Council archive · source document
Stormwater Management Report · MCU19/0008
Stormwater Management Report Proposed Residential Subdivision 22 Arakoon Crescent Sunshine Beach For Andrew Douglass 4 April 2019 Ref: S18-030
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 30 pages
Page 2
DO CUMENT I NF O RMAT IO N
Project Name: Stormwater Management Report
Westera Partners Ref: S18-030
Westera Partners Contact:
James Crabb Phone: 3852 4333
Email: [email protected]
Sam Ide Email: [email protected]
Certified for Issue by:
Samuel Ide RPEQ 12231
4 April 2019
Document Control:
Revision Author Approved for Issue Date
Draft J. Crabb S.Ide 04.04.2019
This report has been prepared for Andrew Douglass for the purpose of accompanying a DA RFI
response to Noosa Shire Council (NSC). This report must only be used by Andrew Douglass for this
purpose and must not be used or relied upon by any other person for any other purpose.
The assessment, conclusions or recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered
and information received at the time of preparing the report and may not be relied upon as site
conditions or operations vary over time.
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 2
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 3
CO NT ENT S 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 2 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Location and Land Use ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Lawful point of discharge .................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Flooding ............................................................................................................................. 5 3 Stormwater Quantity Management .................................................................................. 5 3.1 Catchment Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Stormwater Detention & Infiltration ...................................................................................... 5 3.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modelling .................................................................................... 6 3.4 XP Storm Results ............................................................................................................... 7 4 Stormwater Quality Management ................................................................................... 10 4.1 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................ 10 4.2 Construction Phase .......................................................................................................... 10 4.2.1 Design Objectives ............................................................................................................. 11 4.2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control .......................................................................................... 13 4.3 Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements ...................................................................... 13 5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 14 6 Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 15 6.1 Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment (IECA) ............................................................ 15 6.2 Appendix B – Engineering Drawing ................................................................................... 16 6.3 Appendix C – Site Survey & Architectural Drawings .......................................................... 17 4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 3 S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 4
1 I NT RO DUCT IO N
Westera Partners Pty Ltd was commissioned by Andrew Douglass to prepare a Stormwater
Management Report for a proposed development at 22 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach.
The development involves the construction of a new single dwelling.
This report documents how stormwater runoff will be managed on site in accordance with Noosa Shire
Council’s (NSC’s) requirements.
2 SIT E DESCRI PT IO N
2. 1 L o cati o n and L and Use
The development is located at 22 Arakoon Street, Sunshine Beach; formally known as Lot 793 on
RP48111. The proposed development area is approximately 610m 2 and currently consists of an existing
house.
The site currently falls east towards Sunshine Beach at an average grade of approximately 25%. The
site is bound by a residential dwelling to the south, Arakoon Crescent to the west, Council pathway to
the north and Sunshine Beach to the east. Refer to Figure 1 for an indicative site location and Appendix
C for detailed site survey information.
Figure 1 – Indicative Site Location (Nearmap, 2019)
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 4
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 5
2. 1 L aw fu l p o in t o f d i sch arg e
Stormwater runoff from the existing site falls east as overland flow, discharging to Sunshine Beach.
Stormwater runoff from impervious areas of the development is proposed to be directed to an
underground tank located at the rear of the site. Runoff from the tank shall discharge via infiltration or
shall surcharge and discharge east to Sunshine Beach when at capacity as per existing conditions.
Stormwater runoff from pervious areas at the rear of the site shall similarly discharge east to Sunshine
Beach. It is noted that this discharge strategy was approved for recent development to the north at 24
Arakoon Crescent. Refer to Appendix B for further information.
2. 2 F l o od i ng
According to the NSC planning scheme flood hazard overlay mapping the development site is not
subject to flooding from any sources.
3 ST O RMWAT ER Q UANT IT Y MAN AG EMENT
The stormwater quantity analysis of the existing and developed site conditions has been undertaken
with reference to the requirements and procedure outlined by:
Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM)
Australian Rainfall and Runoff Volumes 1 & 2 (Aust R&R)
The following section of the report discusses the proposed development’s impact on peak stormwater
runoff and total runoff volume from the site and compares the existing site condition to ensure a no
worsening effect to downstream land.
3. 1 Catch men t Su mmary
Pre-Developed Site
The existing site consists of an existing house. Stormwater runoff initially falls east as overland flow
prior to concentrating and discharging to Sunshine Beach.
The existing site area is approximately 610m 2. The total impervious area was calculated to be
approximately 400m2 which equates to 65% fraction impervious (fi=0.65).
Post-Developed Site
The development involves the construction of a single dwelling and ground level features. Runoff from
impervious areas of the development is proposed to discharge via infiltration or overland to Sunshine
Beach when the tank surcharges. Runoff from pervious areas at the rear of the site shall similarly
discharge overland to Sunshine Beach as per existing conditions.
The catchment area remains unchanged at approximately 610m 2. The total impervious area was
calculated to be approximately 350m 2 which equates to 57% fraction impervious (fi=0.57).
3. 2 Sto rmw ater Det en ti o n & In fi l tra ti o n
Modelling indicates there is a reduction in peak flow and total volume off site as a result of the
development due to the reduction in impervious area. However, it is proposed to direct stormwater
runoff from developed areas of the site to a proposed infiltration tank which shall incorporate stormwater
detention to reduce the impact of runoff to the adjoining sand dunes to the east.
The Atlantis Flo-Tank Modular tank system was adopted as part of the stormwater design. An infiltration
rate of 0.6m/d was adopted based on soil conditions at the adjoining dwelling at 24 Arakoon Crescent.
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 5
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 6
Refer to Table 1 and Appendix B for further details of the proposed system.
Table 1 - Detention system details
Description Value
Tank Model 20 x Atlantis Flo-Tank - Triple
Gross Volume (m3) 7.32
Detention Capacity (m3) 6.96
Dimensions (m) 4.08(L) x 1.37(W) x 1.31(H)
Infiltration Rate (m/d) 0.6
Catchment Area to Tank (Ha) 0.040
Catchment Area Bypassing Tank (Ha) 0.021
3. 3 Hyd ro l o g i c an d Hyd rau l i c Mod el l i ng
The hydraulic and hydrologic modelling software package XPSTORM was used to model the pre-
developed and post-developed flow conditions for the site. XPSTORM provides a simulation of the
natural runoff processes and the hydraulic performance of stormwater infrastructure. An integrated
1D/2D hydraulic model was developed incorporating the TUFLOW engine. The TUFLOW engine
accurately represents site specific topography, defining flow paths, discharge, storage, and variation in
flow direction in addition to modelling flood hazard.
