PM Submission - Thomas Kearney - MCU18/0015

FW: Attunga Heights Comments based on Reading of Core report.
1 message

Gavin Simpson <[email protected]>                                                               Sat, 15 Dec. 2018 at 14:01
To: Tom Kearney <[email protected]>


 Tom, have a look at this, Rod is Oz's nol Geotech, fact !

 he is obviously very wary of it, I read more into it than his report he is a very
 cautious gentleman and Paul has made similar comment verbally, his report to
 follow shortly.

 Certainly your perceptions were on track.

 I am available anytime Tom.
 Best r's Gavin



 From: Jan and Rod <jeffchatabigoorici.corn>
 Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2018 4:41 PM
 To: 'Gavin Simpson' <[email protected]>
 Cc:        choias7fpyahoo.com
 Subject: FW: Attunga Heights Comments based on Reading of Core report.



   Hi Gavin , My summarised thoughts below.




     1. The report at first glance seems well documented and presented but on reading many statements / comments
        / recommendations are in general form and should be more site specific.
     2. There is an absence of exactly what is proposed . The figure 1 is in plan form only. I consider a series of
        sections and / or definition of cut and fill structures is essential . This is a very challenging construction on a
        marginally stable slope based on my assessment and indeed quoted as ' close to equilibrium'in the Core
        report. The marginal stability is due to the very loose or loose sand overlay.
     3. From figure 1 contours the RL change over length of building near Core BH 8 is about 10 metres which is
        extremely challenging .Other buildings have big differential Ws.
     4. The stability Qualative assessment in report is only for a 5m high retaining wall which appears too low for site
        RL:s or alternatively the cut bench with 5m walls for both cut uphill and fill downhill should be analysed.
     5. Some of the somewhat generalised or motherhood statements as to design / precaution are mutually
        inconsistent.
     6. Often the word CONSIDERED is used whereas a clear recommendation should apply.
     7. The fact the council Landslip Risk map indicates a questionable site gives clear warning as to caution / risks.
     8. The recorded council questions suggests the council is taking a balanced cautious engineering approach.
     9. The site investigation is only by hand operated equipment. A few deeper mechanical boreholes would help
        analysis of options In particular where is rock and of what quality.
    10. The design parameters are on the optimistic side given the limited investigation.
    11. If development were to be OK'd then virtually continuous geotechnical engineering supervision of earthworks,
        retaining walls, piling etc is necessary given risks if errors are made and of course the builder and subbies
        often do not understand or appreciate the risks involved and caution necessary.
    12. My input needs to be considered in context that I have not been to site , I have not seen past reports especially
        that of Golders , I am not engineering wise familiar with the local geotechnical issues but from recollection am