19660 OPW26-0033 - response to info request

Page 2

Response
Kerb ramp has been relocated as requested. Refer revised plans.

Item 3 – Upgrade of Red/Pottery Street Intersection

Council’s Infrastructure Services department have requested that the alignment of the
proposed kerb and channel at the northern tangent point on Red Street align with the existing
kerb and channel fronting 4 Red Street (5RP814922). Additionally, it is unclear how
concentrated flows from the proposed kerb and channel will be released back into the existing
table drain in Red Street.

Information Required

3. Provide amended plans that provides a revised kerb and channel alignment at the
Red/Pottery Street intersection that is a projection of the existing kerb and channel
fronting 4 Red Street (5RP814922). The revised alignment must provide scour
protection from the kerb to the existing table drain.

Response

As per our discussions and emails with Daniel Epps, there is no kerb and channel on the
eastern side of Pottery St/Red St intersection and this has been accepted by Council. The
alignment of the edge of bitumen has been adjusted to align with the existing kerb and channel
in front of 4 Red St.


Item 4 – Gravel Driveway Crossovers

The proposed gravel driveway crossovers to 1 Red Street (1RP71117) and 38 Pottery Street
(1RP148139) do not comply with Council’s standard drawing RS-051 because they are not
sealed.
Advisory Note – Council considers this application is the incorrect application to seek
retrospective approval for any existing unapproved secondary driveway crossovers.

Information Required

4. Provide amended plans that includes sealed driveway crossovers to 1 Red Street
(1RP71117) and 38 Pottery Street (1RP148139) pursuant to Council’s standard drawing
RS-051.

Response

As per our discussions and emails with Daniel Epps, adjustments of the existing driveways to 1
Red St and 38 Pottery St are shown on our drawings but will be crossed out by Council and
noted that they do not form part of this application and that the construction of these accesses
is not within scope of this development.



                                                                                          Page 2 of 9
                                                                       Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 3

Issue 5 – Access to Proposed Lots 1 – 5

Although not a condition of the Higher Order Approval (RAL19/0014), Council’s preference is
that these future lots are provided with a driveway crossover as part of these works. This will
avoid the need for a separate Operational Works application to remove a street tree for each
future lot’s driveway crossover.

Information Required

5. Provide amended plans that details a driveway crossover to proposed Lots 1 – 5.

Response

As per our discussions and emails with Daniel Epps we believe that it is preferable to leave the
location of future driveways to these lots to the future owners so that they can be aligned to suit
their house design. Council has accepted this preference – no amendment to drawings.

Issue 6 – Bioretention Basin

The proposed bioretention basin includes rock armouring of the inlet in lieu of a sediment
forebay. A maintenance access driveway to the maintenance ramp has not been provided.

Information Required

6. Provide amended plans that includes a bioretention basin with a sediment forebay and
the provision for a maintenance driveway.
6.1. The forebay must be accessible for maintenance purposes and be designed in
accordance with Water by Design’s guidelines.
6.2. The maintenance driveway must be concreted and include a lockable bollard to
prevent non-authorised vehicles from entering the maintenance driveway.

Response

A maintenance vehicle access with lockable bollard has been added to the drawings, however
as the catchment area reporting to the bio basin is less than 2ha a sediment forebay is not
required. Refer extract from Water by Design - Bioretention Technical Design Guidelines 2014
below. The area reporting to the bio basin is 1.256Ha, as noted in table 2.4 (section 2.3.2) of
the Stormwater management plan prepared by Aquaintel and approved under the higher order
approval. As such we have retained the rock scour protection at the outlet as shown on the
original plans. Refer revised drawings for details of the access.




                                                                                            Page 3 of 9
                                                                         Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 4

Issue 7 – Drainage Easements

The submitted engineering plans does not detail the inter-allotment drainage easements
pursuant to conditions 12 and 16 of the Higher Order Approval (RAL19/0014) –
notwithstanding the future lot numbers have changed.

Information Required

7. Provide amended plans that details the extent of the inter-allotment drainage easement
pursuant to conditions 12 and 16 of the Higher Order Approval (RAL19/0014).

Response

Inter-allotment easements are shown on drawings 19660 – C200 & C201. Additional notes and
dimensions have been added as requested.



Issue 8 & 9 – Stormwater Management

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with conditions 37 and
38 of the Higher Order Approval (RAL19/0014).
Additionally, proposed structures “6/A”, “7/A” and “8/A” are surcharge pits – which contradicts
condition 37(c) of the Higher Order Approval.