Hydrologic Modelling
The 0.5EY, 10% AEP and 1% AEP events were modelled. A number of storm durations including the
10 minute, 25 minute, and 1 hour duration were simulated for each return period for the pre-developed
and post-developed model.
Rainfall data was obtained from the ARR 2016 data hub. The ensemble of storms for each duration
was simulated for the pre-developed model and the median storm for each duration & ARI was
determined utilising the ensemble statistics utility. The resultant storms were utilised as the design
storms for each EY/AEP for both the pre and post developed models. The Laurenson method was
utilised to calculate runoff hydrographs with the following losses:
Pervious areas – initial and continuing losses of 10mm and 2.6mm respectively. The value for
initial loss has been reduced from the AR&R Data Hub value and is considered conservative
given the existing soil conditions.
Impervious areas – initial and continuing losses of 2mm and 0mm respectively
Hydraulic Modelling
An integrated 1D/2D model was developed to simulate the hydraulics of the stormwater drainage
network. The 1D network was limited to modelling the infiltration/detention tank in the post developed
model. Physical parameters for the storage node were calculated based on data obtained from the
manufacturer. The following parameters were utilised in developing the 2D network:
A 0.5m grid cell size was utilised.
The DTM was derived from LiDAR data obtained from DNRM
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 6
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 7
Manning’s roughness for of 0.06 was considered appropriate due to the land use of the site.
A 2D head boundary line with a free outfall was used to define the 2D model extent to
appropriately account for flow freely flowing east to Sunshine Beach.
Model Setup
Two models were developed for the site. These are summarised as follows:
Pre-developed model
The existing site was modelled as a single catchment (Node A). The hydrograph of the
catchment was linked to and evenly distributed across a rainfall/ flow area grid at the rear of
the site. The peak flow rate discharging to Sunshine Beach was measured at a flow line at the
rear of the site and the total runoff volume discharging to Sunshine Beach was measured as
the total runoff inflow at Node A.
Post-Developed Model
The developed site was modelled as two catchments. The rear portion of the site consisting of
pervious areas (Node A) was modelled as per Node A for the pre developed model. The upper
portion of the site consisting of impervious areas was linked to a storage node (Node B) linked
to the 2D network. This node was used to model the detention/infiltration tank. The peak flow
rate discharging to Sunshine Beach was measured at a flow line at the rear of the site and the
total runoff volume discharging to Sunshine Beach was measured as the sum of the total runoff
inflow at Node A and the total runoff outflow at Node B.
The catchment data for each model is summarised in Table 2 below:
Table 2 - Catchment Summary
Model Node Area (Ha) Slope (%) % Impervious
Pre Developed A 0.061 25 65
Post Developed A 0.021 25 10
B 0.040 25 83
3. 4 XP Sto rm Resu l ts
The results of the ensemble statistics utility are presented in Figures 2-4 below.
Figure 2 - Ensemble Statistics Utility Results; 0.5EY event
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 7
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 8
Figure 3 - Ensemble Statistics Utility Results; 10% AEP Event
Figure 4 - Ensemble Statistics Utility Results; 1% AEP Event
Table 3 below compares the peak flow rates and total runoff volume for the pre-developed and post-
developed model.
Table 3 - XP Storm Results
Median Peak Flow Rate Off Site (m3/s) Total Volume Off Site (m3)
Duration Storm
EY/AEP (min) Pattern Pre-developed Post-developed Pre-developed Post-developed
10 9 22 10 (-12) 11.37 3.55(-7.83)
0.5EY 25 6 21 18 (-3) 19.05 11.16 (-7.89)
60 9 18 18 28.03 19.98 (-8.05)
10 3 34 27 (-7) 16.93 9.16 (-7.77)
10%AEP 25 3 29 21 (-8) 28.28 20.32 (-7.96)
60 2 26 21 (-5) 43.55 35.56 (-7.99)
10 4 48 46 (-2) 24.58 16.75 (-7.83)
1%AEP 25 10 41 40 (-1) 41.23 33.40 (-7.83)
60 7 34 34 66.77 58.85 (-7.91)
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 8
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 9
As shown in Table 3, the peak flow rate of stormwater runoff and the total runoff volume off site has
reduced as a result of the stormwater management system. The proposed infiltration/detention tank is
therefore considered to be adequate. Results for the 1% AEP, 10min duration event are outlined in
Figure 5 and 6 below.
Peak Flow measured at rear = 48L/s
Total runoff volume (Node A inflow)
= 24.58m3
Figure 5 - XP Storm Results; Pre-Developed Model (1% AEP, 10min Duration)
Peak Flow measured at rear = 46L/s
Total runoff volume
(Node A inflow + Node B outflow) = 16.75m 3
Figure 6 - XP Storm Results; Post-Developed Model (1% AEP, 10min Duration)
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 9
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 10
4 ST O RMWAT ER Q UAL I T Y M AN AG EMENT
4. 1 O p erati o n al Ph ase
The development is not required to meet the Queensland Governments State Planning Policy (July
2017) as the site does not exceed the 2,500m 2 minimum site area. Stormwater quality management is
therefore proposed to be undertaken via the application of best management practices (BMPs) to
ensure no adverse impacts to the downstream environment.
Pollutants typically generated during the operational phase of the development include:
litter/gross pollutants
sediment (Total Suspended Solids – TSS)
nutrients (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus – TN & TP)
hydrocarbons (oils and grease)
heavy metals
Stormwater quality best management practices may be implemented for the development as follows:
First flush diversion system for roof water diverting the roof water for irrigation purposes
Gross pollutant filter baskets in field inlet pits collection runoff from ground areas.
Refer to Appendix B for the stormwater management drawing.
