Council archive · source document
Reference Document - Geotech Report - MCU24 0094 · MCU24/0094
Very large file (11.3 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
33 ROSS CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH
Considering the existing site conditions (Ref. Section 2), and subject to the implementation of
recommendations given below, it is assessed that there would be a Low (L) Risk of global slope instability
affecting the proposed development. Regulators (NC) normally require that a Very Low or Low Risk of
landslide affecting the property must be demonstrated to enable development approval. Summarised in
Table 3 is our qualitative assessment of landslide risk for the development site. A summary of qualitative
terminology for use in assessing risk to property is attached (taken from AGS 2007).
Table 3: Details of Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (AGS 2007)
Assessed
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Comments
Given the low to moderate natural gradients
through the proposed building areas,
retention system proposed and proposed
1: Failure through very loose to protection of the eastern side of site using a
loose natural sands and sand fill shear pile wall, it is considered Unlikely
Unlikely Medium Low
above the foundation depth in that a landslide in these materials would
future building areas affect the proposed development. Given a
potential Medium impact from such
instability the resultant risk would be Low
as per AGS 2007.
The likelihood of a deep failure through the
medium dense (or denser) natural sand below
the proposed foundation depth is assessed as
2: Deep failure through the Rare due to the lack of precedence of such
medium dense (or denser) sands Rare Major Low movements locally, no signs of any existing
below the foundation depth slope instability and a lack of groundwater.
Although the consequence of such a failure
would be Major, the resultant risk is Low as
per AGS 2007.
The likelihood of failure of a temporary
retention system, if required (sheet pile wall, or
similar) as outlined in Section 6.3, is assessed
as Unlikely, subject to detailed design by a
3: Instability of temporary sheet
suitably qualified RPEQ engineer, which
pile retention system (if required),
Unlikely Medium Low accounts for the required factors of safety
or similar, as discussed in
against slope instability, and construction by a
Section 6.3.
specialist contractor. Although the
consequence of such a failure could be
Medium, the resultant risk is Low as per
AGS2007.
While the modelling indicates it is Possible that
an extreme erosion event will occur at the site,
the likelihood of a landslide extending through
the future piled wall system along the eastern
edge of the building or site boundary as
4: Retrogressive failure of the
outlined in Section 6.0 is assessed as Rare,
high foredune face considering a
subject to detailed design by a suitably
hypothetical storm and wave Rare Major Low
qualified RPEQ engineer, construction by a
scenario, impacting the subject
specialist contractor, and considering the
site.
results of our quantitative slope stability
analysis outlined in Section 5.2.1. Although
the consequence of such a failure would be
Major, the resultant risk is Low as per
AGS2007.
The potential impacts on slope stability of the development components have been assessed, and the
measures recommended below in Section 6 have been designed to mitigate those impacts.
18 June 2024
Report No. 24096-001-Rev0 10
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Reference Document - Geotech Report - MCU24 0094Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 11.3 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.