Council archive · source document
Development Application Part 2 of 2 Planning report Geotechnical report and plans MCU11/0168 & OPW11/0257
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
Very large file (12.5 MB): may take a few minutes to open.
THIS IS THE NEXT PART OF A
MULTIPLE PART RECORD
Application number: cv cj «
2 5 JUL 2011
Tewantin
[OCR of page images]
SCRC CORRESPONDENCE
WLM
Place barcode here
B0374658
THIS IS THE NEXT PART OF A
MULTIPLE PART RECORD
Part 5. Of 2.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 63 pages
Page 2
Page 3
^`YI ^,J 1ll 'O 1 l0 ^
d^?vjt^lfl2 ^
fosterdesigns
PTY LTD ARCHITECTS
Development Counter
Z 5 JUL 2011
Tewantin
TAPLEY RESIDENCE, MARCUS DUNES COURT LOT 34 SP 111721
F foster - ,qns
MV LID ARCH!IFC'S
^COW-M^8C 0Ma Illy N`05780
-lac .e.s
^q^ ewr. o 31
6oa 56 , V5.5 ,5
vrp*OBra 0573 Eb^rcorrngs_mmu
Page 4
CODE ASSESMENT APPLICATION LOT 34 SP 111721 Marcus Dunes CTS26506
22 July 2011
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to describe the site, the proposed use and to address the
relevant Design and Town planning issues with respect to a proposal for future
residential dwelling development of the site lot 34 Marcus Dunes Court.
THE SUBJECT SITE
The site is located at Lot 34 Noosa Dunes Estate, and is within the gated Community
described as Lot 34 on SP1 11721, Marcus Dunes CTS 26506. The Estate is noted on
Zone Map 4 a. Approved for Dwelling houses in accordance with as constructed
allotment details ACA 1, TPC 2850. The Estate Body Corporate provided plan
1016/1 K plan for reference regarding building envelope. (refer attached.)
1
The site is currently undeveloped apart from the access road network and
infrastructure that is currently providing for the approved residential community.
00 xo ^.
q.. nom, -rms.. '►}m- 'ws.W- t- nri. dx
I
2
I
Page 5
LOT 34 MARCUS DUNES
The site falls within the Landside Hazard areas nominated on Zone map 4.3, and is also within
the Coastal protection Area on Zone map 4.5. The site is also deemed as a medium Bushfire
hazard area on map 4.4. A schedule of relevant planning data attached in table 1.
The contour levels for the site on the Council cadastral indicate from lowest point RL 12.0 to
highest RL 18.5.
- I
Land Parod Soim aSM 2 Oavld Low
LdPkn 34i8P111721
Land Paloel Ar_ 557
L00 aft hl N CASTAWAYS BEACH
AdtkM 34512 Davld Law Way
CASTAWAYS BEACH
U D4611
The proposed use, a Dwelling house is consistent with the Planning scheme.
ENGINEERS ASSESMENT
A soils report and a slope stability report have been commissioned. Engineer Peter
Rienecker of Reinmac Consulting Engineers has indicated that the proposal is straight
forward and will involve conventional construction technologies. Based on previous
soil profiles within the estate, the proposed excavation will require sheet pile retaining
and can be implemented to minimise disturbance to the site and neighbouring
properties. A soils report and assessment will of course be forwarded in the near
future.
3
Page 6
EXISTING VEGETATION
The site supports a small array of native vegetation, including Banksias and Casuarinas. It is
noted that most of this vegetation falls within the permissible build envelope. Vegetation
outside the building envelope can generally be preserved apart from vegetation in the vicinity
of the proposed drive way. Two small casuarinas are currently located where the drive way is
proposed and it is proposed to replace them with mature pandanus palms either side of the
proposed driveway. Realignment of the existing stone retaining wall will be required to
facilitate the preferred driveway location. A local landscaper has been approached and rocks
I
can be sourced to match the existing wall. A landscape plan is attached.
1
F-j
It is anticipated that existing vegetation outside the building envelope can be retained.
It is noted that the site has been used as through access over the years and there is
really only one tree, a Banksia that falls within this soft scape envelope that will
remain. Never the less the landscape design seeks to reinforce the native vegetation
unique to this area.
4
Page 7
J
DRIVE WAY AND ACCESS.
The estate planning appears to have allocated an alternative location for the drive way that is
proposed in the attached plans submitted for approval.
The location at the southern end of the access road, or easement is less than satisfactory for
a number of reasons including
1. the location is in conflict with a stand of established vegetation, including a street tree
2. the location is in conflict with existing services, a electricity pillar, water meter
3. access will impede the functionality of existing visitor car park, in access road.
4. access will involve a change in grade and levels in the vicinity of the neighbouring
dwelling
5. The existing easement access road width in the current location is narrow, and a
reduction in vehicle movements at this end of the street would be beneficial.
Site photo, above Note Landscaping and services that are in conflict with drive way entry
originally designated. Approval to alter the proposed drive way location was sought and the
proposed change was received favourably by the Body Corporate, refer letter attached, 20th
July 2011. The impact of a change of location would be minimal, and the benefits of the
relocation will outweigh the disadvantages. The proposed drive way location will promote a
greater area for landscaping, result in less excavation and enhance a better landscape
outcome.
5
Page 8
r
The proposed location has a number of advantages, photo above
1. it reduces traffic flow on what is a narrow easement scale access way / road
2. It will do less harm to the existing vegetation, and
1
3. It will not impact on the existing provision of visitor spaces.
4. Landscape infrastructure can be restored to enhance amenity
5. Access from the cul de sac's wider road width will enhance amenity.
SITE SURVEY
A survey of the site has been attached and we have used the survey to demonstrate some of
the key planning envelopes that will impact on the design. The survey plan, attached, includes
contours to AHD and vegetation on the site. Kimmorley Surveying p/I Plan 10070 1b.
THE DWELLING PROPOSED
The dwelling proposed has been designed to address the site and its advantageous
orientation to prevailing climatic conditions. There are generous overhangs, and out
door living areas to the east and north east. The roof pitch and overhangs generally
accord with the Noosa council planning scheme guide lines, overhangs in excess of
600 mm are indicated to approximately 70% of the Dwelling perimeter with lessor
overhangs of 300mm to 400 mm to the remainder.
6
1
Page 9
The House design includes a basement Garage for Cars and a small boat store. Rain
water harvesting tanks are also indicated in the open naturally ventilated under croft
area. The Basement proposed complies with the definition of Basement and has been
designed to eliminate potential to present as a third storey. Garage doors have been
set well back. The basement level is appx 800 mm above street level and gravity
drainage systems will be utilised.
Entry is gained from the north eastern corner of the site and landscaped, stepped
elements will be an integral feature of the entry presentation. Ground floor will contain
Bedrooms, laundry and the manager's use, and will address the external terrace area
opening up onto the swimming pool. The first storey will contain living dining kitchen
and Master bedrooms as well as balcony areas designed to take advantage of
prevailing climatic conditions.
The aspect of the house and roof pitch proposed lends itself to the application of solar
power or water heating systems. The landscaping has been informed by the existing
coastal dune system and the adjacent neighbours, and should compliment and
support the existing ecosystem. The building is under the 8 m Height restriction.
The architecture derives from the sunshine coast region and will embrace passive
energy systems. The house is modern in its composition, and will include robust
materials like stone, and timber, modular cement sheet and other similar materials
consistent with the Body Corporates covenants. The dwelling is articulated to define
and acknowledge the nature and the use of the internal space whilst opening up to the
external where the orientation is favourable.
Refer East and North elevations. The building seeks to insulate from the David Low
Way noise and western aspect and inclement weather from the south, openings are
kept to a minimum west and south.
The Drying court retaining walls angled protrusion into the vegetation set back has
been relocated refer plans attached. It is noted that there are some small incursions
into the landscape zone, however there are also some areas where the building is set
well back from the buffer zones, outside bed 3 and bed 4 for example.
Table 1
7
Page 10
Criteria Planning Scheme PERMISSABLE USE PROPOSED USE
DETATACHED HOUSING 1 DWELLING PER 1 DWELLING PER 3
CTS MARCUS DUNES LOT LOT+ 40 m2
26506 + 40 m2 Managers Managers office
office
BUILDING ENVELOPE e m .e m 3
Building envelope 336 rn2 Building envelope 336 m2
LOT 34, 1016/1 k, and as
Design is generally within this
amended by the as
frame work
constructed site
Maximum Dwelling floor Maximum Dwelling unit Proposed use area, 3
area floor area 350m2 (inc Dwelling and Garage
garage) + 385 m2
Managers office 40 m2
Total use area 390 m2
Landscaped area Set back areas on Generally in accord, 3
SK1016 /1K native species
selected to
compliment existing
ecosystem.
Roof form - 5 degree
minimum pitch
and 600 mm eaves
Proposed residence
would comply
3
3
r
Site Cover 40% of 557 m2 39%
223 m2 is permissible 218 m2 proposed
Boundary setbacks Building envelopes Minor incursions
Generally in accord with the have around the drive way
Building/ yard envelopes been noted on the plan 3
Building Height
• in storeys - 2 storeys max 3
• in metres - 8 metres max 3
. Basement qualifies as 3
underground, ceiling clause
The landscape 221 m2 this also 230 m2 of soft scape 3
component includes driveway including driveway
component intrusion into
envelope
SUMMARY.
1
It is felt that the dwelling design proposal described in the documents supplied by Foster
Designs p/I are sympathetic to the site, its constraints and environment, they are suitably
informed and we trust it will meet with approval. We look forward to discussing the proposal
and are available to discuss all aspects of the design.
Richard Foster
Foster Designs Architects
8
Page 11
LOT yj
^^ Er,L^iOPE A9 is
abd 'I OW
Arle(mr wylmr ld NO M.e(mr A,p ^r _
15' 323 19 727 279
2 663 366 20 635 266
3 669 366 21 509 246
4 653 376 22 636 315
566 271 23 645 34
560 234 657 343
7 606 256 25 645 335
6 797 366 26 544 333
9 793 333 27 655 343
10 737 359 m 557 306
n 744 401 29 566 347
IS 967 392 30 350 324
13 706 407 31 529 321
14 667 321 32 614 444
1S 1154 567 33 717 499
16 661 209 34 572 343
17 759 ^Is 35 643 432
16 I 724 3S5 36 679 352
NOOSA TOWN PUNNING P/.
Total 5216 area ..... 3.749hs
Total Pork area 3740aq to S.M. 14
(10.02 ita ores) T h. Coaoob C4nW
97 Ppnc orb Ave
T[MM'TN
P.0. 5.. 334
IEMANI99 4505
Ph. 074 409920
Fes. 074 400305
`YOYII MLL PJ4P NAPt.A..5oC
Project
PROPOSED GROUP
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FOR PRONOR PTY LTD
[OCR of page images]
BESS SS EERE
s
ee
ee
Toto! Site ores .... 3,749h0
Toto! Pork arec .... 37489q m
(10.0% site ores)
I
— Common Phofeery
Park
aiecias °
fOwn, &
x
rq
+)
a
WOU
iS
Building/yord
envelopes
Naturol yegetotion in lots
to remoin untouched
Public Pork
Common Property
Rood Poverment
Park
(Dedicated to
Crown)
Fox. One 9080s
wa
fi
4
i
i}
i
j
i
PROPOSED GROUP
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FOR PRONOR PTY LTD
1016/1k
1016/k reproduced
Page 12
I
KIMMORLEY
SURVEYING PTY LTD
CONwLTINS wWEYan
1
' inn., tb.... Comm 0.040
l3'? 5144 2402
GS is
T 4^^
1 44*4249
0 - Yln -
MARK TAPLEY
CONTOUR & DETAIL
SURVEY
LOT 34 ON SP11172I
MARCUS DUNE COURT
MARCUS BEACH
Y1W M 1:150
(IU0./
aN. Oa pl1
f11LKS
• 11a
1a1
3AlM .... nl, rocs r.e
1Y 11 tW I•• s
F1
.0:.v
N$1 1Y C441t x401111 OaO.
!ab 1:160 - 1/•[1110 .f. 1• WYr. 0[11___ r^'WKO
Survey plan reproduced
BODY CORPORATE APPROVAL LETTER 20TH JULY 2011 ATTACHED
1
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS TO SCALE BY FOSTER DESIGNS A3 ATTACHED.