4. 2 Co n stru cti o n Ph ase
Management of stormwater runoff during construction and the implementation of an erosion & sediment
control program is necessary to avoid impacts to receiving waters from pollutants typically generated
during the construction phase. Typical pollutants are described in Table 4 below:
Table 4 – Pollutants Typically Generated During the Construction Phase
Pollutant Sources
Litter (Gross Pollutants) Paper, construction packaging, food packaging, cement bags.
Sediment Unprotected exposed soils and stockpiles during earthworks and building.
Hydrocarbons Fuel and oil spills, leaks from construction equipment.
Toxic materials Cement slurry, asphalt prime, solvents, cleaning agents, wash waters.
pH altering substances Acid sulphate soils, cement slurry and wash waters.
In addition to the degradation of receiving waters, impacts of inadequate erosion and sediment control
downstream from the site include:
traffic safety problems;
blocked drains;
local flooding problems;
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 10
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 11
aesthetic pollution of drainage paths; and
damage to local ecosystems.
4.2.1 Desi g n O b j ecti ves
Management of stormwater runoff during construction should be undertaken in accordance with
Appendix 2 of the SPP (July 2017). The SPP outlines the design objectives for construction phase
stormwater management. These are presented in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 5 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 1 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
Issue Desired Outcomes
Drainage Control 1. Manage stormwater flows around or through areas of exposed soil to
avoid contamination.
2. Manage sheet flows in order to avoid or minimise the generation of rill or
gully erosion.
3. Provide stable concentrated flow paths to achieve the construction
phase stormwater management design objectives for temporary
drainage works (part 2).
4. Provide emergency spillways for sediment basins to achieve the
construction phase stormwater management design objectives for
emergency spillways on temporary sediment basins (part 3).
Erosion Control 1. Stage clearing and construction works to minimise the area of exposed
soil at any one time.
2. Effectively cover or stabilise exposed soils prior to predicted rainfall.
3. Prior to completion of works for the development, and prior to removal
of sediment controls, all site surfaces must be effectively stabilised
using methods which will achieve effective short-term stabilisation.
Sediment Control 1. Direct runoff from exposed site soils to sediment controls that are
appropriate to the extent of disturbance and level of erosion risk.
2. All exposed areas greater than 2500 metres must be provided with
sediment controls which are designed, implemented and maintained
to a standard which would achieve at least 80% of the average annual
runoff volume of the contributing catchment treated (i.e. 80%
hydrological effectiveness) to 50mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or
less, and pH in the range (6.5–8.5).
Litter, Hydrocarbons and 1. Remove gross pollutants and litter.
other contaminants
2. Avoid the release of oil or visible sheen to released waters.
3. Dispose of waste containing contaminants at authorised facilities.
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 11
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 12
Issue Desired Outcomes
Waterway Stability and 1. Where measures are required to meet post-construction waterway
flood flow management stability objectives, these are either installed prior to land disturbance
and are integrated with erosion and sediment controls, or equivalent
alternative measures are implemented during construction.
2. Earthworks and the implementation of erosion and sediment controls
are undertaken in ways which ensure flooding characteristics
(including stormwater quantity characteristics) external to the
development site are not worsened during construction for all events up
to and including the 1 in 100 year ARI (1% AEP).
Table 6 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 2 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Temporary Drainage Works
Temporary Drainage Works Anticipated Operation Design Life and Minimum
Design Storm Event
<12 Months 12-24 Months >24 Months
Drainage Structure 1 in 2 year 1 in 5 year 1 in 10 year
ARI/39% AEP ARI/18% AEP ARI/10% AEP
Where located immediately up-slope of an 1 in 10 year ARI/10% AEP
occupied property that would be adversely
affected by the failure or overtopping of the
structure
Culvert Crossing 1 in 1 year ARI/63% AEP
Table 7 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 3 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Emergency Spillways on Temporary Sediment Basins
Drainage Structure Anticipated Operation Design Life and Minimum
Design Storm Event
<3 Months 3-12 Months >12 Months
Emergency spillways on temporary 1 in 10 year 1 in 20 year 1 in 50 year
sediment basins ARI/10% AEP ARI/5% AEP ARI/2% AEP
Best practice erosion and sediment controls must be installed to minimise the discharge of sediment
laden runoff during construction and to achieve the objectives outlined in Tables 15-17. This is
discussed in the following section.
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 12
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 13
4.2.2 Ero si o n an d Sed i men t Con tro l
The proposed development received an erosion hazard score of 16 on the International Erosion Control
Association (IECA) erosion hazard assessment form. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be
prepared at the detailed design phase in accordance with IECA 2008 best practice documentation to
ensure the impacts of erosion, turbidity and sedimentation from construction activities will be managed
appropriately. Erosion and sediment control plans are based on three sets of control measures:
drainage control;
erosion control; and
Sediment control.
These control measures must be continually maintained in an effective operational condition and
amended as required to minimise environmental harm. Sediment disposal from site is to occur to the
satisfaction of NSC.
Defects in erosion and sediment control devices, such as sediment fences, are to be inspected and
documented. Upon Inspection, the contractor is to determine whether the device should be replaced or
repaired. Documentation is to include how the damage was caused and what measures can be
implemented to reduce the possibility of repeat occurrences. Any damage to either permanent or
temporary water quality control structures or devices is to be immediately rectified at the contractor’s
expense.
The effectiveness of the erosion and sediment control devices can be monitored by visual audits. All
ESC measures are to be inspected:
at least daily (when work is occurring on site) or weekly (when work is not occurring on site);
within 24 hours of expected rain; and
within 18 hours of a rainfall event (i.e. an event of sufficient intensity and duration to mobilise
sediment on site).
Drainage paths are to be inspected to ensure the sediment fences are not being bypassed as a result
of soil erosion.
Sediment laden runoff shall be prevented from entering neighbouring properties. This shall be achieved
by landscaping disturbed areas immediately and prior to a rainfall event.
4. 3 Mai n ten an ce an d Mon i to rin g Req ui remen ts
Periodic maintenance and monitoring of stormwater devices proposed in this report is crucial to ensure
effective operation and design life.
