RFI -Civil Technical Memorandum

Page 2

site that is a continuation of the kerb line to the north of the subject site and 8m
offset from the kerb and channel on the western side of Elanda Street
b. Continuation of road widening and sealing of existing pavement to the new kerb line; and
c. Construction of a 1.5m pedestrian footpath for the full length of the site’s frontage to Elanda Street.

RECOR RESPONSE:

           a) Kerb and Channel: The proposed development includes kerb and channel
              construction along the full length of the site frontage, in accordance with Noosa
              Council requirements. The extent and specifications of these external works are
              detailed in the operational works drawing set.
           b) Road Pavement: The road pavement will be constructed to the crown on the
              development side, ensuring a smooth transition between the existing and proposed
              pavement levels. The design accounts for appropriate grading and alignment.
           c) Footpath and Utility Relocation: A 1.5m-wide footpath is proposed along the entire
              site frontage, designed to integrate smoothly with existing footpaths at both ends.
              Additionally, an Energex pole within the frontage requires relocation. Coordination
              with the service provider is underway to facilitate this adjustment during the
              construction phase.



Issue – Existing Services in Road Reserve

The development plans do not address how existing services within the Elanda Street Road reserve
will be managed, particularly about the proposed driveway crossover and footpath and noting that
Council and Energex typically require a horizontal clearance of 1.0 metre between assets. The
existing services include, but are not limited to, property poles, water infrastructure and telecoms

Information Required

Provide amended Engineering Plans demonstrating that the proposed works will not cause, or do
not have the reasonable potential to cause, adverse impacts to any existing infrastructure within the
road reserve. The detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ) and detail the
horizontal and vertical clearances from any existing infrastructure within the road reserve.




2

Page 3

RECOR RESPONSE:

Amended Engineering Plans have been prepared by a suitably qualified RPEQ to demonstrate that the
proposed works will not cause, nor have the reasonable potential to cause, adverse impacts on
existing infrastructure within the road reserve, with the exception of Energex assets that require
relocation due to a conflict with the proposed footpath. These plans detail the vertical clearances
from our proposed driveway design. The revised drawings are included in the updated submission for
Council’s review.

Issue – Western Pedestrian Access from Pedestrian Footpath

The proposed western-most pedestrian steps located within Council’s road reserve is not
supported and must be removed from all Development Plans.

Information Required

Provide amended Development Plans (Architectural, Engineering & Landscaping Plans)
that includes the removal of the proposed western-most pedestrian steps as shown
below.

RECOR RESPONSE:

Amended Development Plans (Architectural, Engineering & Landscaping Plans) have been provided,
incorporating the removal of the proposed western-most pedestrian steps within Council’s road
reserve, in accordance with the request. The revised plans are included in the updated submission for
Council’s review.

Issue - Eastern Pedestrian Access from Pedestrian Footpath

Council is highly unlikely to support the proposed “Basement Access” from the existing pedestrian
footpath with the current level of detail provided as part of the application. Council may be willing
to enter negotiations regarding the private “Basement Access” from the existing pedestrian access
subject to additional detail, noting that:
• the proposed development will increase the volume of pedestrian traffic about the existing
staircase from Elanda to Henderson Street;
• the additional infrastructure would create additional maintenance responsibilities for Council;
• the interface between the public pedestrian link and private pedestrian access point




3

Page 4

may create additional pedestrian risk; and
• any infrastructure within Council’s road reserve must be DDA compliant, achieve a
suitable drainage outcome and be designed and certified by a RPEQ.

Information Required

Provide a detailed design of the proposed “Basement Access” from the existing pedestrian footpath
and any “redesigned” pedestrian footpaths/stairs. The detailed design must be prepared by a suitably
qualified person (RPEQ) and include, but not be limited to:
a. the removal of all garden beds and retaining structures for the road reserve; and
b. a detailed design of the pedestrian footpath and staircase for the full length of the site frontage to
the road reserve (as shown below), including sections through the “Basement Access” and southern
elevations.
RECOR RESPONSE:

The detailed design of the proposed “Basement Access” and the redesigned pedestrian
footpaths/stairs has been provided in the Operational Works drawings, reviewed and certified by
RECORs RPEQ. The design incorporates the removal of all garden beds and retaining structures within
the road reserve, as requested. The proposed pedestrian access maintains appropriate grading and is
not expected to result in any increase that could be deemed unacceptable by Council for access to
the stairs. The revised plans are included in the updated submission for Council’s review.