SOILS REPORT ATTACHED, Separate document
10
t
Page 13
11 _ c - ^3
L
,'1
►- jig s^ 1 O- I _ I aI
.8
a1
^i ;^=_aaxeae^az^a^=a^
i
9R -64.6 ii4T.4R4:.QOit11
>< P 0
m ^ ^ L
91,
iAuiiii mau IiRii:
11
Page 14
NOOSA DISTRICT
BODY CORPORATE MANAGEM=N'
20" July 2011
Mr MG & Mrs LKTapley
PO Box 2129
NOOSA HEADS QLD 4567
Dear Mr & Mrs Tapley
BODY CORPORATE FOR NOOSA DUNES CTS 26506
Ej,
LOT 34 - BUILDING PLANS
The Committee has approved the building plans for Lot 34, with the exception of the wall
for the drying court on the west side which protrudes into the natural vegetation zone The
Committee requests that you seek an alternative solution to the unnecessary construction
into the natural vegetation zone
Please find attached a copy of the Building Guidelines for your information
Yours sincerely
ew , alter
NOOSA DISTRICT BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT
R VeSOeNOOfAOyrnlLrstMOV.aJ6. Asna^Ci^+'M ai01 O dCc
OtKS
T 07 5473 5622 Suite 9 !i. A.M. ram & sari whslw "coo
F 015473 5711 41 Sunshine Beach Rd PO Box 385 14 SVN.v Mrdmm.r
r/A N-O.me %dr Cowes Amrw
E [email protected] Nooses Junction Q 4567 Nooses Hoods Q 4567 A06070000A7 AWJ 17 92 757 S50
1
12
1
Page 15
YY\ C v I (I Ot
4 62U
GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY REVIEW
AT LOT 34 MARCUS DUNES COURT, MARCUS BEACH
CLIENT: RIENMAC PTY LTD
1 CONSULTING
1 Incorporating:
F1 1 /8 Denna St,
MAROOCHYDORE, Q, 4558
Tel: 5443 6622 / 5443 6988
Fax: 5479 1899
Email: [email protected]
I Scott Brimelow
BEng (Civil), CPEng, MlMust, RPEQ (4942)
..,^-; velo', ► rlent Counter
2 5 JUL 2011
REPORT NO. 15988 `
I
7 July 2011
wanttn
Page 16
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July I I Page 1
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES .............................................................................. II
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Preamble ..........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of investigation ...................................................................................................................1
1.3 Objective ..........................................................................................................................................1
2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 2
2.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Referenced Documentation Specific to Lot 28 ............................................................................2
2.3 Review Procedures ..........................................................................................................................2 1
3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ............................................................................. 3
3.1 Desktop Study ................................................................................................................................. 3 1
3.1.1 The Proposed Development .......................................................................................................3
3.1.2 Use and Limitations of Zoning .................................................................................................3
3.1.3 Regional Geology .......................................................................................................................3
3.1.4 Engineering Characteristics of Geological Units ......................................................................3
3.2 Site Assessment ...............................................................................................................................3
3.2.1 Land Description ........................................................................................................................3
3.2.2 Adjacent Construction ...............................................................................................................3
F1
3.2.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................3
3.2.4 Cross fa ll ....................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2.5 Drainage ......................................................................................................................................4
3.2.6 Soil investigation ........................................................................................................................4
3.2.7 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................................4
3.2.8 Wind Category ............................................................................................................................ 4
3.2.9 Engineering Parameters ............................................................................................................. 4
4.0 LANDSLIDE CHARACTERISATION ......................................................... 5 F1
4.1 Definition of Landslide ..................................................................................................................5
4.2 Causes of Landslides ......................................................................................................................5
4.3 Classification of Landslides ............................................................................................................6
5.0 STABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION ........................................ 7
5.1 Terminology ....................................................................................................................................7
5.2 Visual Observations ........................................................................................................................7
5.3 Subsurface Observations ................................................................................................................7
5.4 Hazard Identification .....................................................................................................................8
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 9
6.1 Good Engineering Practice ............................................................................................................9
6.2 Site Clearing ....................................................................................................................................9
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin®geoconsulting.com.au
Page 17
GeoConsulting, Report 115988, July I 1 Page 11
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
6.3 Earthworks ......................................................................................................................................9
6.3.1 General Earthworks ....................................................................................................................9
6.3.2 Filling outside the Residential Footprint ................................................................................10
6.3.3 Retention ...................................................................................................................................10
t 6.4
6.5
Drainage ........................................................................................................................................10
Access Et Driveways ......................................................................................................................10
6.6 Retaining Walls .............................................................................................................................10
6.7 Foundations ..................................................................................................................................10
6.8 Septic Et Sullage Disposal ............................................................................................................11
6.9 Erosion Control Et Landscaping ..................................................................................................1 1
6.10 Construction Recommendations .................................................................................................1 1
6.11 Surface Movement and classification .........................................................................................1 1
6.12 Plumbing .......................................................................................................................................1 1
6.13 Site Maintenance ..........................................................................................................................1 1
6.14 Consideration to Tree Planting ...................................................................................................1 1
7. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 12
7.1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................12
Li 7.2 Slope Stability Risk .......................................................................................................................12
7.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................13
7.4 Cracking of Footings ....................................................................................................................13
8. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 14
PLATE 1 - SITE PLAN .......................................................................................................................................15
SITE P110TOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX A - Sub-Soil Profiles ......................................................................................................................20
APPENDIX B - Extracts from "Practice Notes Et Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management" .................28
APPENDIX C - "Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner's Guide" ................33
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
I Table 1 Bearing Capacities at DCP1 ..................................................................................................................4
Table 2 Bearing Capacities at DCP2 ..................................................................................................................5
Table 3 Bearing Capacities at DCP4 ..................................................................................................................5
Table 4 Landslide Classification .........................................................................................................................6
Table 5 Risk Assessment Matrix .........................................................................................................................8
Table 6 Final Risk Assessment Matrix .............................................................................................................12
Figure 1 Major types of Landslide Movement ..................................................................................................7
1
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin0geoconsulting.com.au
Page 18
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page 1
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preamble
Under the instructions of Rienmac Pty Ltd, GeoConsulting have undertaken a geotechnical stability review
for Lot 34 Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Dunes.
The State Planning Policy Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and Landslide (SPP 1/03)
refers to a natural landslide hazard management area as: - 5
a) An area identified by a local government in its planning scheme consistent with the conclusions of
a landslide hazard assessment prepared in accordance with this Policy; or
b) Where such a study has not been undertaken, an area identified by a local government in its
planning scheme and including all land of 15% and greater slope and other land known or
suspected by the local government as being geologically unstable, together with other areas that
the local government considers may be adversely affected by a landslide; or
c) Where an area has not been identified by a local government, all land with a slope of 15% or
greater.
1.2 Scope of Investigation
t
The purposes of this investigation where to: -
♦ Identify sub-soil types.
♦ Establish soil parameters.
♦ Comment upon site features likely to affect construction over the proposed residential area.
♦ Comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the allotment in regards to slope instability and in
accordance with the objectives presented in Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Slope and
Geological Stability Policy.
♦ Make recommendations for building construction on the allotment that will maintain or
enhance the relative slope stability. r
1.3 Objective
The specific objective of SPP 1/03 is to ensure that the development maintains the safety of people,
property and hazardous materials manufactured or stored in bulk from the risk of landslide.
Office at: 1/8 Denna 5t, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: [email protected]
1
Page 19
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page 2
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
2.1 Methodology
This assessment comprised of the following stages: -
a) Desktop Study
♦ Review of available relevant planning documentation including layout, topographic plans and
flood data (if applicable).
♦ Review of historical landslide documentation (if available).
♦ Collation of regional soil and geological data.
♦ Review of existing geotechnical reports (if applicable).
b) Site Assessment
♦ Conduct a site walkover and confirm visual and/or anecdotal evidence of landslip hazards.
♦ Advance boreholes (BH) and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests at representative locations
and as appropriate.
♦ Confirm findings of desktop study.
c) Analysis of Data and Stability Risk Assessment
♦ Assignment of a qualitative measure of likelihood; consequence to property; level of risk to life
and property; and risk implications.
♦ Determine recommendations and construction guidelines.
2.2 Referenced Documentation Specific to lot 34
Existing documents referenced in this review include: -
♦ Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC), The Noosa Plan - Eastern Beaches Natural Hazard:
Landslide and Flooding Overlay, (Map OM4.3).
♦ Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland 1999, Gympie, Australia 1:100 000 Geological
Special, Sheet 9445, Part 9545, Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland, Brisbane.
♦ Architectural plans by Foster Designs - #SK-0.03/05/08-P, May 2011.
2.3 Review Procedures
Review procedures were in accordance with the following: -
♦
f ♦
♦
AS 1289
AS 1726
AS 2870
-
-
-
Methods of Testing of Soils for Engineering Purposes
Geotechnical Site Investigations
Residential Slabs and Footings - Construction
♦ AS 3798 - Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development
♦ AS 4055 - Wind Loads for Housing
Office at: 1/8 Venna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin®geoconsulting.com.au
Page 20
GcoConsulting, Report .415988. July I 1 Page 3
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court. Marcus Beach
3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
3.1 Desktop Study
3.1.1 The Proposed Development
It is proposed to construct a two storey residence with basement consisting of a slab-on-ground base with
rock faced external walls. The floors between levels will be suspended concrete.
3.1.2 Use and Limitations of Zoning
Landslide risk zonings at district scale should be considered only the first step and not the final tool in
decision making for landslip-prone areas. It must be thoroughly understood that the zones established do
not include only land of the same stability, as it is impossible at this scale to show all individual unstable or
suspect areas specifically. Instead, the zones depict land where a similar range of stability conditions is
present. As the boundaries between zones are generally approximate and in places gradational, it should
not be implied that they can signify that land on one side is stable and the other unstable. In such
boundary situations, general caution and further study on the ground is the appropriate course of action.
F1
3.1.3 Regional Geology
Geological records (Dept. of Mines and Energy 1999) indicate the site to be upon Quaternary Dunes
(mainly parabolic) that consist of quartz sand. The major dune systems evident today are resultant from
wind action. The dune systems extend westward and historically as sea levels rose the coastline moved
0
westward as sands were initially deposited by wave action. As sea levels declined wind action blew the
sands in a westward direction. Typically a sandy beach in its accreted state consists of a "beach berm", a
well grassed/vegetated "incipient dune", a high "frontal dune" and "hind dunes". All these topographic and
geomorphic features can be seen in the surrounding areas.
3.1.4 Engineering Characteristics of Geological Units
The behaviour of dune sands is almost wholly frictional with little if any cohesive effect. Particle grading,
U
size, angularity and insitu density all influence the load carrying capacity or sand strengths. Moisture
content is an important factor, especially during construction, as sands dry out any escarpment or flank
will tend to fail by slumping back to the "angle of repose", which approximates 1:5 (V:H) or 20% or 11.5°.
3.2 Site Assessment
3.2.1 Land Description
The parcel of land is approximately 560m' in area, with a generalised building area located to the centre of
the allotment.
e
3.2.2 Adjacent Construction
Two and three storey rendered blockwork residences supported by slab on ground.
3.2.3 Vegetation
1
Sparse grasses and nine small/medium Banksia trees.
LI
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: adminageoconsulting.com.au
Page 21
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page 4
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
3.2.4 Crossfall
The general crossfall is approximately 1:10 [V:H) with a relative fall of 2.5 metres over the defined building
area. The direction of fall is to the northeast or road frontage. Contours are waning adjacent the road
frontage. The allotment frontage is represented by a 0.9/1.4 metre high rendered cobble retaining wall.
3.2.5 Drainage
Drainage over the allotment is very good and to the northeast. The estate has an established drainage
network.
3.2.6 Soil Investigation
To investigate sub-soil details, three boreholes (90mm diameter) were advanced, using a small vehicle
mounted rotary drilling rig. To augment the boreholes and establish soil strengths, six dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) tests were advanced. Detailed borelog information is presented in APPENDIX A, with
test locations shown on PLATE 1.
All boreholes encountered a homogeneous soil profile that consisted of fine dune sands.
3.2.7 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes. Boreholes were extended to 4.5 metres depth.
3.2.8 Wind Category
In accordance with AS 4055, the wind category has been assessed as N3 (TC2.5, Ti, PS).
3.2.9 Engineering Parameters
The calculated bearing capacity with respect to depth at each of the test locations are presented in the
tables below.
