Representation on conditions of approval - 5 Garnett St, Cooroy - MCU16/0012

3     Condition35- Stonnwater drainage wonl's must be undertaken in accordance with an
                       N



      Operatlonat Wonl's approval. The wonl's must be generatly in accordance with Drawing No
      P002 Rev E - Job No 15081 dated 21/06/2016 and tilled Preliminary Stonnwater Drainage
      Layout and Details, prepared by VT Consulting Engineers and must include but not be limtled
      to:
       a.    removal of the redundant sections of the 525mm RCP stonnwater drainage pipeline
             within the stle and in the Garnet Street road reserve
      b.     amendment to the alignment of the proposed 150mm by connecting the new pipeline
             directly into the existing downstream stonnwater manhole on the vehicular crossover
             for Lot 46 C5602 (No 4 Emeratd Street) on the opposite side of Wtmmers Lane.
       c.    Investigation of the capacily and the condition of the existing downstream system to
             ensure:
             i      No adverse Impact on operation of the existing stonnwater system.
             Ii     No addttlonal surcharge due to the new stonnwater wonl's, or only controlled
                    surcharge in accordance with the requirements of QUDM
             itl.    CCTV investigation and field inspection report of the existing downstream system
                    extending to Emerald Street must be submitted to Council to demonstrate that
                    the downstream system is in good condition and all required repair or
                    improvements works are identified
      d     where necessary, undertaking upgrade or improvement wonl's on the receiving
      stonnwater drainage system to ensure the overall stonnwater drainage system functions in
      accordance wtlh the requirements of QUDM and/or to the satisfaction of CouncIl.
       This condttion is Imposed pursuant to s665 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 being non-
      tronk infrastrocture.
Representations- As contained within the SWMP submitted with the application, the proposed
development would not result in an increase of flows from the subject site and therefore would not have an
adverse impact on the operation of the existing stormwater system. In fact, the development results in a net
reduction in impervious area from that existing. Clearly therefore there is no net increase in runoff from the
site nor upstream This is recognised within the Council's ICN.The proposed stormwater system has been
designed to capture a major storm event and convey the flows through the site and to connect to the
existing stormwater system. Where there is a connection to the existing system, flows can be designed to
surcharge at the manhole within the property at the northern boundary and flow overland as they currently
do. The proposed surcharge would be controlled in accordance with QUDM.

The existing piped system (upstream, through the site and downstream) is identified within the Council's
Priority Infrastructure Plan as being Trunk Infrastructure- refer to Section 4.4, Map 4.4- PFTI-Stormwater
Management.

Having regard to the above, Conditions 35 (c) and (dl are not relevant to, nor reasonably imposed on the
development and are not reasonably required as a consequence of the development. More particularly, in
considering the proposal and what changes may result upon its development, it is considered the conditions
do not represent a reasonable response to the change (refer to above comment regarding reduction in
impervious area and net no increase in flows as a result of the development). That is, there is no nexus
between the change caused by the development and the conditions imposed. The conditions do not
reasonably relate to the development, a clear indication of this being that the works sought to be carried out
under the conditions involves land which is neither part of the subject site nor owned by the subject sites'
owner.

Further, the reference within the condition that it is imposed under S665 of SPA (non-trunk
infrastructure) appears to be incorrect.


                                                    page 2