Inspect field inlet grates, pits and underground pipes for blockage or damage at least 6 monthly or after
significant rainfall event. The filter baskets shall be inspected and maintained preferably by the
manufacturer to avoid damage to units and to ensure adequate cleaning and record keeping. For the
first 12 months routine inspections of filter baskets shall be carried out monthly with routine clean out
at alternate months. Results of the initial 12 months maintenance program shall be used to determine
future maintenance intervals. Refer manufactures maintenance and monitoring methodology for
specific details.
Maintenance of ESC measures must occur in accordance with Table 8.
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 13
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 14
Table 8 - ESC maintenance requirements.
ESC Measure Maintenance Trigger Timeframe for Completion
of Maintenance
Sediment basins When settled sediment exceeds Within 7 days of the
the volume of the sediment inspection.
storage zone
Other ESC measures The capacity of ESC measures By the end of the day.
falls below 75%.
Sediment accumulation on ESC devices is to be removed and disposed of to the satisfaction of NSC.
5 CO NCL USI O N
This SWMP outlines how stormwater runoff from the site will be managed in order to not adversely
impact the receiving environment.
Stormwater runoff from developed areas of the site shall be directed to a detention & infiltration tank
with approximately 7m 3 detention capacity at the rear of the site. Runoff from the tank shall discharge
via either infiltration or shall surcharge and discharge east to Sunshine Beach as per existing conditions.
The detention tank configuration shall ensure the impact of stormwater runoff on the adjoining sand
dunes is mitigated and maintained below pre-development levels. Final layout & configuration of the
tank shall be confirmed at the detailed design phase. Is it noted that this discharge strategy was
approved for the adjoining development at 24 Arakoon Crescent.
Stormwater treatment could be managed on site by first flush diverters directing runoff for irrigation of
landscaped areas and/or the installation of field inlet pit inserts. Based on the scale of the proposed
development, and typical pollutants produced, these measures are considered adequate.
By implementing the proposed stormwater management system, and providing adequate maintenance,
the downstream environment and neighbouring properties will not experience any adverse deterioration
of water quality as a result of the proposed development.
4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 14
S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 15
6 APPEN DI CES 6. 1 Ap p en d i x A – Ero si o n Hazard Ass ess men t (I ECA) 4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 15 S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 16
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Condition Points Score Trigger
value
AVERAGE SLOPE OF DISTURBANCE AREA [1]
not more than 3% [3% 33H:1V] 0
more than 3% but not more than 5% [5% = 20H:1V] 1
6 4
more than 5% but not more than 10% [10% = 10H:1V] 2
more than 10% but not more than 15% [15% 6.7H:1V] 4
more than 15% 6
SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP (AS1726) [2]
GW, GP, GM, GC 0
SW, SP, OL, OH 1 1
SM, SC, MH, CH 2
ML, CL, or if imported fill is used, or if soils are untested 3
EMERSON (DISPERSION) CLASS NUMBER [3]
Class 4, 6, 7, or 8 0
Class 5 2 4 6
Class 3, (default value if soils are untested) 4
Class 1 or 2 6
DURATION OF SOIL DISTURBANCE [4]
not more than 1 month 0
more than 1 month but not more than 4 months 2 2 6
more than 4 months but not more than 6 months 4
more than 6 months 6
AREA OF DISTURBANCE [5]
not more than 1000 m2 0
more than 1000 m2 but not more than 5000 m2 1 0 4
more than 5000 m2 but not more than 1 ha 2
more than 1 ha but not more than 4 ha 4
more than 4 ha 6
WATERWAY DISTURBANCE [6]
No disturbance to a watercourse, open drain or channel 0
0 2
Involves disturbance to a constructed open drain or channel 1
Involves disturbance to a natural watercourse 2
REHABILITATION METHOD [7]
Percentage of area (relative to total disturbance) revegetated by seeding
without light mulching (i.e. worst-case revegetation method).
not more than 1% 0 0
more than 1% but not more than 5% 1
more than 5% but not more than 10% 2
more than 10% 4
RECEIVING WATERS [8]
Saline waters only 0 0
Freshwater body (e.g. creek or freshwater lake or river) 2
SUBSOIL EXPOSURE [9]
No subsoil exposure except of service trenches 0 2
Subsoils are likely to be exposed 2
EXTERNAL CATCHMENTS [10]
No external catchment 0
0
External catchment diverted around the soil disturbance 1
External catchment not diverted around the soil disturbance 2
ROAD CONSTRUCTION [11]
No road construction 0 0
Involves road construction works 2
pH OF SOILS TO BE REVEGETATED [12]
more than pH 5.5 but less than pH 8 0 1
other pH values, or if soils are untested 1
Total Score [13] 16
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 1
Page 17
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Explanatory notes
Requirements: Specific issues or actions required by the proponent.
Warnings: Issues that should be considered by the proponent.
Comments: General information relating to the topic.
[1] REQUIREMENTS:
For sites with an average slope of proposed land disturbance greater than 10%, a
preliminary ESCP must be submitted to the regulatory authority for approval
during planning negotiations.
Proponents must demonstrate that adequate erosion and sediment control
measures can be implemented on-site to effectively protect downstream
environmental values.
If site or financial constraints suggest that it is not reasonable or practicable for
the prescribed water quality objectives to be achieved for the proposal, then the
proponent must demonstrate that alternative designs or construction techniques
(e.g. pole homes, suspended slab) cannot reasonably be implemented on the
site.
WARNINGS:
Steep sites usually require more stringent drainage and erosion controls than
flatter grade sites.
COMMENTS:
The steeper the land, the greater the need for adequate drainage controls to
prevent soil and mulch from being washed from the site.
[2] REQUIREMENTS:
If the actual soil K-factor is known from soil testing, then the Score shall be
determined from Table 1.
If a preliminary ESCP is required during planning negotiations, then it must be
demonstrated that adequate space is available for the construction and operation
of any major sediment traps, including the provision for any sediment basins and
their associated embankments and spillways. It must also be demonstrated that
all reasonable and practicable measures can be taken to divert the maximum
quantity of sediment-laden runoff (up to the specified design storm) to these
sediment traps throughout the construction phase and until the contributing
catchment is adequately stabilised against erosion.