Table 1 Bearing Capacities at DCP1
Bearing
Depth
N C" t ' Ni Capacity
(m)
(k Pa)
1.0 3 17.0 1.60 25° 4.8 40
1.5 4 25.5 1.46 33° 5.8 70
2.0 6 34.0 1.36 36° 8.2 90
2.5 10 42.5 1.29 41 ° 12.9 150
t 3.0 14 51.0 1.23 44° 17.2 200
Office at. 1/8 Derma St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin®geoconsulting.com.au
Page 22
GeoConsulting, Report 015988, July 11 Page 5
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
Table 2 Bearing Capacities at DCP2
Bearing
Depth
N ts ' Cn 0 Ni Capacity
(m)
(kPa)
1.0 2 17.0 1.60 25° 3.2 30
1.5 3 25.5 1.46 25° 4.4 35
2.0 6 34.0 1.36 36° 8.2 100
2.5 9 42.5 1.29 40° 11.6 130
3.0 15 51.0 1.23 46° 18.5 225
Table 3 Bearing Capacities at DCP4
Bearing
Depth
N Q'„ Cn 0' Ni Capacity
(m)
(kPa)
1.0 1 17.0 1.60 25° 1.6 20
1.5 3 25.5 1.46 25° 4.4 35
2.0 6 34.0 1.36 36° 8.2 100
2.5 8 42.5 1.29 43° 10.3 120
3.0 15 51.0 1.23 46° 18.5 225
Notes:
♦ N = Standard Penetration Resistance
♦ a', = Shear stress of the soil (Note: y = 17 kN/m3)
♦ Cn = Correction factor
♦ (t' = Shear strength parameter
♦ Ni = Corrected Penetration Resistance
♦ Allowable bearing capacity has been calculated using Ni and a typical footing width of 0.5
metres.
4.0 LANDSLIDE CHARACTERISATION
4.1 Definition of Landslide
The term landslide is defined as the movement of rock, debris or earth down a slope. The phenomena
described as landslides are not limited to either "land" or to "sliding" and usage of the work has
implied a much more extensive meaning than its component parts suggest.
4.2 Causes of Landslides
Landslides occur when the inherent strength of the soil or weathered rock is no longer sufficient to
resist the forces of gravity acting on the materials. Compared with mountainous areas in other parts of
C
the world, the ranges in Southeast Queensland are relatively subdued and mature. In such areas, slopes
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, 0, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin(geoconsulting.com.au
Page 23
1 GeoConsulting, Report 115988, July I1 Page 6
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
reach a balance between the progressive weathering of the rocks and the removal of the weathered
debris by water erosion, landslides then occur only rarely and usually only on the steepest scarps. Such
a balance exists even in geologically sensitive situations such as basalts regions, although it may be
relatively more delicate. Landslides activity has increased in many areas of Southeast Queensland
within the last century because clearing of forests have disrupted the delicate balance in geologically
sensitive situations.
Landslides can be mobilised by both natural causes or by human activity. Natural causes may include:-
* Saturation of slope material from rainfall or seepage
♦ Undercutting of scarps and banks by erosion
♦ Gradual weathering and subsequent decrease in the internal strength properties of materials
♦ Vibrations caused by earthquakes
Human activity may include: -
♦ Slope modification by earthwork activities (cutting and/or filling)
♦ Disruption to natural drainage characteristics
♦ Leaking pipes, pools, dams and tanks
♦ Inappropriate stormwater discharge
♦ Removal of vegetation
In general, high intensity rainfall events combined with some form of human activity is by far the most
common trigger of landslides in Australia.
4.3 Classification of Landslides
Landslide classification is based on the Vames (1978) system which has two terms. The first term
describes the material type and the second term describes the type of movement. Table 4 shows how
the two terms are combined to give the landslide type. Figure 1 gives schematics to illustrate the major
types of landslide movement.
Table 4 Landslide Classification
"Type of Materials
Engineering Soils
Type of movement
Bedrock Predominantly Predominantly
Coarse Fine
Falls Rock Fall Debris Fall Earth Fall
Topples Rock Topple Debris Topped Earth Topple
Rotational
Slid es R oc k Slid e D e b ri s Slid e E art h Slid e
Translational
Rock Flow Debris Flow Earth Flow
Flows
(Deep cree) (Soil Creep) (Soil Creep)
Complex (Combination of two or more principle types of movement)
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899,- Email: admin®geoconsulling.comau
Page 24
GeoConsulting, Report 015988, July I I Page 7
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
Figure 1 Major types of Landslide Movement
Topple. Debt is now
Creep
I
I:dcral sjIr,
(Source: AGS (2007'))
5.0 STABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION
5.1 Terminology
The terminology of the Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (AGS (2007c)) has
been used in the descriptions of hazards and the qualitative assessment of likelihood, consequence and
risk of slope instability. Extracts of the Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (AGS
(2007c)) that details terminology and associated risk matrix tables have been attached as APPENDIX B.
5.2 Visual Observations
With reference to the site features and geology described in the above sections, there were no obvious I
signs of slope instability observed during our site inspection and the base geology of Quaternary Dunes
is not generally considered to be highly prone to instability.
5.3 Subsurface Observations
Inspection of the site indicates consistent subsurface soil profiles that typically reflect this topographic I
region.
1
01rim at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: [email protected]
Page 25
GeoConsulting, Report 115988, July 11 Page 8
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
5.4 Hazard identification
The following hazards were identified on this allotment: -
1. Hillside slope failure - failure of the natural hillside slopes is most likely to result in shallow
slumping of the near surface soils during or following heavy and prolonged rainfall periods or
undercutting of the upslope David Low Way road embankment.
2. Cut and fill batter failure - failure of any cut and fill batters are considered likely where
batters are not supported by retaining walls, during the construction phase and also upon
completion.
3. Rendered cobble wall - there is the potential for the rendered cobble wall across the property
frontage to be overturned by excessive loading by the pool/residential structure.
Qualitative assessment of the potential hazards and stability risk, including qualitative assessment of
likelihood, consequence and risk to the proposed development in its present condition, has been
completed in accordance with the methods suggested in the AGS Guidelines has been summarised in
Table 5 below.
Table 5 Risk Assessment Matrix
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk
1. Hillside slope failure: -
Lower than dwelling Unlikely Minor Low
At dwelling site Unlikely to rare Minor Low
Above dwelling site Possible to unlikely Medium Low
2. tlnsupported batters. -
Cut Likely to possible Minor to medium Low to moderate
Fill Likely Minor to medium Low to moderate
3. Rendered cobble wall Possible Medium Low to moderate
The development should generally include works which result in acceptable risk levels to property after
completion of construction. In some cases, subject to appropriate monitoring and maintenance
programs, a tolerable risk may be accepted.
I The Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (AGS (2007c)) indicate that the regulator
(i.e. Council) is the appropriate authority to set standards for risk levels but also. suggests that, for most
development in existing urban areas, criteria based on Tolerable Risk levels are applicable because of
the trade-off between the risks, the benefit of development and the cost of risk mitigation. Definitions
of acceptable and tolerable risk as included in the Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk
Management (AGS (2007c)) are as follows: -
Tolerable Risk - Risks within a range that society can live with so as to secure certain benefits.
It is a range of risk regarded as non-negligible and needing to be kept under review and
reduced further if practicable.
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q. 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: adrnin('geoconsulting.cvm.au
Page 26
GeoConsulting, Report #15988. July 1 1 Page 9
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court. Marcus Beach
Areas initially of moderate or high risk level to property may be accepted for development subject to
detailed investigation to define hazards, provided that planning and treatment options are implemented
to reduce risks to acceptable levels.
Acceptable Risk - Risks which everyone affected is prepared to accept. Action to further reduce
such risk is usually not required unless reasonably practicable measures are available at low cost
in terms of money, time and effort.
r
Low to moderate risk levels are usually considered acceptable to regulators provided that the
development of the site be carried out in accordance with good engineering practice for hillside
developments and with the subsequent Section 6 of this report. r
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Good Engineering Practice
r
Attached as APPENDIX B, are extracts from Practice Notes £t Guidelines for Landslide Risk
Management, (AGC (2007c)), including: -
♦ "Some Guidelines for Hillside Construction"
♦ "Examples of Good Hillside Practice"
Recommendations and guidelines have been related to this allotment below.
6.2 Site Clearing
Only clear the site where required for construction of the proposed residence, and retain as much of the
natural vegetation as possible. Original dunal vegetation has been removed. It is envisaged the site will
be stripped within the construction envelope. Species should conform to the Foundation Maintenance
and Footing Performance: A Homeowner's Guide, (CS1RO 2003), a copy of which is attached as
APPENDIX C.
6.3 Earthworks
6.3.1 General Earthworks
Some moderate earthworks (approximately 2900mm cut) will be required in order to create a level
basement platform, (RL99.5 as specified on the architectural plans). The following details should be
considered:
♦
♦
Earthworks should be prepared in accordance with the guidelines of AS 3798.
A positive drainage gradient is to be maintained over the building areas.
t
♦ Spoon drains to be installed at the toe of cut embankments
♦ Fill batters should grade at not less than 1:3 (V:H).
♦ Cut batters that are not retained should grade at not less than 1:5 (V:H).
♦ Exposed surfaces should be vegetated to reduce the opportunity for runoff scour
The proposed building area is to be stripped of all organic material.
I
Office at: 1/8 Derma St. Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: adminQyeoconsultiny.cnm.au
e
Page 27
GeoConsulting, Report 115988, July I I Page 10
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
Temporary stabilization of the cut embankment may be required to prevent collapse and to provide
a safe working area in accordance with Workplace Health and Safety. Sheet piling or other
retention devices are to be considered.
Excessive earthworks proposed on this site may require an "Operational Works" permit, which must be
obtained from the Local Authority.
6.3.2 Filling outside the Residential Footprint
Placement of fill should be in a prepared manner, with the original surface proof rolled in a
moist saturated soil condition. Placed fill should also be moist/saturated and machine track rolled. Fill
batters should be protected from runoff scour by vegetation or matting.
6.3.3 Retention
All cut embankments exceeding 1.0 metre in height should be retained and engineer designed. Rigid or
flexible retention methods can be employed. A spoon drain above the cut area should remove overland
flow with suitable drainage media placed between the retention system and exposed soil. Unretained cut
embankments should not grade at less than 1:5 (V:H).
6.4 Drainage
Drainage over the allotment is very good, and is towards the road frontage. Runoff should be directed
away from building construction areas, and disposed of in accordance with the Local Authority's
requirements into the stormwater system. Water is not to pond in or around footings during or after
construction. Further, the proposed floor level is not to be less than 225mm above the finished ground
level, or as required by the relevant Local Authority.
6.5 Access Ft Driveways
Driveways and areas for car turning are also to be provided in accordance with the Local Authority's
requirements. Earthworks undertaken on sites to provide these areas are as important as the
earthworks required to create the building area.
Some cut / filling will probably be required to establish the driveway. The driveway pavement should
be designed for a subgrade CBR of 5-10.
L
6.6 Retaining Walls
All retaining walls over 1.0 metre in height, whether stand-alone or forming part of the proposed
f residence, are to be engineer designed. Drainage should also form part of the wall design, to remove
surface and sub-surface water from behind the wall.
6.7 Foundations
All founding should be to homogeneous soil types, and based on the amount of earthworks proposed for
this allotment, into the medium dense SANDS. Piering of the load bearing foundations may be
required in order to achieve the target stratum. All load bearing elements are to be deepened to bear
into this layer. Pad footings / piers may be required to bear up to 3.0 metres below the existing surface
Office at: I/8 Derma St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: [email protected]
Page 28
GeoConsulting. Report 115988, July 1 1 Page 11
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
levels. Foundations are to be augmented by structural design. This is required to negate differential
movement especially as the basement is to be cut into the flank.
6.8 Septic a Sullage Disposal
All effluent and sullage discharge should be in accordance with the relevant local authority. A sewer
manhole was noted below the retaining wall and to the northeastern allotment corner.
6.9 Erosion Control £t Landscaping
Prior to construction, an erosion and sediment control plan should be established. This document can be
referenced to the publication, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (EA 1996).
6.10 Construction Recommendations
The proposed two-storey residence with basement (consisting of slab-on-ground base, with suspended
floors) is considered suitable for this allotment. However, we would recommend engineering design
consider the preparation of the basement slab/footing as the key structural element.
6.11 Surface Movement and classification
in accordance with AS 2870, the site is classified "P" (soft soils).
6.12 Plumbing
Penetrations of the footing beams shall be avoided, but where necessary shall be sleeved to allow for
r
movement. Closed-cell polyethylene lagging a minimum of 20mm thick shall be used around all
stormwater and sewer pipe penetrations through external footings. Further, connections of stormwater
and waste drains shall include flexible connections.
6.13 Site Maintenance
Long-term stability of the house foundations is the responsibility of the owner/occupier of the
dwelling. Large changes in moisture conditions around the structure's footings (inconsistent watering
patterns), will cause movement, and may lead to damage of the house. Further, trees are to be planted
away from the structure area in order not to adversely affect the foundation performance. You are
advised to read the report, Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner's Guide,
(CS1RO 2003), a copy of which is attached as APPENDIX C.
