20230926_36-38 Duke St_Information_Request_Response (MCU23-0070)

.




Response
In response to Item 11, TTM waste consultants were engaged to review the revised design and prepare a waste strategy
for the development. As such, TTM have prepared a supplementary waste report to demonstrate how the waste
management requirements for the whole development will be managed (Refer to Attachment D).

Information Required
12. If required, amend the proposal plans to include a waste storage area of a sufficient size to service the whole of the
development.

Response
In consultation with TTM waste consultants the waste bin storage size and location has been reviewed and the proposal
plans amended to reflect this advice (Refer to Attachment A).

ISSUE 13 – STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The submitted documentation does not include sufficient information for Council to assess how stormwater generated by
the development will be controlled, collected, and discharged.
• It is unclear what the proposed structure downstream from the proposed detention tank is and how it will integrate into
the proposed drainage system (indicated by a blue circle).
• It is unclear how the proposed detention tank overflows during events up to, and including, a 1% AEP event (volume,
discharge rate).
• It is unclear how the infiltration outlet of the detention tank will operate. Given the large catchment area of the
detention tank, Council is concerned the soil may become oversaturated and the filtration rate of the soil will reduce which
may adversely affect the overall drainage system and the structural elements of the development.
• It is unclear how the proposed field inlet in catchment D3 will function during a 1% AEP event. Council recognise that this
field inlet serves both the overflow from the detention tank and a small catchment area. Council is concerned that during
events up to, and including, a 1% AEP event this pit may surcharge and direct additional runoff on to the footpath in the
road reserve.
• The discharge rate of the RHS kerb adapter is unclear. Council is unlikely to support a discharge rate higher than 25 l/s
during a 1% AEP event.

Information Required
13. Provide additional detail to address Council’s concerns. The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person (RPEQ).

Note that the detail can be preliminary in nature but must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the stormwater
system is conceptually functional.

Response
In response to Item 13, JFP Urban Consultants have updated the Site Based Stormwater Management Plan which is
included as Attachment F. An engineering response has been prepared by JFP Urban Consultants (Attachment E) which
provides a summary of the issues raised, which are also addressed in the update stormwater management plan.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                  Page 17