WARNINGS:
The higher the point score, the greater the need to protect the soil from raindrop
impact and thus the greater the need for effective erosion control measures. A
point score of 2 or greater will require a greater emphasis to be placed on
revegetation techniques that do not expose the soil to direct rainfall contact
during vegetation establishment, e.g. turfing and Hydromulching.
COMMENTS:
Table 2 provides an indication of soil conditions likely to be associated with a
particular Soil group based on a statistical analysis of soil testing across NSW.
This table provides only an initial estimate of the likely soil conditions.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 2
Page 18
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
The left-hand-side of the table provides an indication of the type of sediment
basin that will be required (Type C, F or D). The right-hand-side of the table
provides an indication of the likely erodibility of the soil based on the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) K-factor.
Table 3 provides some general comments on the erosion potential of the various
soil groups.
Table 1 – Score if soil K-factor is known
RUSLE soil erodibility K-factor
K < 0.02 0.02<K<0.04 0.04<K<0.06 K > 0.06
Score 0 1 2 3
Table 2 – Statistical analysis of NSW soil data [1]
Unified Likely sediment basin Probable soil erodibility K-factor (%) [2]
Soil classification (%)
Class Dry Wet Low Moderate High Very High
System
Type C Type F Type D K < 0.02 0.02<K<0.04 0.04<K<0.06 K > 0.06
GM 30 58 12 12 51 26 12
GC 42 33 25 13 71 17 0
SW 40 48 12 49 39 12 0
SP 53 32 15 76 18 5 1
SM 21 67 12 26 48 25 1
SC 26 50 24 16 64 18 2
ML 5 63 32 4 35 45 16
CL 9 51 39 12 56 19 13
OL 2 80 18 34 61 5 1
MH 12 41 48 15 19 41 25
CH 5 44 51 39 43 11 7
Notes: [1] Analysis of soil data presented in Landcom (2004).
[2] Soil erodibility based on Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) K-factor.
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures
SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures
ML Inorganic silts & very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity
CL Inorganic clays, low–medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 3
Page 19
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Table 3 – Typical properties of various soil groups [1]
Soil Groups Typical properties [2]
GW, GP Low erodibility potential.
GM, GC Low to medium erodibility potential.
May create turbid runoff if disturbed as a result of the release of silt
and clay particles.
SW, SP Low to medium erodibility potential.
SM, SC Medium erodibility potential.
May create turbid runoff if disturbed as a result of the release of silt
and clay particles.
MH, CH Highly variable (low to high) erodibility potential.
Will generally create turbid runoff if disturbed.
ML, CL High erodibility potential.
Tendency to be dispersive.
May create some turbidity in runoff if disturbed.
Note: [1] After Soil Services & NSW DLWC (1998).
[2] Any soil can represent a high erosion risk if the binding clays or silts are unstable.
Table 4 provides general guidelines on the suitability of various soil groups to various
engineering applications.
Table 4 – Engineering suitability based on Unified Soil Classification [1]
Embankments
USC Fill Slope Untreated
Unified Soil Class Water Non
Group stability roads
retaining water
retaining
Well graded gravels GW Unsuitable Excellent Excellent Excellent Average
Poorly graded gravel GP Unsuitable Average Excellent Average Unsuitable
Silty gravels GM Unsuitable Average Good Average Average
Clayey gravels GC Suitable Average Good Average Excellent
Well graded sands SW Unsuitable Excellent Excellent Excellent Average
Poorly graded sands SP Unsuitable Average Good Average Unsuitable
[2]
Silty sands SM Suitable Average Average Average Poor
Clayey sands SC Suitable Average Average Average Good
Inorganic silts ML Unsuitable Poor Average Poor Unsuitable
Inorganic clays CL Suitable [2] Good Average Good Poor
Organic silts OL Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable
Inorganic silts MH Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Unsuitable
[2]
Inorganic clays CH Suitable Average Unsuitable Average Unsuitable
Organic clays OH Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Highly organic soils Pt Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Notes: [1] Modified from Hazelton & Murphy (1992)
[2] Suitable only after modifications to soil such as compaction and/or erosion protection
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 4
Page 20
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[3] If the soils have not been tested for Emerson Class, then adopt a score of 4.
REQUIREMENTS:
Works proposed on sites containing Emerson Class 1 or 2 soils have a very high
pollution potential and must submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority
for review and/or approval (as required by the authority) during planning
negotiations.
WARNINGS:
Class 3 and 5 soils disturbed by cut and fill operations or construction traffic are
highly likely to discolour stormwater (i.e. cause turbid runoff). Chemical
stabilisation will likely be required if these soils are placed immediately adjacent
to a retaining wall. Any disturbed Class 1, 2, 3 and 5 soils that are to be
revegetated must be covered with a non-dispersive topsoil as soon as possible
(unless otherwise agreed by the regulatory authority).
Class 1 and 2 soils are highly likely to discolour (pollute) stormwater if exposed to
rainfall or flowing water. Treatment of these soils with gypsum (or other suitable
substance) will most likely be required. These soils should not be placed directly
behind a retaining wall unless it has been adequately treated (stabilised) or
covered with a non-dispersible soil.
[4] The duration of disturbance refers to the total duration of soil exposure to rainfall
up until a time when there is at least 70% coverage of all areas of soil.
REQUIREMENTS:
All land developments with an expected soil disturbance period greater than 6
months must submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review
and/or approval (as required by the authority) during planning negotiations.
COMMENTS:
Construction periods greater than 3 months will generally experience at least
some significant storm events, independent of the time of year that the
construction (soil disturbance) occurs.
[5] REQUIREMENTS:
Development proposals with an expected soil disturbance in excess of 1ha must
submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review and/or approval
(as required by the regulatory authority) during planning negotiations.
The area of disturbance refers to the total area of soil exposed to rainfall or dust-
producing winds either as a result of:
(a) the removal of ground cover vegetation, mulch or sealed surfaces;
(b) past land management practices;
(c) natural conditions.
WARNINGS:
A Sediment Basin will usually be required if the disturbed area exceeds 0.25ha
(2500m2) within any sub-catchment (i.e. land flowing to one outlet point).