6.14 Consideration to Tree Planting
1
A zone of drying influence is associated with single trees or groups of trees under consideration. The
site classification and foundation design for this project has been based on the assumption that the
design will NOT be subject to any zone of drying influence produced by trees. AS2870-201 1 Appendix
H (informative) may be referenced as a guide for determining the influence distance of trees. Based on
this appendix, single trees are to be planted a minimum distance of 1.0 times HT (mature height or an
estimate of the height it will attain within the design life of the building) away from the structure. A
group of trees are to be planted a minimum distance of 1.5 times HT9 (0.9 times the design height of
the tallest tree) away from the structure. For a group of four or more trees in a row the trees are to be
planted a minimum distance of 2.0 times HT9 away from the structure.
Office at: 1/8 Derma St, Maroochydore, 0, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622. Fax: 5479 1899. Email: [email protected]
Page 29
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page 12
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Recommendations
Notwithstanding the following conclusions, it is recommended:
♦ Minimise cut/fill earthworks. Sheet piling or other retention devices should be considered to
stabilize the cut embankment during construction.
♦ It is proposed to retain the cut embankment with the retaining wall to be incorporated into
the residential structure. The retaining wall is to be designed by a suitably qualified engineer
and in accordance with the recommendations made herein.
♦ Foundations are to be designed based on the bearing capacity given in Tables 1 - 3 in Section
3.2.9 of this report.
♦ Install and maintain drainage systems to divert water away from the proposed residence
7.2 Slope Stability Risk
It has been concluded that this geological region has a negligible to low risk of slope instability.
Movements are typically in the form of hillside scour and slumping from concentrated runoff and / or
inappropriate earthworks. With maintenance to the surface drainage, founding to depths as discussed and
temporary/final retention of cut/fill areas, then the risk will not preclude building. Construction should be
in accordance with the recommendations made herein, amended and / or reinforced by structural design.
It has been concluded that this geological region has a low risk of slope instability and with the adoption
of our recommendations; this risk can be maintained as "low". Construction should be in accordance with
the recommendations made herein, amended and / or reinforced by structural design.
t A summary of the identified hazards on Lot 34 is presented in Table 6 with risk assessment prior to and
subsequent to the recommendations made herein.
Table 6 Final Risk Assessment Matrix
I Identified Hazard
Existing Risk
Assessment
Risk Assessment
Subsequent to
Recommendations
1. Hillside slope failure:-
Lower than dwelling Low Very Low
At dwelling site Low Very Low
Above dwelling site Low Very Low
2. Unsupported batters: -
Cut Low to moderate Very Low
Fill Low to moderate Very Low
3. Rendered cobble wall Low to moderate Very Low
office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin&geoconsulting.com.au
Page 30
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page 13
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
7.3 Limitations
The site features and conclusion described in this report is representative for the proposed building area at
the time of this review. Any change to the type of construction, the building location, or the shape of
the building may require further investigation and analysis, and could make the recommendations
above and attached invalid.
7.4 Cracking of Footings
if building takes place in accordance with the recommendations made herein, amended and I or reinforced
by structural design and in accordance with the standard Building By-laws, then the risk of soil settlement
causing moderate or severe cracking of footings, as defined by AS2870, is considered to be low.
Office at: 1/8 Derma St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Tax: 5479 1899, Email: [email protected]
Page 31
GeoConsulting, Report 015988, July II Page 14
I Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
8. REFERENCES
Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) 2007, 'Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management
2007' (AGS (2007c)), Journal and News from the Australian Geomechanics Society of Australia, vol. 24,
No. 1, AGS.
Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) 2007, 'The Australian GeoGuides for Slope Management and
Maintenance', Journal and News from the Australian Geomechanics Society of Australia, vol. 24, No. 1,
AGS.
Building Services Authority (BSA), Domestic Rainwater Harvesting in Queensland, viewed 7 July 2011,
http://www.bsa.(ild.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Builders Contractors/Publications/Domestictl20Rainw
ater 20Harvesting 2oina/o200ueensland.pdf.
CS1RO, Walsh PF 2003, Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Ilomeowner's Guide,
sheet No. 10-91, CSIRO, Collingwood.
Department of Local Government and Planning, Queensland 2003, Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of
Flood, Bushfire and Landslide, State Planning Policy 1/03m, Department of Community Safety,
Queensland, Brisbane.
Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland 1999, Gympic, Australia 1:100 000 Geological Special, Sheet
9445, Part 9545, Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland, Brisbane.
I Engineers Australia (EA) 1996, Soil Erosion Et Sediment Control, EA, Canberra.
Master Plumbers and Mechanical Services Association of Australia (MPMSAA) 2008, Rainwater Tank Design
and Installation Handbook, MPMSAA, Canberra.
Schmertmann, JH 1975, American Society of Civil Engineers, 'Proceedings of Conference on In-Situ
Measurement of Soil Properties', North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC), The Noosa Plan - Eastern Beaches Natural Hazard: Landslide and
Flooding Overlay, (Map OM4.3).
I Terzaghi, K Ft Peck, RB 1996, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd edn, John Wiley Et Sons, Inc.
Varnes, D.J. Et The International Association of Engineering Geology Commission on Landslides and other
Mass Movements (1984), 'Landslide Hazard Zonation: A review of principles and practice', Natural Hazards,
Vol 3, Paris.
Office at: 1/8 Derma St, Maroochydom, 0, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin®geoconsuhing.com.au
Page 32
GEO CONSULTING I" T Y LTD
UNIT 1/8 DENNA STREET
MAROOCHYDORE OLD 4558
I I '
-
NORTH.
Sculery
`__
?L cTL i
EFL 005.800
Master
Bedroom 1
SITE 806NPARY 4
O^Yti Toe _ ...7Y_
Page 33
GeoCumulling, Report 115988, July I I Page 17
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
t
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Mamochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: admin®geoconsulting.rom.au
1
Page 34
GeoConsulling, Report #15988, July I I Page 18
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
t
tF-^Ivf
W-0
syr ''^
yr Z,ti .
I
Office at. 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, 0, 4558.
('hone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899. Email: adrninC(geoconsulting.com.au
Page 35
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558. Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 54/9 1899, Email: admin®geoconsulting.com.au
Page 36
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
DCP Values Bore No.: 1
per 100mm
Location: 5m Front Boundary, 5m RH (Northern) Side Boundary
0.1 1 2.1 2
0.2 1 2.2 2 Depth Description Symbol Comments
0.3 1 2.3 3 300 SAND fine sands, light grey brown, trace clay/silt, moist, loose. SP
0.4 1 2.4 3 4500 SAND fine sands, white, moist, loose/medium dense. SP END
0.5 1 2.5 3
0.6 1 2.6 4
0.7 1 2.7 4
0.8 1 2.8 4
0.9 1 2.9 4
1.0 1 3.0 5
1.1 1 3.1
1.2 1 3.2
1.3 1 3.3
1.4 1 3.4
1.5 1 3.5
1.6 2 36
1.7 2 3.7
1.8 2 3.8
1.9 2 3.9
2.0 2 4.0
DCP Values Bore No.: 2
per 100mm
Location: 5m Rear Boundary, 8m LH (Southern) Side Boundary
0.1 1 2.1 2
0.2 0 2.2 2 Depth Description Symbol Comments I
0.3 1 2.3 3 400 SAND fine sands, light grey brown, trace clay/sift, moist, very SP
loose.
0.4 0 2.4 3
0.5 0 2.5 3 4500 SAND fine sands, white, moist, medium dense/very loose. SP END
0.6 1 2.6 3
0.7 0 2.7 5
0.8 1 2.8 5
0.9 1 2.9 5
1.0 1 3.0 5
1.1 0 3.1
1.2 1 3.2
1.3 1 3.3
1.4 1 3.4
1.5 1 3.5
1.6 1 3.6
1.7 2 3.7
s
1.8 2 3.8
1.9 2 3.9
2.0 2 4.0
Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 2 of 8
I
Page 37
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
DCP Values Bore No.: 3
per 100mm
Location: 6.5m Front Boundary, 9m LH (Southern) Side Boundary
Depth Description Symbol Comments
500 SAND fine sands, light grey brown, trace clay/sift, moist, very SP
loose.
4500 SAND fine sands, white, moist, medium dense/very loose. SP END
I DCP Values Bore No.: 4
per 100mm
Location: 2.5m Front Boundary, 8m RH (Northern) Side Boundary
0.1 1 2.1 2
0.2 0 2.2 2
0.3 1 2.3 2
0.4 0 2.4 2
0.5 0 2.5 3
0.6 1 2.6 3
0.7 0 2.7 3
0.8 1 2.8 5
0.9 0 2.9 5
1.0 1 3.0 5
1.1 0 3.1
1.2 1 3.2
1.3 1 3.3
1.4 1 3.4
1.5 1 3.5
1.6 1 3.6
1.7 1 3.7
1.8 1 3.8
1.9 2 3.9
2.0 2 4.0
Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 3 of 8
I
Page 38
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
DCP Values Bore No.: 5
per 100mm
Location: 2.5m Front Boundary, 7m LH (Southern) Side Boundary
0.1 1 2.1 2
0.2 0 2.2 2
0.3 0 2.3 2
0.4 0 2.4 3
0.5 0 2.5 3
0.6 0 2.6 3
0.7 0 2.7 3
0.8 0 2.8 3
0.9 0 2.9 4
1.0 1 3.0 4
1.1 0 3.1
1.2 0 3.2
1.3 1 3.3
1.4 1 3.4
1.5 1 3.5
1.6 1 3.6
1.7 1 3.7
1.8 1 3.8
1.9 1 3.9
2.0 1 4.0
DCP Values Bore No.: 6
per 100mm
Location: 4m Rear Boundary, 10m RH (Northern) Side Boundary
0.1 1 2.1 2
0.2 0 2.2 2
0.3 0 2.3 2
0.4 1 2.4 3
0.5 0 2.5 3
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1
1
0
2.6 4
2.7 4
2.8 4
2.9 4
w
1.0 1 3.0 5
1.1 1 3.1
1.2 1 3.2
1.3 1 3.3
1.4 1 3.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1
1
1
2
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
e
1.9 2 3.9
2.0 2 4,0
Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 4 of 8
t
[OCR of page images]
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client: RIENMAC Job No:
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
| DCP Values BoreNo.: 5
per 100mm . ;
a laws Location: 2.5m Front Boundary, 7m LH (Southern) Side Boundary
02 0 122 2
03 0 123 2
04 0 124 3
05 0 125 3
06 0 {26 3
07 0 12.7 3
08 0 128 3
09 04/294
10 113.04
1.1 0 13.1
1.2 0 13.2
13 4 133
14 1 134
15 1 135
16 1 136
1.7 4 |37
18 1 [38
19 1 139
20 1 140
DCP Values Bore No.: 6
per 100mm x
oi 4 lat 2 Location: 4m Rear Boundary, 10m RH (Northern) Side Boundary
02 0 |22 2
03 0 123 2
04 141243
05 0 125 3
06 1 126 4
07 14274
08 1/428 4
09 0 [29 4
1.0 1 13.0 5
44 4 134
42 4 [32
13 4133
14 1 134
1.5 1 13.5
16 1 136
17 4 [3:7
18 2 138
19 2 |3.9
2.0 2 |4.0
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Page 4 of 8
Page 39
Field Investigation Report cont'd
' Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
DCP Values Bore No.: 7
per 100mm
Location: 9.5m Rear Boundary, 13m RH (Northern) Side Boundary
0.1 1 2.1 2
0.2 0 2.2 3
0.3 0 2.3 3
0.4 1 2.4 4
0.5 0 2.5 4
0.6 1 2.6 4
0.7 1 2.7 4
0.8 1 2.8 4
I 0.9 1
1.0
1.1
1
1
2.9 4
3.0 4
3.1
1.2 1 3.2
1.3 1 3.3
1.4 1 3.4
1.5 1 3.5
1.6 2 3.6
1.7 2 3.7
1.8 2 3.8
1.9 2 3.9
2.0 2 4.0
I
I Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 5 of 8
[OCR of page images]
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client:
Site Location:
RIENMAC
Job No:
Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
15988
DCP Values
per 100mm
Bore No. :
0.1
02
0.3
04
0.5
06
0.7
08
0.9
1.0
11
12
13
1.4
15
1.6
42
18
1.9
2.0
YVDNNDN BeBe weneneenst Ono oOo =
2.1
22
2.3
24
25
26
27
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
38
3.9
4.0
> eperrehewwn
Location:
Thursday, 9 June 2011
¥
9.5m Rear Boundary, 13m RH (Northern) Side Boundary
Page 5 of 8
Page 40
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
NOTES ON REPORT DOCUMENT
1
(i) The report was prepared for a specific purpose and as directed by the client.
(ii) It should be acknowledged that soil investigations identify actual sub-surface conditions only at
those points where and when samples are taken. Data derived through sampling and/or
subsequent testing are extrapolated to render an opinion about overall sub-surface conditions.
Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no sub-surface exploration programme, no
matter how comprehensive can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual
interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than our report indicates. Actual
conditions in areas not sampled may differ from our predictions.
(iii) Interpretation of soil/rock strength terms should refer to our "Glossary of Terms".
(iv) The soil depth referenced in our borelog information profile, represents the "end" depth of each
soil type.
1
t
Fli
Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 6 of 8
Page 41
Field Investigation Report cont'd
P-j Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
Unconfined
Description SPT
Compressive Strength • N' value
(kPa)
SOFT 0-35 0-4
FIRM 35 - 90 4-8
STIFF 90 - 225 8-15
VERY STIFF 225 - 500 15 - 30
HARD 500 - 700 30 - 50
WEAK ROCK > 900 > 50
CONSISTENCY OF NON-COHESIVE! GRANULAR SOILS
Description Dry Density SPT
(Um3) "N" value
VERY LOOSE < 1.450 0-4
LOOSE 1.450 - 1.600 4-10
MEDIUM DENSE 1.600 - 1.750 10 - 30
DENSE 1.750 - 1.950 30 - 50
VERY DENSE > 1.950 > 50
CONSISTENCY OF CEMENTED SOILS
Unconfined
Description Compressive Strength
(kPa)
WEAKLY 300 - 1500
MODERATELY 1500 - 3500
STRONGLY > 3500
Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 7 of 8
Page 42
Field Investigation Report cont'd
Client: RIENMAC Job No: 15988
Site Location: Lot 34, Marcus Dunes Court, Marcus Beach Your Ref:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING CLASSIFICATION
Term Symbol Definition
Residual Soil RS Soil developed on extremely weathered rock; the mass
structure and substance fabric are no longer evident;
there is a large change in volume but the soil has not
been significantly transported.
Extremely weathered rock XW Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has 'soil'
properties, i.e. it either disintegrates or can be
remoulded, in water.
Distinctly weathered rock DW Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock
may be highly discoloured, usually be ironstaining.
Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be
decreased due to deposition of weathering products in
pores.
Slightly weathered rock SW Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little or no
change of strength from fresh rock.
Fresh rock FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining
STRENGTH OF ROCK MATERIAL
Term Symbol Point load Field guide to strength
index (MPa)
1,50
Very Low VL >0.03 0.1 Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of
pick; can be peeled with knife; too hard to cut a
triaxial sample by hand. Pieces up to 3cm thick can
be broken by finger pressure.
Low L >01 sO.3 Easily scored with a knife; indentations 1mm to 3mm
show in the specimen with firm blows of the pick point;
has dull sound under hammer. A piece of core
150mm long 50mm diameter may be broken by hand.
Sharp edges of core may be friable and break during
handling.
Medium M >0.3 s 1.0 Readily scored with a knife; a piece of core 150mm
long by 50mm diameter can be broken by hand with
difficulty.
High H >1 s 3 A piece of core 150mm long by 50mm diameter
cannot be broken by hand but can be broken by a pick
with a single firm blow; rock rings under hammer.
Thursday, 9 June 2011 Page 8 of 8
1
Page 43
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page 28
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Reach
APPENDIX B - Extracts from "Practice Notes ft Guidelines
for Landslide Risk Management"
AGC (2007c)
1. TERMINOLOGY £t RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
2. "SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION"
3. "EXAMPLES OF GOOD HILLSIDE PRACTICE"
Office at: 1/8 Denna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: [email protected]
Page 44
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD
Approximate Annual Probability
Imp lied Indicative Landslide
Descri p tion Descri p tor Level
Indicative Notional Recurrence Interval
Value Boundary
10' 10 years The event is expected to occur over the design life. ALMOST CERTAIN A
Z 5 x 10-1 20 years The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the
10' 100 years LIKELY B
design life.
5x10 '3 200 years
10 ' -4
1000 years The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life. POSSIBLE C
5x10 2000 years
a The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the
10 10,000 years UNLIKELY D
design life.
5x10 '5 20 , 000 y ears
10 ' T h e event i s conce i va bl e b ut on l y un d er except i ona l circumstances
100,000 years RARE E
over the design life.
10 * 6 5x1 0 200,000 years
1,000,000 years The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life, BARELY CREDIBLE F
Note: (1) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY
Approximate Cost of Damage
Description Descriptor I Level
Indicative Notional
Value Boundary
Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for
200% CATASTROPHIC 1
stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.
Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant
60% MAJOR 2
stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.
40%
Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.
20% MEDIUM 3
Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.
10%
5% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works. MINOR 4
1%
Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a
0.5% INSIGNIFICANT 5
notional boundaryof0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)
Notes: (2) The Approximate Cost of Damage is expressed as a percentage of market value. being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected property which includes the land plus the
unaffected structures.
(3) The Approximate Cost is to be an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures), stabilisation
works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary
accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to address other landslides which may affect the property.
(4) The table should be used from left to right: use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa
91 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 45
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: - QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)
QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX - LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY
LIKELIHOOD CONSEQU ENCES TO PROP ERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage)
Indicative Value of 1: CATASTROPHIC 2: MAJOR 3: MEDIUM 4: MINOR 5:
Approximate Annual 2000G, 60% 20% 5% INSIGNIFICANT
Probability 0.5%
A - ALMOST CERTAIN 10"1 H M or L (5)
B LIKELY 10.2 H M L
C - POSSIBLE 10"3 H M M VL
D UNLIKELY 10-4 H M L L VL
E - RARE I0"3 M L L VL VL
F - BARELY CREDIBLE l0-6 L VL VL VL VL
Notes: (5) For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1 % is Low Risk.
(6) When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current
time.
RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
Risk Level Example Implications (7)
Unacceptable without treatment Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment
options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the
ism property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce
H HIGH RISK
risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator's approval) but requires investigation, planning and
M MODERATE RISK implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is
L LOW RISK
required.
Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
VL VERY LOW RISK
Note: (7) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only
given as a general guide.
92 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 46
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR 111LLSiI)E CONSTRUCTION
Goon I;:VGLVIiIiRIVG PR.-1CTICF.
I
I
POOR E.VGJ.\ L'L RLVG PRA CTICE
ADVICE
GEOTECHNICAL Obtain advice (tutu a qualified. experienced geotcchnical practitioner at early a:;o plan and start site works trf urc
ASSESSMENT stage of planning and before site works.
PLANNING
SiIE PI:\.NNING Having obtained gootcchnical advice, plan the development with the risk Plan develpinent without regard for the Risk.
arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber Floor plans which require extensive cutting and
or steel frames, timber or panel cladding. filling.
HOUSE DESIGN
Consider use of split levels. Movement intolerant structures.
Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate.
SITE CLEARING Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable. Indiscriminate) clear the site.
ACCESS & Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage. Excavate and fill for site access before
DRIVEWAYS
EARTHWORKS
CUTS
Council specifications for grades may need to be modified.
Driveways and p arking areas may need to be fully supported on piers.
Retain natural contours wherever ossible.
Minimise depth.
Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope.
geotechnical advice.
Indiscriminate bulk earthworks.
Large scale cuts and benching.
Unsupported cuts.
t
Provide drains c measures and erosion control. Ignore drainage requirements
Minimise height. Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it lads.
Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling. may flow a considerable distance including
Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards. onto property below.
Fla-is Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall. Block natural drainage lines
ROCK Ot TCttOPS
Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage.
Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk.
Fill over existing vegetation arc u,pnoi 1
Include stumps, trees. vegetation, topsoil.
boulders, building rubble etc in fill.
Disturb or undercut detached blocks or
1
& BOULDERS Support rock faces where necessary. boulders.
Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces. Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as
Found on rock where practicable. sandstone flagging, brick or umeinforced
RETAINING
Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope blockwork.
WALLS
above. lack of subsurface drains and wcepholes.
Construct wall as soon its possible after cut/fill operation.
Found within rock where practicable. Found on topsoil, loose fill. detached boulders
Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope. or undercut cliffs.
FOOTINGS
Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary.
Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water.
Engineer designed.
Support on piers to rock where practicable.
SWIMMING POOLS Provide with under drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable.
Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there
may be little or no lateral support on downhill side.
DRAINAGE
Provide at tops of cut and full slopes. Discharge at top of tills and cuts.
Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses. Allow water to pond on bench areas.
SURFACE Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps.
Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible.
Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction.
Provide filter around subsurface drain. Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches.
Provide drain behind retaining walls.
SL:RSURFACE
Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance.
Prevent inflow of surface water.
Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes.
SEPTIC &
be possible in some areas if risk is acceptable. Use absorption trenches without consideration
SULLAGE
Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded. of landslide risk.
EROSION Control erosion as this nay lead to instability. Failure to obseive earthworks and drainage
CONTROL & Revegetate cleared area. reconimcndatiuns when landscaping.
LANDSCAPING
DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURINC CONSTRUCTION
DRAWINGS Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant
SITE VISITS i Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWN I -
OWNER'S Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply
RESPONSIBILITY pipes.
Where structural distress is evident see advice.
If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 113
Page 47
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
EXAMPLES OF GOOD HILLSIDE PRACTICE
WW"" rr, pre a
Su'ta _e eater ,n:ercpt,cn dra.naje
l^.'atC t •^nt Jjecuaichr ;iteC -Inc lsst eel
rwl vielr: slug aye tIIkS 1 r::t' !Le -e•_ e•c: u•
rmt. l rf potrnt::r rakaac;
^Iutlble z:r\:C:L"C
ii IC'! oft cCc nr !it:)rr'1
'7n sitla :. d•u•ods U:nF .l;dr•I. jhl .rcl
jccuarrcly lc..ndcd. rblcr: z,l IeakaoC
c)arnsr;cri b, su -.`s drams
VANTI IF Or SOtr A.-do RpCr(
FRA:, 'E.'IT S (C OCL U Vf(W1
Pier fcot:rtgs In:c rock
Suosod drainage na' be
reoulred in slope
- Cuar,g .,•iJ tdlnlg ^nnrrrad is dcaul, rnL•,t
Sie7Jagc c`f:ucrt pumpel ou: or co-lncc:ed Sc s%•.c-or
tanks adt-wa:uly luu'l(k d and r. attl:rl^'1l Post. •l':dlt
Ie lknca m n aged !ly : uF. uwl dr ;,rr.
CnQnecri d f.-A.urinc .Nails lah t0:tt sllr'.ice and
.uasu: [ace c ainace Ic rulrv_xd before h. ell nc,
EXAMPLES OF POOR HILLSIDE PRACTICE
n.'r:'.r^. rr,-,':. Yr t <' ^1: SIr: :;:(,j^•lr•rl
.a:'Li.:Ul l' .-a::1a::C ::, th :tt•
a: • S
^n•wly C:; no.?''1I:i -rtIt"
rr;rry ana rrackc nvv1
r;s.1 :s La:c %Jr ry urLit.:r
.^ u,µµ ^rf Inl
L:, . •^pc:L. 1v tine.: r.d !:Id!
MANTLE OF 5011, A
riOCR macsTENTS
(coLLUVlult)
I P(ra:r't h:.trr: .n,s ;:r..: u:.I .,
PO-'We tl.,•,C re.Ylslo:* %t c11 ininactS 0710• C'evel3pnicnt d601rdld:
. •:I:urr: :'1:1i
114 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 48
GeoConsulting, Report #15988, July 11 Page I I
Lot 34 Marcus Dues Court, Marcus Beach
1
I
APPENDIX C - "Foundation Maintenance and Footing
Performance: A Homeowner's Guide"
Sheet No. 10-91, by Dr P.F. Walsh of the CS1RO
I
1
Office at: 1/8 Oenna St, Maroochydore, Q, 4558.
Phone: 5443 6622, Fax: 5479 1899, Email: [email protected].,,u
s
Page 49
Foundation Maintenance
CSIRO
and Footing Performance: BTF 18
replaces
A Homeowner's Guide Information
Sheet 10/91
Buildings can and often do move. This movement can be up, down, lateral or rotational. The fundamental cause
of movement in buildings can usually be related to one or more problems in the foundation soil. It is important for
the homeowner to identify the soil type in order to ascertain the measures that should be put in place in order to
ensure that problems in the foundation soil can be prevented, thus protecting against building movement.
This Building Technology File is designed to identify causes of soil-related building movement, and to suggest
methods of prevention of resultant cracking in buildings.
