64/'
(0$,/ ,1)2#.,1*6/$1(&2
4%&&
JOB NO.
3000
./%
DRAWING TITLE
Proposed Ground Floor 27000
352326('
(/(9$7,216
DRAWING NUMBER
A311
6FDOHDVVKRZQ#$
5HY'DWH 5HY1R
South Elevation
1 1 : 100 &21&(37'(6,*1 1
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'UDZQE\ &KHFNHGE\
$;. $:
[OCR of page images]
Proposed Roof Level WW” 33000 _
Proposed Level 1 WW 30000 _
Proposed Ground Floor WW” 27000 _
1:100
( 2) East Elevation
Ee)
e
Proposed Root Level 33000 __
>e
E
&
3
8
3
3
Ee
5
Proposed Level 1 WW” 30000 __
Proposed Ground Floor WW 27000 __
8m HT from NGL a=
---- 40%
1000
Im
ROOF PITCH
12.0°
ROOF PITCH J
120°
SITE BOUNDARY
| oes L
| 3000
3000
6985
|
Vi
C 1) South Elevation
1100
NO. ] DESCRIPTION DATE
1 | counci susmission | 21.05.15
CONCEPT DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT ADDRESS:
1 Natasha Ave,
Noosa Heads Qld
AUSTRALIA 4567
CLIENT:
Mr. J & J. Prescott
PO Box 16127
Collins St. West, Vic 8007
DESIGNER:
Annette Warner Pty Ltd
Building Design Consultants
PO Box 1234
Noosa Heads Qld 4567 Australia
ph: +61 7 5447 4893
DRAFTING:
%
J §
PO BOX 687,
NOOSA HEADS, QLD 4562
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NO,
KL15B06
DRAWING TITLE
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
DRAWING NUMBER
A311
Scale as shown @ A3
Rev Dak Rev No
21/05/15 1
Drawn by : Checked by :
AXK / AW
Page 32
Appendix B – Engineering Logs and
Explanation Sheets
[OCR of page images]
Appendix B — Engineering Logs and
Explanation Sheets
Page 33
This page has been left intentionally blank [OCR of page images] This page has been left intentionally blank
The text continues on page 34.
Used in these records
geotech report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
geotech report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 2.5 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.