COMMENTS:
For soil disturbances greater than 0.25ha, the revegetation phase should be
staged to minimise the duration for which soils are exposed to wind, rain and
concentrated runoff.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 5
Page 21
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[6] REQUIREMENTS:
All developments that involve earthworks or construction within a natural
watercourse (whether that watercourse is in a natural or modified condition) must
submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review and/or approval
(as required by the regulatory authority) during planning negotiations.
Permits and/or licences may be required from the State Government, including
possible submission of the ESCP to the relevant Government department.
[7] REQUIREMENTS:
No areas of soil disturbance shall be left exposed to rainfall or dust-producing
winds at the end of a development without an adequate degree of protection
and/or an appropriate action plan for the establishment of at least 70% cover.
COMMENTS:
Grass seeding without the application of a light mulch cover is considered the
least favourable revegetation technique. A light mulch cover is required to
protect the soil from raindrop impact, excessive temperature fluctuations, and the
loss of essential soil moisture.
[8] COMMENTS:
All receiving waters can be adversely affected by unnatural quantities of
sediment-laden runoff. Freshwater ecosystems are generally more susceptible to
ecological harm resulting from the inflow of fine or dispersible clays than saline
water bodies. The further inland a land disturbance is, the greater the potential
for the released sediment to cause environmental harm as this sediment travels
towards the coast.
For the purpose of this clause it is assumed that all sediment-laden runoff will
eventually flow into saline waters. Thus, sediment-laden discharges that flow first
into freshwater are likely to adversely affect both fresh and saline water bodies
and are therefore considered potentially more damaging to the environment.
This clause does not imply that sediment-laden runoff will not cause harm to
saline waters.
[9] COMMENTS:
This clause refers to subsoils exposed during the construction phase either as a
result of past land practices or proposed construction activities. The exposure of
subsoils resulting from the excavation of minor service trenches should not be
considered.
[10] WARNINGS:
The greater the extent of external catchment, the greater the need to divert up-
slope stormwater runoff around any soil disturbance.
COMMENTS:
The ability to separate “clean” (i.e. external catchment) stormwater runoff from
“dirty” site runoff can have a significant effect on the size, efficiency and cost of
the temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment control measures.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 6
Page 22
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[11] REQUIREMENTS:
Permission must be obtained from the owner of a road reserve before placing
any erosion and sediment control measures within the road reserve.
WARNINGS:
Few sediment control techniques work efficiently when placed on a road and/or
around roadside stormwater inlets. Great care must be taken if sediment control
measures are located on a public roadway, specifically:
safety issues relating to road users;
the risk of causing flooding on the road or within private property.
The construction of roads (whether temporary or permanent) will usually modify
the flow path of stormwater runoff. This can affect how “dirty” site runoff is
directed to the sediment control measures.
COMMENTS:
“On-road” sediment control devices are at best viewed as secondary or
supplementary sediment control measures. Only in special cases and/or on very
small projects (e.g. kerb and channel replacement) might these controls be
considered as the “primary” sediment control measure.
[12] WARNINGS:
Soils with a pH less than 5.5 or greater than 8 will usually require treatment in
order to achieve satisfactory revegetation. Soils with a pH of less than 5
(whether naturally acidic or in acid sulfate soil areas) may also limit the choice of
chemical flocculants (e.g. Alum) for use in the flocculation of Sediment Basins.
[13] REQUIREMENTS:
A preliminary ESCP must be submitted to the local government for approval
during the planning phase for any development that obtains a total point score of
17 or greater or when any trigger value is scored or exceeded.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 7
Page 23
6. 2 Ap p en d i x B – En g in eeri n g Draw i n g 4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 16 S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 24
CATCHMENT SUMMARY
LEGEND
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SECTION
PRELIMINARY
SUNSHINE COAST GOLD COAST SURVEYOR No. DATE REVISIONS
SHEET APPROVED DESIGNED
SHEET NUMBER
Suite 2, Norval Corporate Centre, Level 3
13 Norval Ct, Maroochydore 17 Welch St, Southport
T 0431 803 337
E [email protected]
T 07 5571 1599 F 07 5571 1330
E [email protected] PROJECT DRAWN
PARTNERS BRISBANE NORTHERN NSW USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES CHECK WITH THE
PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE LOCATION DATE DRAWN
REVISION
Level 2 Limestore, 11 Sailfish Way, Kingscliff
33 Longland St, Newstead T 02 6674 8047 F 02 6674 8049
DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM PROJECT NUMBER
THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS
T 07 3852 4333 F 07 3852 4777 E [email protected] STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE
www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 E [email protected] CARRIED OUT WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT For and on behalf of
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD.
FILE NAME
Page 25
6. 3 Ap p en d i x C – Si te Su rvey & Arch i tectu r al Draw i n g s 4 April 2019 Stormwater Management Report 17 S18-030 22 Arakoon Crescent,
Page 26
SW
FH
SW
WM
TBM
Bolt in
kerb
RL 29.31
AHD
[OCR of page images]
Sewer Manhole
Surtace Level RL27-66
Lid rusted closed
from unity water
USIL. 26:54
DSIL 26-35
&
Legend
Top of bank yy yy
Toe of bank
Stormwater p——___
Sewer S
Telstra ——_F
Electricity =
Under Ground ————U/G
Water w
Fence —_ //
x Electric Power Box
@ = Power Pole
3€ Electric Light Pole
Fire Hydrant
Sewerage Manhole
@ Stormwater Manhole
a Telstra Pit
fm © Water Meter
h< = Water Valve
= Gully Trap
m * = © Permanent Survey Mark
—_ofline 32°84
<—pprox root line @ Temporary Bench Mark
A Traverse Station
° Peg - Original
—O —Road Sign
STEM 3 a
s Battin jane" A va __ —— — fpproxroofiline 3284 @ = Bollara
> Tree
RL 29.31
AHD | \ \ Other Features noted on Face of Plan
792
h concrete \ \ RP48II
K DISCLAIMER
\ \ Boundaries shown hereon are plotted from
deed dimensions and were not reinstated at
\ \ the time of survey
\ Only visible services have been located
a \ 0 Before commencement of any design and construction
Vv works, the location of these services must
\ ’ be verified on site by the relevant
v authorities
The shapes displaying services are symbolic
representations and whilst they are accurately
A placed they are not to scale.
e We Project Urban Pty Ltd hereby
° 5 10 Metres certify that the levels and detail shown
m ! T T T T J hereon are an accurate representation of
w a) Original Scale 1:75 the site at the time of survey.
a | .