Issue – On Site Detention Volume

SCCE’s Stormwater Management Plan (24083, Rev. 00) dated 8 November 2024 proposes to limit
pre-developed unmitigated peak flows against the mitigated post-development flows during various
storm events through 2.5m3 and 20m3 detention tanks.

Council is concerned that the available detention volume may be undersized as it appears that
SCCE’s Rational Method Summary Calculations – Developed Case Unmitigated has not considered a
20% increase in rainfall intensity (i.e., climate change factor).

Information Required
Provide confirmation that a 20% increase in rainfall intensity has been included as part of the sizing
of the on-site detention tanks as required by Acceptable Outcome 2.4 of the Water Quality and
Drainage Code.




4

Page 5

RECOR RESPONSE:

A 12d Model drainage analysis was conducted for the entire site. The 1% AEP (Q100) and 10% AEP
(Q10) hydraulic grade lines (HGLs) are presented in the stormwater long section plans for reference.

The following flow results were derived from the 12d Model outputs:

          Flow Event                        Discharge (m³/s)             Climate Change Incl. (m³/s)
         Q10 (10% AEP)                           0.022                             0.026
          Q1 (1% AEP)                            0.031                             0.037


The climate change adjusted events are then compared to that of the existing development scenarios
flows:

           Flow Event                    Existing Scenario(m³/s)         Climate Change Incl. (12D)
                                                                                  (m³/s)
         Q10 (10% AEP)                            0.040                            0.026
          Q1 (1% AEP)                             0.062                            0.037


In both the major and minor events it can be seen that there is a significant reduction in the overall
flows from the development. We therefore confirm that Acceptable Outcome 2.4 of the water quality
and drainage code has been achieved.

The model also confirms that there is sufficient capacity in the external pit to take all flows from the
development.

Issue – Subsurface Disposal of Stormwater

SCCE’s Stormwater Management Report (24083, Rev. 00) dated 8 November 2024 and Basement
Stormwater Layout Plan (C0402, Rev. B) dated 22 November 2024 proposes an ‘overflow pipe’ from
the proposed OSD tank in the basement to discharge over a landscaped rubble pit. Section 6.5 of
Tectonic’s Proposed Unit Development report (24265-001-Rev0) dated 30 September 2024 states
that “subsurface disposal of stormwater must not be undertaken”.

Information Required

Provide an amended Stormwater Management Report and Basement Stormwater Layout Plan that
does not direct stormwater to a rubble pit. Alternatively, provide written confirmation from a suitable



5

Page 6

representative of Tectonic stating that the use of a rubble pit for ‘overflow’ is acceptable with respect
to the Proposed Unit Development report (24265-001-Rev0).

RECOR RESPONSE:

The plans have been revised to remove the garden beds and associated “rubble pits”. Additionally,
the detention tanks design, which will be utilized for rainwater harvesting, has been updated to
discharge to the south, connecting to the existing infrastructure as shown in the submitted plans.

Furthermore, an additional overflow pipe has been incorporated, which shall be discharged to the
east, daylighting into the proposed batter at the rear of the development. Provisions have also been
made for a swale running the length of the existing retaining wall to ensure effective stormwater
management.

Issue – Temporary and Permanent Retaining Structures


SCCE’s Earthworks Layout Plan (C0202, Rev. B) and associated sections dated 22 November 2024
details excavations adjacent to the site boundary with depths up to 7m. No details of any proposed
temporary or permanent shoring or retaining structures have been documented. Any temporary or
permanent retaining structures must be designed and constructed in accordance with the
recommendations contained in section 6 of Tectonic’s Proposed Unit Development report (24265-
001-Rev0) dated 30 September 2024.