Soil Types Erosion
All soils are prone to erosion. but sandy soil is particularly susceptible
The types of soils usually present under the topsoil in land zoned for to being washed away. Even clay with a band (i,mpnrnent of sav 10%
residential buildings can be split into two approximate groups or inure can suffer front
granular and clay. Quite often, foundation soil is a mixture of both
types. The general problems associated with soils having granular Saturation
content are usually caused by erosion. Clay soils aresubject to This is particularly a problem in clay soils. Saturation creates a bog-
saturation and swell/shrink problems. like suspension of the soil that causes it to lose virtually all of its
bearing capacity. To a lesser degree, sand is affected by saturation
Classifications for a given area can genet-ally be obtained by
because saturated sand may undergo a reduction in volume -
application to the local authority, but these are sometimes unreliable
particularly imported sand fill for bedding and blinding layers.
and if there is doubt, a geotechnical report should be commissioned.
However. this usually occurs as Immediate settlerent and should
As most buildings suffering movement problems are founded on clay
normally be the province of the builder.
soils, there is an emphasis on classification of soils according to the
amount of swell and shrinkage they experience with variations of Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of soil
water content. The table below is "lable 2.1 from AS 2870, the All clays react to the presence of water by slowly absorbing it, making
Residential Slab and Footing Code. the soil increase in volume (see table below). The degree of increase
varies considerably between different clays, as does the degree of
Causes of Movement decrease during the subsequent drying out caused by fair weather
periods. Because of the low absorption and expulsion rate, this
Settlement due to construction
phenomenon will not usually be noticeable unless there are
There are two types of settlement that occur as a result of
prolonged rainy or dry periods, usually of weeks or months,
construction:
depending on the land and soil characteristics.
Immediate settlement occurs when a building is first placed on its
foundation soil, as a result of compaction of the soil under the The swelling of soil creates an upward force on the footings of the
weight of the structure. The cohesive quality of clay soil mitigates building, and shrinkage creates subsidence that takes away the
against this, but granular (particularly sandy) soil is susceptible. support needed by the footing to retain equilibrium.
Consolidation settlement is a feature of clay soil and may take
place because of the expulsion of moisture from the soil or because Shear failure
of the soil's lack of resistance to local compressive or shear stresses. This phenomenon occurs when the foundation soil does not have
This will usually take place during the first few months after sufficient strength to support the weight of the footing. There are
construction, but has been known to take many years in two major post-construction causes:
exceptional cases. • Significant load increase.
These problems are the province of the builder and should be taken • Reduction of lateral support of the soil under the footing due to
into consideration as part of the preparation of the site for construc- erosion or excavation.
tion. Building Technology File 19 (BTF 19) deals with these • In clay soil, shear failure can be caused by saturation of the soil
problems. adjacent to or under the footing.
GENERAL DEFINITIONS OF SITE CLASSES
Class Foundation
A Most sand and rock sites with little or no ground movement from moisture changes
t M
S Slightly reactive clay sites with only slight ground movement from moisture changes
Moderately reactive clay or silt sites, which can experience moderate ground movement from moisture changes
H Highly reactive day sites, which can experience high ground movement from moisture changes
E Extremely reactive sites, which can experience extreme ground movement from moisture changes
A to P Filled sites
P Sites which include soft soils, such as soft clay or silt or loose sands; landslip; mine subsidence; collapsing soils; soils subject
to erosion; reactive sites subject to abnormal moisture conditions or sites which cannot be classified otherwise
1
Page 50
Tree root growth
Trees and shrubs that are allowed to grow in the vicinity of footings
can cause foundation soil movement in two ways:
• Roots that grow under footings may increase in cross-sectional
size, exerting upward pressure on footings.
• Roots in the vicinity of footings will absorb much of the moisture
in the foundation soil, causing shrinkage or subsidence.
Unevenness of Movement
The types of ground movement described above usually occur
^ ^.cll crac-.fnq
c•:,e to unsvan
^IOCSc set: ement
1
unevenly throughout the buildings foundation soil. Settlement due
to construction tends to be uneven because of.
• Differing compaction of foundation soil prior to construction.
• Differing moisture content of foundation soil prior to construction.
As the weather pattern changes and the soil begins to dry out, the
Movement due to non-construction causes is usually more uneven external footings will he first affected, beginning with the locations
still. Erosion can undermine a footing that traverses the flow or can where the suns effect is strongest. This has the effect of lowering the
create the conditions for shear failure by eroding soil adjacent to a external footings. The doming is accentuated and cracking reduces
footing that runs in the same direction as the flow. or disappears where it occurred because of dishing, but other cracks
open up. The roof lines may become convex.
Saturation of clay foundation soil may occur where subfloor walls
create a dam that makes water pond. It can also occur wherever there Doming and dishing are also affected by weather in other ways. In
is a source of water near footings in clay soil. This leads to a severe areas where warm, wet summers and cooler dry winters prevail,
reduction in the strength of the soil which may create local shear water migration tends to he toward the interior and doming will be
failure. accentuated, whereas where summers are dry and winters are cold
and wet, migration tends to be toward the exterior and the
Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of clay soil affects the perimeter of
underlying propensity is toward dishing.
the building first, then gradually spreads to the interior. The swelling
process will usually begin at the uphill extreme of the building, or on Movement caused by tree roots
the weather side where the land is flat. Swelling gradually reaches the In general, growing roots will exert an upward pressure on footings,
interior soil as absorption continues. Shrinkage usually begins where whereas soil subject to drying because of tree or shrub roots will tend
the sun's heat is greatest. to remove support from under footings by inducing shrinkage.
Complications caused by the structure itself
Most forces that the soil causes to he exerted on structures are
Effects of Uneven Soil Movement on Structures vertical - i.e. either up or down. However, because these forces are
seldom spread evenly around the footings, and because the building
Erosion and saturation resists uneven movement because of its rigidity, forces are exerted
Erosion removes the support from under footings, tending to create
subsidence of the part of the structure under which it occurs.
Brickwork walls will resist the stress created by this removal of
support by bridging the gap or cantilevering until the bricks or the
from one part of the building to another. The net result of all these
forces is usually rotational. This resultant force often complicates the
diagnosis because the visible symptoms do not simply reflect the
1
original cause. A common symptom is binding of doors on the
mortar bedding fail. Older masonry has little resistance. Evidence of
vertical member of the frame.
failure varies according to circumstances and symptoms may include:
Effects on full masonry structures
• Step cracking in the mortar beds in the body of the wall or
Brickwork will resist cracking where it can. It will attempt to span
above/below openings such as doors or windows.
areas that lose support because of subsided foundations or raised
• Vertical cracking in the bricks (usually but not necessarily in line points. It is therefore usual to see cracking at weak points, such as
with the vertical beds or perpends). openings for windows or doors.
Isolated piers affected by erosion or saturation of foundations will In the event of construction settlement, cracking will usually remain
eventually lose contact with the bearers they support and may tilt or unchanged after the process of settlement has ceased.
fall over. The floors that have lost this support will become bouncy, With local shear or erosion, cracking will usually continue to develop
sometimes rattling ornaments etc. until the original cause has been remedied, or until the subsidence
has completely neutralised the affected portion of footing and the
Seasonal swelling/shrinkage in clay structure has stabilised on other footings that remain effective.
Swelling foundation soil due to rainy periods first lifts the most In the case of swell/shrink effects, the brickwork will in some cases
exposed extremities of the footing system, then the remainder of the return to its original position after completion of a cycle, however it
perimeter footings while gradually permeating inside the building is more likely that the rotational effect will not be exactly reversed,
footprint to lift internal footings. This swelling first tends to create a and it is also usual that brickwork will settle in its new position and
dish effect, because the external footings are pushed higher than the will resist the forces trying to return it to its original position. This
internal unes. means that in a case where swelling takes place after construction
and cracking occurs, the cracking is likely to at least partly remain
The first noticeable symptom may be that the floor appears slightly
after the shrink segment of the cycle is complete. Thus, each time
dished. This is often accompanied by some doors binding on the
the cycle is repeated, the likelihood is that the cracking will become
floor or the door head, together with some cracking of cornice
wider until the sections of brickwork become virtually independent.
mitres. In buildings with timber flooring supported by bearers and
joists, the floor can be bouncy. Externally there may be visible With repeated cycles, once the cracking is established, if there is no
dishing of the hip or ridge lines. other complication, it is normal for the incidence of cracking to
stabilise, as the building has the articulation it needs to cope with
As the moisture absorption process completes its journey to the
the problem. This is by no means always the case, however, and
innermost areas of the building, the internal footings will rise. If the
monitoring of cracks in walls and floors should always be treated
spread of moisture is roughly even, it may be that the symptoms will
seriously.
temporarily disappear, but it is more likely that swelling will be
uneven, creating a difference rather than a disappearance in Upheaval caused by growth of tree roots under footings is not a
symptoms. In buildings with timber flooring supported by bearers simple vertical shear stress. There is a tendency for the root to also
and joists, the isolated piers will rise more easily titan the strip exert lateral forces that attempt to separate sections of brickwork
footings or piers under walls, creating noticeable doming of flooring. after initial cracking has occurred.
Page 51
The normal structural arrangement is that the inner leaf of brick- • Corroded guttering or downpipes can spill water to ground.
work in the external walls and at least some of the internal walls • Downpipes not positively connected to a proper stormwater
(depending on the roof type) comprise the load-bearing structure on collection system will direct a concentration of water to soil that Is
which any upper floors, ceilings and the roof are supported. In these directly adjacent to footings, sometimes causing large-scale
cases, it is internally visible cracking that should be the main focus problems such as erosion, saturation and migration of water under
of attention, however there are a few examples of dwellings whose the building.
external leaf of masonry plays some supporting role, so this should
be checked if there is any doubt. In any case, externally visible
cracking is important as a guide to stresses on the structure generally, Seriousness of Cracking
.................. _....... ............. .. .
and it should also be remembered that the external walls must be
capable of supporting themselves. In general, most cracking found in masonry walls is a cosmetic
nuisance only and can be kept in repair or even ignored. 'I'he table
Effects on framed structures below is a reproduction of Table C I of AS 2870.
Timber or steel framed buildings are less likely to exhibit cracking
due to swell/shrink than masonry buildings because of their AS 2870 also publishes figures relating to cracking in concrete floors,
flexibility. Also, the doming/dishing effects tend to be lower because however because wall cracking will usually reach the critical point
of the lighter weight of walls. The main risks to framed buildings are significantly earlier than cracking in slabs. this table is not
encountered because of the isolated pier footings used under walls. reproduced here.
Where erosion or saturation cause a footing to fall away, this can
double the span which a wall must bridge. This additional stress can Prevention/Cure
create cracking in wall linings, particularly where there is a weak .............
point in the structure caused by a door or window opening. It is, Plumbing
however, unlikely that framed structures will be so stressed as to suffer Where building movement is caused by water service, roof plumbing,
serious damage without first exhibiting some or all of the above
sewer or storinwater failure, the remedy is to repair the problem.
symptoms for a considerable period. The same warning period should
It is prudent, however, to consider also rerouting pipes away from
apply in the case of upheaval. It should be roted, however, that where
the building where possible, and relocating taps to positions where
framed buildings are supported by strip footings there is only one leaf any leakage will riot direct water to the building vicinity. Even where
of brickwork and therefore the externally visible walls are the gully traps are present, there is sometimes sufficient spill to create
supporting structure for the building. In this case, the subfloor erosion or saturation, particularly in modern installations using
masonry walls can be expected to behave as full brickwork walls.
smaller diameter PVC fixtures. Indeed, some gully traps are not
situated directly under the taps that are installed to charge them,
Effects on brick veneer structures
with the result that water from the tap may enter the backfilled
Because the load-bearing structure of a brick veneer building is the
trench that houses the sewer piping. If the trench has been poorly
frame that makes up the interior leaf of the external walls plus
backflled, the water will either pond or flow along the bottom of
perhaps the internal walls, depending on the type of roof, the
the trench. As these trenches usually run alongside the footings and
building can be expected to behave as a framed structure, except that
can be at a similar depth, it is not hard to see how any water that is
the external masonry will behave in a similar way to the external leaf
thus directed into a trench can easily affect the foundations ability to
of a full masonry structure.
support footings or even gain entry to the subfloor area.
Water Service and Drainage
Ground drainage
In all soils there is the capacity for water to travel on the surface and
Where a water service pipe, a sewer or stormwater drainage pipe is in
below it. Surface water flows can be established by inspection during
the vicinity of a building, a water leak can cause erosion, swelling or
and after heavy or prolonged rain. If necessary, a grated drain system
saturation of susceptible soil. Even a minuscule leak can be enough
connected to the storrnwaler collection system Is usually an easy
to saturate a clay foundation. A leaking tap near a building can have
solution.
the same effect. In addition. trenches containing pipes can become
watercourses even though backfllled, particularly where broken It is, however, sometimes necessary when attempting to prevent
rubble is used as fill. Water that runs along these trenches can be water migration that testing be carried out to establish watertable
responsible for serious erosion, interstrata seepage into subfloor areas height and subsoil water flows. This subject is referred to in BTF 19
and saturation. and may properly be regarded as an area for an expert consultant.