Information Required

8. Provide a Stormwater Management Plan that satisfies the requirements of conditions 37
and 38 of the Higher Order Approval (RAL19/0014). The SWMP must be prepared by a
suitably qualified person (RPEQ).
9. Provide amended plans that includes gravity stormwater drainage structures in lieu of
surcharging pits.




                                                                                          Page 4 of 9
                                                                       Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 5

Response

As per our discussions and emails with Daniel Epps, we consider that the stormwater design
provided does comply with conditions 37 & 38 of the higher order approval. In addition, we have
checked Council's PSP for Stormwater design standards that apply and it refers to QUDM
(extract below - item 1 (a) (i)). QUDM requires urban drainage in low density areas to be
designed to convey Q2 (AEP 39%) - extract attached (table 7.3.1).

PLANNING SCHEME EXTRACT




QUDM EXTRACT




As such, the HGL shown on our long section drawings for a Q2 event is the correct design
event and confirms that the pits downstream of pit 6/A will not surcharge. We have removed
reference to surcharge pits on the long section which was a drafting error.
                                                                                        Page 5 of 9
                                                                     Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 6

Issue 10 – External Works

Condition 6 of the Higher Order Approval (RAL19/0014) seeks that the development provide
kerb and channel and a footpath for the full length of the site’s frontage to Pottery Street.
The engineering plans does not include a footpath and kerb and channel for the full length of
the site’s frontage to Pottery Street.

Information Required

10. Provide amended plans that includes a 1.5m wide footpath and kerb and channel for the
full length of the site’s frontage to Pottery Street. The southern leg of future kerb and
channel must be generally consistent with the existing road alignment.
Note: Council recognise that an opportunity may exist to remove “5/A” and redesign
“6/A” as a kerb inlet pit to capture flows for the requested kerb and channel.

Response

Kerb and channel and footpath have been extended for the full length of the development
frontage on Pottery Street. Refer revised drawings.



Issue 11 – fencing to protected land

The application cover letter states:
“We believe that condition 25f(ii) of RAL19/0014 contradicts the requirements in condition 31
and have adopted the requirements of condition 25f(ii) by not showing a fence along the
eastern side of the covenant area…”

Council does not accept this position. Construction of a fence along the eastern boundary of
the covenant area is considered essential to ensure the long-term protection and effective
management of the covenant. This fencing provides a clear physical barrier to safeguard the
environmental values within the covenant area and assists the owners of Lot 8 in managing
their land appropriately.

Conditions 25f(ii) and 31 are not inconsistent and can be satisfied concurrently. Access to the
covenant area can be facilitated through the installation of a gate from the existing easement
within Lot 8, enabling entry for emergency and management purposes while maintaining the
required fencing to protect the area.

Information Required
11. Provide a revised plan (Roadworks and drainage plan, drawing no. 19660-C201, dated
13/02/26) nominating the eastern boundary of the covenant area to be fenced in
accordance with condition 31 of the higher order approval (RAL19/0014), and include a
gate for access to the covenant area via lot 8 to satisfy condition 25(ii) and provide
access for the future ongoing management of the covenant.



                                                                                          Page 6 of 9
                                                                       Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 7

Response

A fence has been provided along the full length of the eastern side of the covenant area and an
access gate provided at the end of the access track. Refer revised drawings.

Issue 12 – vegetation management plan for lots 7-9

The application cover letter states:
“…As the entire property, outside the proposed covenant, will be cleared, we consider that the
VMP required under condition 25f(vi) is unnecessary.
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the entire area outside the
covenant area, within lots 7, 8 and 9 is required to be cleared to achieve the required asset
protection zones.

Information Required

12. Provide a vegetation management plan in accordance to satisfy condition 25 f (vi). This
is to include, but is not limited to:
12.1. a survey plan showing all trees within lots 7, 8 and 9.
12.2. Information to demonstrate clearing is to be to the minimum extent necessary to
establish the asset protection zones for future dwellings giving due consideration
to the bushfire management conditions of the higher order (RAL19/0014).
12.3. Arborist report to identify trees to be retained and any required tree protection
measures during construction.