CLIENT
ANDREW DOUGLAS NOTES AMENOMENTS DATE DESIGNED SHEET NO.. 1 OF 1 ..SHEETS
PROJECT DATUM: AHD A
CONTOUR AND DETAIL SURVEY 20/03/18 LEVEL ORIGIN: PSM 44208 B SURVEYED COMPUTER FILE
RL: 27.686 V T E
22 ARAKOON CRESCENT SUNSHINE BEACH QLD 4567 C 18099_CD_c3d2018_200318.dwg
LOT 793 ON RP48111 D DRAWN SCALE
Sunshine Coast [email protected] E VTE 1:75 A
tel. O7 5443 2844 www.ProjectUrban.com.au
i j DATE DRAWING No AMEND
Brisbane Project Urban Pty Ltd F 22/03/18 48099 01
tel. O7 3257 4371 ACN 608 895 923 ABN 97 608 895 923 G ' yy
Coneret®
%
cy
S
793
RP48I//
794
RP4&IIl
SS
~—=—=aR
Page 27
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
ADJACENT MULTI
STOREY DWELLING
794
RP 48111
Y
THWA
IC PA
13
12M
15 14
16
15M
17
COA
PUBL
18
COA
STAL
19
STAL
BUIL
20
BUIL
DING
THWAY 21
DING
P UBLIC PA IRE FENC
E
LINE
CHAINW
CHAINWIRE FEN
LINE
22 34
00" - 40.2
CHAINWI
23 - 72 28'
o
24
GATE
25 UNDARY
SITE BO
K
26 E SETBAC
1.5M SID LANDSCAPE
RE
CE
AP E NATIVE
E LANDSC E
IRE FENC NATIV
27 CHAINW
28
SITE BOUNDARY
OSED
UNENCLVERED
CANTILE BELOW
Y
BALCON
LOW
29 POOL BE
30 VOID
31
SUNSHINE BEACH
ARAKO
- 66
VOID
12M REAR SETBAC
SITE BOUNDARY
15M REAR SETBAC
o 18' 00" - 17.828
793
RP 48111
6M FRONT SETBAC
ON CR
K
CENTRAL LANDSCAPE
K
- 346 18'00" - 12.
K
ESCEN
o
LIGHTWEIGHT UNENCLOSED
ROOF OVER PROPOSED CANTILEVERED
RESIDENCE BALCONY BELOW
SHED
448
T
ROOF GARDEN 2.2M SIDE SETBACK
1.5M SIDE SETBACK
CHAINWIRE
LANDSCAPE
NATIVE
GATE
CHAINWIRE FENCE
ADJACENT MULTI SITE BOUNDARY - 80o 08' 00" - 40.234
STOREY DWELLING
15M COASTAL BUILDING LINE
12M COASTAL BUILDING LINE
ADJACENT MULTI
STOREY DWELLING
792
RP 48111
PUBLIC PATHWAY
15M CO
12M CO
ADJACENT MULTI
ASTAL
STOREY DWELLING
ASTAL
BUILDI
BUILDI
NG LINE
NG LINE
POOL
PROJECT NUMBER ADDRESS SCALE DRAWING NAME DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
1804_arakoon 22 Arakoon Cres, Sunshine Beach 1:200 Proposed Site Plan DD 10 27.03.19 DA JAMES RUSSELL ARCHITECT
GSEducationalVersion
Page 28
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8
12M
COA
DARY
STAL
D BOUN
15M
MENT S ED SOLI
VELOP PROPO
BUIL
VED DE MULTI
COA
APPRO N T
DING
E
ADJAC WELLING
STAL
YD
STORE
LINE
BUIL
DING
LINE
PATHWAY 21
PUBLIC
IRE FENCE
CHAINW
22 DD 200
CHAINWI
GATE
.234 01
o 28' 00" - 40 K
23 - 72 E SETBAC
RE
24 UNDARY 1.5M SID
SITE BO
25
26
K
E SETBAC
1.5M SID
AP E
LANDSC E
NATIV
27
28 OPEN
UNENCLOSED
CANTILEVERED
BALCONY BELOW
LOW
POOL BE
SITE BOUNDARY
TILE
5o PITCH
OPEN
GLASS
A SOLAR
5o PITCH
- 346 18'00" - 12.
o
12M REAR SETBAC
15M REAR SETBAC
DD 202
GUTTER
COPPER LANDSCAPE
03
NATIVE
448
COPPER GUTTER
K
6M FRONT SETBAC
K
CENTRAL COURTYARD
ARAKOO
01 TILE
B DD 300
5o PITCH DP COPPER GUTTER
K
N CRES
DD 202
04
C
CENT
GLASS GLASS GLASS UNENCLOSED
SOLAR METAL ROOF SOLAR SOLAR CANTILEVERED
5o PITCH 5o PITCH BALCONY BELOW
STAIR 5
BELOW
GARDEN BELOW 2.2M SIDE SETBACK
D CONCRETE 1.5M SIDE SETBACK
CHAINWIRE
GATE
LANDSCAPE
CONCRETE NATIVE
DD 301
DD 302
02 CHAINWIRE FENCE
02
04
SITE BOUNDARY - 80o 08' 00" - 40.234 DD 200
ADJACENT MULTI
15M COASTAL BUILDING LINE
DD 301
12M COASTAL BUILDING LINE
STOREY DWELLING
03
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10
PROJECT NUMBER ADDRESS SCALE DRAWING NAME DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
1804_arakoon 22 Arakoon Cres, Sunshine Beach 1:100 Roof Level - Floor Plan DD 100 27.03.19 DA JAMES RUSSELL ARCHITECT
GSEducationalVersion
Page 29
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8
21
22 DD 200
.234 01
o 28' 00" - 40
23 - 72
24 UNDARY
SITE BO
25
26
27
28
UNENCLOSED
CANTILEVERED
PUMP
POOL BALCONY
OOM
PLANT R GARDEN
SF
SHOWER PUMP/
OPEN FT-3 HEATER
D DECK1
COVERERS
SITE BOUNDARY
DECK-
OUTDOO
COOKIN
0
FFL 29.0
-1
CONC
A WC FFL 29.0
0
BATH 2
G
STAIR 6
COURTYARD 5 SCOOTER
- 346 18'00" - 12.