Pipe leakage and trench water flows also encourage tree and shrub Protection of the building perimeter
roots to the source of water, complicating and exacerbating the It is essential to remember that the soil that affects footings extends
problem. well beyond the actual building line. Watering of garden plants,
Poor roof plumbing can result in large volumes of rainwater being shrubs and trees causes some of the most serious water problems.
concentrated in a small area of soil:
For this reason, particularly where problems exist or are likely to
• Incorrect falls in roof guttering may result in overflows, as may occur, it is recommended that an apron of paving be installed
gutters blocked with leaves etc. around as much of the building perimeter as necessary. This paving
CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE WITH REFERENCE TO WALLS
Description of typical damage and required repair Approximate crack width Damage
limit (see Note 3) category
Hairline cracks <0.1 mm 0
1 Fine cracks which do not need repair
Cracks noticeable but easily filled. Doors and windows stick slightly
<1 mm
<5 mm
1
2
Cracks can be repaired and possibly a small amount of wall will need 5-15 mm (or a number of cracks 3
to be replaced. Doors and windows stick. Service pipes can fracture. 3 mm or more in one group)
Weathertightness often impaired
Extensive repair work involving breaking-out and replacing sections of walls, 15 25 mm but also depend 4
especially over doors and windows. Window and door frames distort. Walls lean on number of cracks
or bulge noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted
I
Page 52
• Water that is transmitted into masonry, metal or timber building
elements causes damage and/or decay to those elements.
• High subfloor humidity and moisture content create an ideal
environment for various pests, including termites and spiders.
• Where high moisture levels are transmitted to the flooring and
Clump of trees,
heaht se ccted walls, an increase in the dust mite count can ensue within the
-or distance living areas. Dust mites, as well as dampness in general, can be a
?ream ;Noose health hazard to inhabitants, particularly those who are
L7t abnormally susceptible to respiratory ailments.
Lawn
'fhe garden
The Ideal vegetation layout is to have lawn or plants that require
1` rnn only light watering immediately adjacent to the drainage or paving
Patio edge, then more demanding plants, shrubs and trees spread out in
that order.
Overwatering due to misuse of automatic watering systems is a
Di airit u common cause of saturation and water migration under footings. If
Carport ?alhsvay it is necessary to use these systems, it is important to remove garden
beds to a completely safe distance from buildings.
Existing trees
Where a tree is causing a problem of soil drying or there is the
existence or threat of upheaval of footings, if the offending roots are
subsidiary and their removal will not significantly damage the tree,
they should be severed and a concrete or metal barrier placed
vertically in the soil to prevent future root growth in the direction of
vsrden bed
the building. If it is not possible to remove the relevant roots
Drivewayl d yr lh
mulch without damage to the tree, an application to remove the tree should
be Made to the local authority. A prudent plan is to transplant likely
Medurn offenders before they become a problem.
height tree
Information on trees, plants and shrubs
State departments overseeing agriculture can give information
regarding root patterns, volume of water needed and safe distance
from buildings of most species. Botanic gardens are also sources of
information. For information on plant roots and drains, see Building
Technology File 17.
should extend outwards a minimum of 900 mm (more in highly Excavation
reactive soil) and should have a minimum fall away from the Excavation around footings must be properly engineered. Soil
building of 1:60. The finished paving should be no less than 100 supporting footings can only be safely excavated at an angle that
mm below brick vent bases.
It is prudent to relocate drainage pipes away from this paving, if
possible, to avoid complications from future leakage. If this is not
allows the soil under the footing to remain stable. This angle is
called the angle of repose (or friction) and varies significantly
between soil types and conditions. Removal of soil within the angle
of repose will cause subsidence.
1
practical, earthenware pipes should he replaced by PVC and
backfilling should be of the sarrte soil type as the surrounding soil
and compacted to the same density. Remediation
Except in areas where freezing of water is an issue, it is wise to
remove taps in the building area and relocate them well away from Where erosion has occurred that has washed away soil adjacent to
the building preferably riot uphill from it (see BTF 19).
It may be desirable to install a grated drain at the outside edge of the
paving on the uphill side of the building. If subsoil drainage is
footings, soil of the same classification should be introduced and
compacted to the same density. Where footings have been
undermined, augmentation or other specialist work may be required.
Remediation of footings and foundations is generally the realm of a
L I
needed this can be installed under the surface drain.
specialist consultant.
Condensation Where isolated footings rise and fall because of swell/shrink effect,
In buildings with a subfloor void such as where bearers and joists the homeowner may be tempted to alleviate floor bounce by filling
support flooring, insufficient ventilation creates ideal conditions for the gap that has appeared between the bearer and the pier with
condensation, particularly where there is little clearance between the blocking. The danger here is that when the next swell segment of the
floor and the ground. Condensation adds to the moisture already cycle occurs, the extra blocking will push the floor up into an
present in the subfloor and significantly slows the process of drying accentuated dome and may also cause local shear failure in the soil.
out. Installation of an adequate subfloor ventilation system, either If it is necessary to use blocking, it should be by a pair of fine
natural or mechanical, is desirable. wedges and monitoring should be carried out fortnightly.
Warning: Although this Building'Iechnology File deals with This BTF was prepared by John Lewer FAIR, MIAMA, Partner,
cracking in buildings, it should be said that subfloor moisture can Construction Diagnosis.
result in the development of other problems, notably:
The information In this and other issues in the series was derived from various sources and was believed to be correct when published.
The information Is advisory. It is provided in good faith and not claimed to be an exhaustive treatment of the relevant subject.
Further professional advice needs to be obtained before taking any action based on the information provided.
Distributed by
C S I RO PUBLISHING PO Box 1139, Collingwood 3066, Australia
Freecall 1800 645 051 Tel (03) 9662 7666 Fax (03) 9662 7555 www.publish.csiro.au
Email: [email protected]
© CSIRO 2003. Unauthorised copying of this Building Technology file is prohibited
I
Page 53
To: LOCAL AUTHORITY
Attn: Sunshine Coast Regional Council foster _J:_ >>i9r is
PTY LTD ARCHITECTS
CRW Foster Old Board Arch. Reg. NO
PROJECT: PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE Suite 7!8 Grebe St
Peregiari Beach 0 P 07 5448 3 186
JOB No: 2011-01 PO Box 86 F 07 5448 1 415
Peregian Beach 4573 E admin4'to sterdesigns.comau
TRANSMITTAL REGISTER
We enclose copies of the following documents. Please withdraw su ersceded issuses from use.
Day 221 281251 25
Date of issue Month 6 6 7 7
Year 11 11 11 11
DWG. NUMBER SIZE DOCUMENT TITLE
TAPLEY RESIDENCE - JOB N# 2011-01
--- - --- --- --------------- --- -
_--------------------- .............. .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......:------- ------- - - -- - --
PROPOSED ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS __µ
------- -------
ARC -0 01 A3 :BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1:100 A i B B
ARC-0.02
....... ......... .......{..A3 ........
GROUND ........FLOOR PLAN.........
......... ......... 11 100 .......
.......... A .. ..B . C ......•
ARC-0.03 .A3 ............
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
...------ ..................................... . 1.100 A B ` C 1
- - --------------- -------- -------- -------- - -
ARC-0.04 A3
....... ... ELEVATION-E1 1:100 A B B
..----------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---'- - - --
ARC-0.05 A3 ..:ELEVATION
................ .................. .........._. -E2
E2 .............. i1:100 A B B :
.......... ,
-- . . . -- .
ARC-0.06
............ __ .......... A3 ::ELEVATION-E3
. ....... .:............... ...... -------.....................- 31:100 ------
A B C
. . . . ------- -------- - - ....... .......
ARC-0.07 A3 :ELEVATION-E4 0:100 A B .. .. B ..
....................... _.. . . . .. ... ` ....... .......
ARC-0.08 A3 SECTIONA-A 1:100 . .... ... ...
.................... ........ ............. .. - - ------
A3 SECTION B-B
.............. ................ :1:100 A -.B B -} .. . E .......
A3. ... SECTIONC-C
__ ............................ ...... .................._.....................-----------............. 1:100 ...... ... .. ............... .- .. ... ..
. . --
ARC-O.11 A3 ROOF PLAN 1:100 A B C
r
ARC-0.12 A3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1:100 A B C E
ARC-0.13 A3 LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATION NTS A
-
f ' - -
22/11/2011 .A4 TOWN PLANNING REPORT - 3COPES ? 3
................................... .... ..................................................................... ..>....------ ---.."-j--..... 777....... ....... ------- (
------ ------- ------- -- -- -- --
:A4 SOLS REPORT-2 COPES
- 2
-- --
3
. t
DISTRIBUTION No.of Copies '•.
CLIENT 1 E I WE 1 E . i
.......... ...... ...:Mark.- Tapley--- ...................... r.... -- ----
LOCAL AUTHORITY Sunshine Coast Regiornal Council 5H 3H , ' t
BUILDING CERTIFIER
STRUC. ENGINEER E
-..._-----------...- ..._._...... -..-._..__....------ - - - - --
BUILDER
TRANSFER MEDIUM: E-email F-fax C-courier H-hand M-mailed CD-Compact Disk TBI- TO BE ISSUED
Page 54
2000 Existing Site
2000
SETBACK SETBACK
Surveyed Ground ----------
Levels.
1B000 347°46' 11 000
26.803
- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - ----•
7
NORTH.
0
O
0 2M 4M 8M
O00
6pmmlm
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
ELEVATION KEY.
13 000
Existing Site
Surveyed
Ground Levels. FFL. 12.837
9D x Garage Door Garage Dooms-
Undercroft
Rainwater
Harvesting
Driveway
B COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION 25107/1'
NEW RETAINING WALL
CONSTRUCTION TO B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 28106111
MATCH EXISTING.- • HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
LOW HEIGHT A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21/06/11
PLAN I ER WALL
at 200mm HIGH Comments Date
11-11.Ssue
--basement Floor Plan
MAKE GOOD TO EXISTING PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
STONE RETAINING WALL. I&
NEW WALL TO MATCH Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
EXISTING, Edge
Concrete
Sewer'
Manhole
Lid 11.900 If' foster signs
ARC-09
MAKE GOOD TO SUROUNDING
VEGETATION AND RETAINING
WALL TO ALLOW FOR
DRIVEWAY ACCESS. ARC-0.01 - B
Page 55
2000 NOTE: GARDEN WALL TO DRYING COURT 2000 0 2M 4M 8M
AMENDED AS REQUESTED BY BODY SETBACK
SETBACK CORPORATE APPROVAL COMMITTEE.
PREVIOUS POSITION OF WALL SHOWN
DOTTED. I
11
6mm
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
ELEVATION KEY.
NORTH.
SITE AREA = 557.45 M2
FLOOR AREAS ...
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA
GARAGE SPACE = 63.5 M2
GROUND FLOOR AREA
DWELLING AREA - (STAIR 1 - INCLUDED). _ 1 1 9 M2
MANAGERS OFFICE = 40 M2
FIRST FLOOR AREA = 162.5 M2
Landscaped
steps integrated
into exisitng
ground line
-(shown dotted
behind).
TOTAL = 385 M2
COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION
' REAR GARDEN RETAINING WALL AMEND ED 25/07/11
TO BODY CORPORATE REQUIREMENTS.
B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 28/C611
• HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21/06/11
Iss^. Date
Ground Floor Plan
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
I foster signs
EXISTING TREE TO BE
ARC-0.02 - C
TRIMMED IF REQUIRED. 'RINTED: 25-07-201
Page 56
2000 2000
SETBACK D SETBACK
r
F ARC-09
SITE BOUNDARY
Line of
Roof over
Sunhood
over----
Sunhood
over
NORTH.
AN
0 2M 4M 8M
H -
Scale 1 100 at A3 SIZE
II
Robe
up
E II I Pwdr Scullery Stairs ELEVATION KEY.
Ensuite
up
11
Kitchen
nnn
FFL.19.137 void
Master
Bedroom 1
FFL. 19.587
F--- F---
Balcony
Deck
I,.
L
Line of
Roof over
COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION
C ' REAR GARDEN RETAINING WALL AMENDED 25/07/1-
------------------ -------- TO BODY CORPORATE REQUIREMENTS.
B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 28/06/1
' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TOAHD.