Information Required

Provide details of any proposed retaining structures including temporary and permanent
piling. The detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person

RECOR RESPONSE:

The earthworks design has been updated to incorporate the proposed locations of concrete piles,
which will serve as structural support for the basement. Please note that both the shoring system
(temporary works) and the detailed structural design shall be fully addressed as part of the building
permit applications. These designs shall ensure compliance with all relevant regulatory requirements
and engineering standards. Furthermore, all proposed works shall be confined within the designated
site boundaries to prevent encroachments and ensure alignment with approved development
parameters.



6

Page 7

Issue – Extent of Filling in the Elanda Street Road Reserve

SCCE’s Earthworks Layout Plan (C0202, Rev. B) dated 22 November 2024 does not include sufficient
detail for Council to accurately assess the extent of earthworks in the Elanda Street
road reserve.

Information Required

Provide additional detail demonstrating the extent of proposed earthworks within the road reserve.
The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and include, but not be limited
to:
a. spot levels indicating the fill above natural ground;
b. demonstrate that existing subsurface infrastructure will not be adversely affected;
and
c. ensure the exiting drainage regime is not worsened.



RECOR RESPONSE:

The updated plans include spot levels and contours, clearly demonstrating the extent of proposed
earthworks within the road reserve, including the fill above natural ground. The design has also
accounted for existing subsurface infrastructure, which has been assessed and confirmed as not being
adversely affected. Additionally, the drainage regime will be improved through the construction of
the kerb and channel along the frontage, facilitating the natural overland flow to the west.

Issue – Driveway Crossover and Internal Down Ramp

SCCE’s Engineering Plans does not include sufficient detail about the proposed driveway crossover
and internal down ramp. Any driveway crossover and internal down ramp must meet the
recommendations contained in ITE Consulting’s Traffic Impact Statement (Report No. 001, Rev. 01)
dated 25 November 2024.

Information Required

Provide additional detail about the proposed driveway crossover and internal down ramp. The
additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person, be suitable for construction, meet




7

Page 8

the recommendations contained in ITE Consulting’s Traffic Impact Statement (Report No. 001, Rev.
01) dated 25 November 2024 and include, but not limited to:

a. Dimensions, spot levels and grades of the driveway crossover and down ramp;
b. A longitudinal section extending from the centreline of Elanda Street to the bottom-most section
of the proposed basement demonstrating that the B85 vehicle will not scrap or bottom out while
entering and exiting the site.

RECOR RESPONSE:

The additional details regarding the proposed driveway crossover and internal down ramp have been
completed and are included in the latest Operational Works package, which is attached as part of this
application. The provided documentation has been prepared by a suitably qualified professional. The
design meets the recommendations outlined in ITE Consulting’s Traffic Impact Statement (Report No.
001, Rev. 01, dated 25 November 2024) and includes the following:

    •   Dimensions, spot levels, and grades of the driveway crossover and down ramp.
    •   A longitudinal section extending from the centreline of Elanda Street to the lowest section of
        the proposed basement, demonstrating that a B85 vehicle will not scrape or bottom out while
        entering or exiting the site.

Issue – Carparks 7 – 10

The B85 Vehicle Swept Paths provided by ITE Consulting do not adequately demonstrate that
proposed carparks 7-10 comply with Figure 5.2 of AS2890.01. Council is concerned that operators are
unable to enter and exit their vehicles without their doors colliding with columns, walls or other
adjacent vehicles.



Information Required

Provide additional detail demonstrating that Carparks 7 – 10 comply with Figure 5.2 of AS2890.01.
The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be supported with amended
Swept Paths.




8

Page 9

RECOR RESPONSE:

A swept path analysis for the specified vehicle type has been undertaken to demonstrate compliance
with the required turning movements. The analysis confirms that car parks 7–10 comply with Figure
5.2 of AS2890.01, ensuring adequate clearance for vehicle entry, exit, and door operation without
obstruction from columns, walls, or adjacent vehicles.

The updated swept path diagrams, prepared by a suitably qualified professional, are included as part
of this submission.

Please fee free to contact Eoin Whitmore for any further clarifications:

    ➢ Email- [email protected]
    ➢ Phone- 0451453640.




Eoin Whitmore, Associate Engineer

RPEQ Number: 31423

Date: 14/03/2025




9