FFL 28.95 CONC-1
CONC-1
o
12M REAR SETBAC
15M REAR SETBAC
DD 202
03
448
K
K
ENTRY
GATE
STAIR 4
01 DP
B DD 300 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
COPPER
RAINWATER
HEAD
FLASHING FLASHING FLASHING
OPEN OPEN OPEN VOID
DD 202
04
C ROOM 1 ROOM 2
UNENCLOSED
CANTILEVERED
TIMB-1 TIMB-1 BALCONY
FFL 29.00 FFL 29.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LOUVRE WINDOW LOUVRE WINDOW LOUVRE WINDOW 9R(167 mm)
GARAGE
STAIR 5
8G(270 mm)
CONC-1 GARDEN
FFL 29.00 TOG 28.95
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
10
11
LINE OF ROOF OVER 9R(167 mm)
8G(270 mm)
BAL-2
3,110
D LIFT
BAL-2
1,550
DD 301
DD 302
02
02
04
SITE BOUNDARY - 80o 08' 00" - 40.234 DD 200
DD 301
03
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10
PROJECT NUMBER ADDRESS SCALE DRAWING NAME DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
1804_arakoon 22 Arakoon Cres, Sunshine Beach 1:100 Level 2 - Floor Plan DD 101 27.03.19 DA JAMES RUSSELL ARCHITECT
GSEducationalVersion
Page 30
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8
CE
21 IRE FEN
CHAINW
CE
IRE FEN
CHAINW
22 DD 200
.234 01
o 28' 00" - 40
23 - 72
24 UNDARY
SITE BO
25
26
IRE
CHAINW TIMBER
SCRE EN
CE GATE
IRE FEN
CHAINW
27 VOID
28
OPEN LANDSCAPE
BELOW
FT-2
SEAT
OPEN
SITE BOUNDARY
R G
SHOWER BATH-11 SLEENPCIN
-1
BELOW CO
CONC FFL 26.0
0
A WC
CONC-1
SHELF
- 346 18'00" - 12.
2
FFL 24.6 )
8R(173 mm )
7G(275 mm
o
1
2
3
4
5
STAIR 1
6
7
8
12M REAR SETBAC
15M REAR SETBAC
DD 202
)
8R(188 mm )
03
7G(275 mm
16
15
448
14
13
12
11
10
FOYER
9
CENTRAL
K
CONC-1 COURTYARD
K
EXTERIOR TILE
STAIR 4
01
B DD 300 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
OPEN
STAIR 5 STAIR BELOW
DD 202
04
C LOUNGE
CONC-1
LOUNGE
CONC-1 OPEN LANDSCAPE
FFL 26.00 BELOW
COURTYARD 4
TG 25.95 STUDIO
WATER FFL 26.00 CONC-1
TANK
OPEN
5 mm)
14R(186 mm)
LINE OF STRUCTURE OVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9R(167 mm)
UP
13G(240
8G(270 mm)
STAIR
RISER JOINERY GLASS
BAL-2
ROOF LEDGE
D LIFT
DD 301
DD 302
02
02
04
SITE BOUNDARY - 80o 08' 00" - 40.234 DD 200
DD 301
03
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10
PROJECT NUMBER ADDRESS SCALE DRAWING NAME DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
1804_arakoon 22 Arakoon Cres, Sunshine Beach 1:100 Level 1 - Floor Plan DD 102 27.03.19 DA JAMES RUSSELL ARCHITECT
GSEducationalVersion
Page 31
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8
CE
IRE FEN
CHAINW
CHAINW
DD 200
GATE
01
IRE
CE
IRE FEN
CHAINW
SCRE EN
TIMBER
APE
SD
LANDSC
MEACL-1S
CON
T
MARB-B
S
S
LOUNNCG E
WC SHOWER -1 DESK
OVER CONC-1
CO
KITCNH EN
A FFL 23.2
4 RD
COURTYA.14
TOG 23
1
FFL 23.2
4 SD C-1
CO
FFL 23.0
6 JOINERY
T
MARB-B P
APP
EX
CT
UP
)
8R(173 mm ) F
FR
7G(275 mm
1
2
3
4
5
STAIR 1
6
7
8
12M REAR SETBAC
15M REAR SETBAC
DD 202
T
MARB-B
) S
8R(188 mm )
03
7G(275 mm
UP
16
BENCH
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
CENTRAL
K
LDRY COURTYARD
K
LINEN CONC-1
CONC-1
01 WM DR MARB-BT
B DD 300
STORE
4
STAIR OVER
3
BATH
STAIR 2 SEAT
ROBES
DD 202
2
04
1
C DRESSING
ROOM
SHOWER ENSUITE
TER-1
WC
LTH-1
LANDSCAPE
COURTYARD 2 FFL 22.79 FFL 23.24 SD
TOG 23.14
SITTING
CONC-1
TIMBER DOOR SILL
TIMBER DOOR SILL
SEAT
DRAWERS/ FFL 23.24 COURTYARD 3 FFL 23.00
SEAT TOG 23.14
VANITY
MARB-BT
SHELF MAIN BED UP
CONC-1
13G(240 mm)
14R(186 mm)
2 1
1
2
FFL 23.24
ROBES
3
4
ROBES ROBES SHOWER STAIR 3
RISER SEAT JOINERY FOOT WASH
JOINERY
BAL-2
14
13
12
10
11
9
8
7
6
5
D
CHAINWIRE
LIFT
GATE
DD 301
DD 302
02
02
04
CHAINWIRE FENCE CHAINWIRE FENCE
DD 200
DD 301
03
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10
PROJECT NUMBER ADDRESS SCALE DRAWING NAME DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
1804_arakoon 22 Arakoon Cres, Sunshine Beach 1:100 Ground Level - Floor Plan DD 103 27.03.19 DA JAMES RUSSELL ARCHITECT
GSEducationalVersion
Used in these records
Stormwater Management Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 4.9 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.