A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21/0611'
------------------- ------------- Issue ^unn^-. Date
SITE BOUNDARY
Rock Wall Top
Toe
_
First Floor Plan
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
r I foster resigns
d ARC-0.03 - C
ATE PRINTED- 25-07-2011
Page 57
Ljj:^EASTERN ELEVATION - E1 B COUNCL PLANNING APPLICATION 25/07111
ARC-0.02
PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE 1100
B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AND
28/06/11
A BODY CORPORATE SSBMISSION 21106111
^LSS L,
0 2M 4M 8M
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
foster Liens
ARC-0.04 - B
Page 58
Landscaped steps
ROAD integrated into exisitng
ground line -(shown
EXISTING GROUND LINE dotted behind).
I - (on Setback Line)- - -
NORTHERN ELEVATION - E2 B COUNCL PLANNING APPLICATION 25/07111
ARC-0.02
PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE 1:100
B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
28/06/11
A BODY CORPORATE SUEMISSION 21/06/11
Issue Comments
0 2M 4M 8M
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
6MM
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
ARC-0.05 - B
A
DATE PRINTED: 25-07-2011
Page 59
Proprietary cladding
to external wall,
z
D
to
m
existing Ground line
to Rear Boundary -
beyond.
Retaining wall & -
proposed ground line -
shown hidden behind.
--^ WESTERN ELEVATION - E3
3 C
COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION
REAR GARDEN RETAINING WALL AMENDED
TO BODY CORPORATE REQUIREMENTS.
25/07/11
PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE 1 100 :
B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
28/06/1'
A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21/06/11
Issue Comments Date
0 2M 4M 8M
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
Scale 1:100 at A3 SIZE
rm foster -ions
ARC-0.0 6 - C
Page 60
Retaining wall &-
proposed ground line -
shown hidden behind. ROAD
Extended portion of existing
stone retaining wall.
E4 SOUTHERN ELEVATION - E4 CT-
B COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION 25/07/11
ARC-0.02
PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE 1:100
B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AND.
28/06/11
A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21/06/11
ISSUE nH- Dale
0 2M 4M 8M
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
ARC-0.07 - B
A
DATE PRINTED: 25-07-2011.
Page 61
8000mm HEIGHT
RESTRICTION LINE
- (on section line B-B).
FFL. 19.587
FFL. 19.137
EXISTING GROUND LINE FFL. 16.247
- (on section line B-B).
FFL. 15.737
i3^//%w^/i^y%^i^y/i(/i^^/ i^vvvv^/i
... g wlmming iiiw/iivvi^i//vvviiuv^vvG^/iy/r^^i^y%/i
v vv vv vv vv vv ^//^i/1i, :,
vv vv vvyv/vv/vv/vvivv/vv/vyvv/
10800 -\54/ iii'/^^I ^wv/vyvv/vyvv^^ vvivvivvivvivviviv
1
L-1 Pool//^^/^A^ '^^^!
t /ivv/wv/wvw/wv/^/i^
/v^^/vv^wv/vvv/vv^/vv^wv^wvv// /v^wv//v^
v/wwv/wwv^wi/wvwv/vv/v^w^vv/w^/^^wvv/vv/vvvwv^w^hv
ROAD v
vv vv/iv/iv/iv/i v ^^iv/i
v v v vy/iv/
^^!%\^! 12.837 A FFL. 12.837
^.v i^i^/i^/i
vvvvv0vvvvvvvvvvvv ^vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv,.v,w
B COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION 25/07/11
SECTION B-13 SCALE 1:100
B
A
BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
28/06/11
21106111
ARC-0.02
PROPOSED RESIDENCE 15571, . i i.. lil (I:)lf'
0 2M 4M 8M
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
pow foster signs
i ARC-0.0 9 - B
ARC-0.C
Page 62
2000 2000
SETBACK SETBACK
1^ pp0
SITE BOUNDARY
--•--'--'-----'--'--'--'--'--'--'
al
o•
NORTH.
1n
LU
0
0 2M 4M 8M
\%000
II Scale 1 100 at A3 SIZE
ELEVATION KEY.
ri
I
11
I . ^T
II I l ldltl l II
p
15 ^0
1^ 000 LJ Q i ROOF 1 QI
UI
ROOF 2
LL ICOLORBOND COLORBOND
= CUSTOM ORB. 1'
-I CUSTOM ORB.
= I .--11T
U I
I-I HI
dl
I^ ri ! I I LI r -i
ll 1
Li
^^ 'III J l^
16 000 I ----ADJUSTABLE LOUVRED
ROOF TO BALCONY BELOW
0
^ ^A 000
Driveway COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION
below C ' REAR GARDEN RETAINING WALL AMENDED 25107111
TO BODY CORPORATE REQUIREMENTS.
NOTE: B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 26106111
MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT ' HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO A.D.
TO CORNER RL.22.150.
NOT TO EXCEED 8000mm A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21106/11
MAX. HEIGHT
^.^ ------.---- ---fly-- RESTRICTION Issue Comments Date
ITE
SBOUN^ y -_
Roof Plan
PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
foster
d ARC-0.11- C
ATE PRINTED: 25-07-2011
Page 63
2000 Hybertia
SETBACK Scandens L -Lomandra Hybertia Scandens Myaporum Parvifollium
x 12. Histric x 8. x8. Histric x 12.
1T oo°
SITE BOUNDARY
P Pandanus Feature Tree x2
P
PS,) 0 ? EXISTING
BANKSIA TREE
CID
a PS
C
CP )t A 0
Acronychia Inperforata x 10
TO REMAIN. • AL
A Mp
MP,^ 0 Mfg
CS.,)
M P!'
A CSj
CS,) M P^
MP WCP O
M.
KCP 0
A CP Cupaniopsis x6
0 TOW. 16.737
TOW. 16.237-1 RL 15631
ALI
RL. 16.137
AL 0 B V
z- Banksia Robur x3
0 0 Lain Metrosideros Thomasi x 20
^ /-
Stairs
FFL. 16.247
FFL,15.737
0 Ground Covers Legend...
7
I
AL L Lomandra Histric x 42
L -Lomardra j
Histric x 6.
0 FFL, 15,737 MP Myaporum Parvifollium x 12
TOW. 16.237
CS-D 0
L *!z Hybertia Scandens x 24
-0 HS
RL.15.337 g o
C AM
up
-Austriamyrtus GB Grevillia Bronze Rambler x 12
0> FFL. 15.637 Copper Top
x 12.
AM Austriamyrtus Copper Top x 24
F
cD
Hybertia Scandens. --'
x12. up
GB
up ^
COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION
(^C • REAR GARDEN RETAINING WALL AMENDED 25/0711
o U -5: EFU.15.112 TO BODY CORPORATE REQUIREMENTS..
O°m 00 F
B ^ODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 2810611'
N I-
W 0
GB L
0 0 LOW HEIGHT
HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21106!1'
GB PLANTER WALL
at 200mm HIGH Issue Comments Date
1.1 GB TOW. 12.237
GB GB
1R03p SITE BOUNDARY k wa I TOO GB GB
GB
L -Lomandra Histric AM -Austriamyrtus
to rear x 16. Copper Top x 12. GB -Grevillia Bronze
Rambler x 12.
Edge
or Concrete
GQ^
0'
0
MARCUS DUNE
2M 4M
I8M COURT
Scale 1 : 100 at A3 SIZE
Page 64
LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATION NOTE:
Advanced tree stock planting
Proposed Tapley Residence - Lot 34, Noosa Dunes. selection to Noosa Shire Council
approval and guidelines.
EXTENT OF WORKS
Contractor should take full account of documentation of Civil PLANT STOCK NOTES
Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering and Electrical Engineering
Container sizes are noted with Pots in millimetres & Bags in litres.
Works. Landscape works are to include the following: 2100 x 75 x 75 Hwd stakes. All
Stock may be rejected if plants are:
a) Undersized proportional to specified container size or stakes to be chamfered, centrally
1. Topsoil - Supply and incorporation pointed & driven vertically into
if the root system is underdeveloped
2. Shaping of garden areas the ground outside the rootball
b) Oversized proportional to specified container size or
3. Containerised Plant Material - Supply and installation
severely root bound
4. Garden Mulch - Supply and Spread Approved securing material such
c) Unbalanced or unchara cteristic of normal or specified
5. Turf Supply & Lay as Rubber tree ties or 50mm
growth pattern for the species
6. Maintenance of landscape works (90days) jutemat/hessian ties in figure 8
d) Not suitably acclimatised for the specific environment
loops secured loosely to tree &
e) diseased, infested with pests or suffering from other fixed to stake with flathead galv.
form of significant stress nails
1. TOPSOIL- SUPPLY AND INCORPORATION
Planting areas are to be progressively filled with premium 100mm nom. composted organic
grade blended organic garden soil mix. Soil to be "organic 4. GARDEN MULCH mulch or NSC approved. Form
garden mix" type. Soil supplier as well as intended mix Organic Mulch : Mulch shall be Tea Tree Fines mulch to shallow dish drain to base of tree.
is to be nominated. Soil is to be mounded to facilitate good Mound at pit edge
to a predominant depth of 100mm after settlement.
drainage to hardstand areas (max. 1:3 grade) and is to finish
Tree pit to be excavated to min.
50mm below edging after settlement. Organic additive 900 depth and backfilled with
"dynamic lifter" or similar is to be incorporated throughout the 5. TURF-SUPPLY AND LAY 100 friable imported topsoil with
soil mix at the recommended rate. a. Empire Zoysia "Sapphire" (or similar approved) 20% organic content, light
A slow release ferti liser such as "osmocote" or its equivalent is minimum sod depth - 25 mm. compaction only.
also to be incorporated with individual plantings in accordance b. Turf to be laid within 24 hours of being cut.
with the manufacturers recommendations. c. Allow for ground preparation and deposition of 50 mm (Max 2% organic content). Backfill
imported garden loam topsoil. Apply Dynamic Lifter or original subgrade material, light
equivalent as per manufacturers recommendations. compaction only. Rootball to sit
2. SHAPING OF GARDEN AREAS I TURF MOUNDS on top of backfill
d. Turf to be close butted and rolled in accordance with
Planting areas are to be fin ished in a gently mounded fashion
accepted practice to ensure a smooth even surface. Slow release fertiliser to
to facilitate drainage of excess water and to show planting to ,- x manufacturers specifications
best advantage. Contractor is to seek confirmation of finished
levels prior to final plantings and application of mulch. 6. MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE WORKS Cultivate subgrade to 150 depth
All garden beds to be well drained. Drainage shall be provided a. Monitor plant performance and st ress constantly and take
appropriate remedial action. Soil moisture levels are porous d FUA. Lx IUUL UdII WIULII
for in areas of that stay saturated for extended periods to the
critical during early establishment. enerally 2x width of rootbaff)
potential detriment of plantings.
b. Prune and shape all shrubs and trees as required
ie. Clear trunk to 1200mm & damaged branches PLANTING DETAIL - ADVANCED STOCK NTS
3. CONTAINERISED PLANT MATERIAL c. Remove all stakes at 90 day inspection
Plant material is to be approved by superintendent prior to d. Fertilise all garden beds at 3 months (low phosphorus type)
planting. Planting is to be carried out in a manner consistent
with good horticultural practice. All trees are
e. Contractor shall maintain an up to date written log book
to record inspection observations and actions.
(7-
to be guyed and staked as per Detail - Advanced B COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION 25/07/11
Container Planting. Smaller plant stock is to be staked as B BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION
28/06/11
necessary. Stakes shall not pass through rootball of plant at • HEIGHTS SHOWN TO RELATIVE TO AHD.
time of planting or any time thereafter. A BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSION 21/06/11
Issue Comments Date
Landscape Specification
NOTE: PLANT SPECIES SELECTION:
GENERALLY TREES OUTSIDE THE PLANT SPECIES HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROPOSED TAPLEY RESIDENCE
BUILDING E N VALOPE AREA ARE SELECTED FOR THIS HASTINGS ST PROJECT: Lot 34, Noosa Dunes
TO BE RETAINED.
- THAT ARE NATIVE OR NATURALISED TO THE NOOSA AREA
- TOLERANT OF THE HARSH COASTAL ENVIRONMENT
- PERFORM SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS AS PART OF THE PLANTED LANSCAPE, !m` foster
INCLUDING, SHADE, FRAMING, BORDER DEFINITION AND SCREENING
- ARE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND FIT THE LANDSCAPE STYLING
- FIT WITHIN AND ARE SIMILAR TO THE NOOSA DUNES
STREETSCAPE REDEVELOPMENT CJ ARC-0.13 - B
RINTEI
Used in these records
Development Application Part 2 of 2 Planning report Geotechnical report and plans MCU11/0168 & OPW11/0257Related documentApplication case desk ↗
Development Application Part 2 of 2 Planning report Geotechnical report and plans MCU11/0168 & OPW11/0257Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 12.5 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.