Response

A tree survey has been completed by Brian Naismith Cadastral & Engineering Surveying
Consultant and accompanies this response. Joshua Lee from North Coast Environmental has
attended to this matter following discussions between the Applicant and Stacey Clohesy (NSC).
Refer attached letter from North Coast Environmental dated 31 May 2026. The outcomes
include a redesign of fire trail allowing some trees to be retained. Civil drawings have been
amended to reflect the changes to the fire trail, which includes a minor change to the
interallotment drainage and sewer alignment in lot 6 & 9. Tree protection drawings (C110 &
C111) have been added to the civil drawing set showing tress to be retained. Trees to be
removed are highlighted on the earthworks plans C100 & C101(refer also item 14). Following
discussions with Council it is proposed that the OPW approval will include a condition requiring
a tree protection plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist submitted to Council prior to pre
start meeting.

Issue 13 – landscaping and covenant rehabilitation plan

The cover letter indicates that the landscaping design and covenant-area works required
under Conditions 29, 30 and 32 will be addressed in a separate Operational Works application.

However, given the extent of vegetation clearing proposed and the importance of ensuring
that appropriate site preparation and soil conditions are established to support successful
street-tree planting, conditions 29 and 32 must be addressed as part of the current Operational
Works approval. Integrating the landscaping and covenant-area requirements at this stage will
ensure coordinated design, avoid conflicts between civil and environmental works, and
support compliance with the approved development conditions.
                                                                                           Page 7 of 9
                                                                        Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 8

Information Required

13. Provide information to satisfy conditions 29 and 32, including, but not limited to:
13.1. Provide a detailed site rehabilitation management plan for the covenant area,
prepared by a suitably qualified person. The plan must outline rehabilitation
methodologies, areas of targeted regeneration planting (where required), weed
management, vegetation protection measures, and monitoring and maintenance
requirements to ensure long-term protection and ecological function of the
covenant area, giving due consideration to the ecological assessment referenced
in condition 29 of the higher order approval (RAL 19/0014).
13.2. A detailed Landscape Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person demonstrating
proposed street-tree planting and landscaping of the bioretention basin in
accordance with the Noosa Plan PSP2 Landscaping. In addition to the
requirements of higher order condition 32 (RAL19/0014) the plan must address:
• proposed species and locations
• appropriate spatial setbacks from sewer and water infrastructure,
• avoidance of conflicts with future driveway locations,
• adequate soil volumes and soil depths to support long-term tree health, and
measures to ensure the sustainable establishment and viability of all
vegetation.

Response

The Covenant Rehabilitation Plan and Landscape Plan are currently being prepared and are
expected to be available within the next few weeks. Note that these plans could not be finalised
until amendments to the civil drawings had been completed. These documents will be
forwarded to Council as soon as they become available.

Issue 14 – vegetation retention within the road reserve

The submitted plans indicate that clearing of existing vegetation within the road verge will be
limited to the minimum necessary to undertake the proposed works. However, insufficient
information has been provided to demonstrate that a thorough assessment has been carried
out to identify vegetation that may be suitable for retention, nor have appropriate measures
been proposed to ensure the protection of such vegetation during construction.
Information Required
14. Provide an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) prepared by an AQF Level 5
qualified arborist in accordance with AS4970 Protection of trees on development sites,
including:
14.1. A site survey identifying all trees within the road reserve, including the calculation
and mapping of Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) and Structural Root Zones (SRZ) for
each tree, spatially referenced to the proposed engineering works.
14.2. Identification of trees with potential for retention, based on tree health, structure,
species, location, and anticipated construction impacts.
14.3. A detailed Tree Protection Plan, outlining all required protection measures for trees
identified for retention during all stages of the development. The plan must include
specifications for protective fencing, signage, soil-protection measures, monitoring
protocols, and any special construction techniques or root-zone management
required to minimise impacts.

                                                                                           Page 8 of 9
                                                                        Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A

Page 9

Response
 As noted in item 12 above a tree survey has been completed by Brian Naismith Cadastral &
Engineering Surveying Consultant and these plans and tables have been included as part of
this response. Trees to be retained and removed have been added to the earthworks plans
including the TPZ’s of trees to be retained. Tree protection plans have been added to the civil
drawing set . As noted above, following discussions with Council it is proposed that the OPW
approval will include a condition requiring a tree protection plan prepared by a suitably qualified
arborist submitted to Council prior to pre start meeting.

We trust the above is satisfactory. Should you have any queries regarding this matter please
contact the undersigned.

Yours faithfully

Doug Reynolds
Doug Reynolds
Principal Civil Engineer
TOD Consulting Pty Ltd

07 5449 9600 | [email protected]
TOD consulting engineers




                                                                                            Page 9 of 9
                                                                         Tod Job Number: 19660-OPW2-A