2 David Low Way - Attachment 4 - Specific Engineering Assessments - Cardno 10-8-17

753345 3
9 August 2017

| will now consider the Performance Outcomes in Module 8 in detail.
Performance outcome PO1 states:
PO1 Development does not occur in the erosion prone area unless the development:

1. is one of the following types of development:
a. coastal-dependent development; or
b. temporary, readily relocatable or able to be abandoned; or
c. essential community infrastructure; or
d. redevelopment of an existing permanent building or structure that cannot be relocated
or abandoned; and
2. cannot feasibly be located elsewhere.

The proposed development is not one of the forms of development specified in PO1, and the application
would therefore fail if assessed under the current erosion designation attached to the local area.
However, for the reasons outlined immediately above, it is apparent that the development will not occur
within an erosion prone area, and the requirements for PO1 will be satisfied.

The development is considered to be entirely compliant with the remaining performance outcomes, as
noted following:

PO2 Development other than coastal protection work:

1. avoids impacting on coastal processes; and
2. ensures that the protective function of landforms and vegetation is maintained.

Note: In considering reconfiguring a lot applications, the state may require land in the erosion
prone area to be surrendered to the State for coastal management purposes under the Coastal
Protection and Management Act 1995.

Where the pianning chief executive receives a copy of a land surrender requirement under the
Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, this must be considered in assessing the
application.

PO3 Development is located, designed and constructed to minimise the impacts from coastal
erosion by:

1. locating the development as far landward as practicable; or
2. where it is demonstrated that 1 is not feasible, mitigate or otherwise accommodate the risks
posed by coastal

PO4 Development does not significantly increase the risk or impacts to people and property from
coastal erosion.

PO5 Development other than coastal protection work avoids directly or indirectly increasing the
severity of coastal erosion either on or off the site.

A detailed review of coastal management issues for this site has been undertaken by review of historical
aerial photography, as well as a first principles numerical assessment in accordance with the Coastal
Hazards Technical Guide produced by the Department. A copy of this report is attached.

In respect of available aerial photography, the analysis indicates that this site has suffered no consistent
erosion since at least 1958. The erosion line for each set of aerial photographs lies well to the east of
the property boundary, with the maximum extent of erosion coming no closer than 70 m to the existing
seaward house on the property. The erosion is consistent with a maximum storm bite of 30 to 40 m, with
there being no evidence of long term erosion caused by littoral drift.

CA\Users\trevor.johnson\Documents\castaways.docx