Original source · versioned page text
2021-01-18 GC - Item 3 - Attachment 4 - Cost Benefit Analysis for Noosaville Inundation Options
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
General Committee Agenda 18 January 2021
Attachment 4 to Item 3
Noosa Shire Council CHAP –
Phase 7
Noosaville Cost Benefit Analysis
Report prepared for Noosa Shire Council
Wednesday 5 August 2020
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 0
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 18 sections
Section 2
Contents
Noosaville Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................ 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Findings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Assumptions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Limitations and sensitivity analysis .............................................................................................................................. 7
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Appendix A – Technical data............................................................................................................. 11
Inundation under base case ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Assets protected ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
References ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Tables
Table 1: Present value results (discounted at 2.3%).................................................................................................. 3
Table 3: Estimated costs (undiscounted)....................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 4: Next steps for assessment ............................................................................................................................... 10
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 1
Section 3
Noosaville Cost Benefit Analysis
Introduction
Aither was engaged, in partnership with BMT, to undertake a socio-economic analysis of potential
climate change adaptation options for the Noosaville area of Noosa Local Government Area (LGA). At
this stage of investigation, the socio-economic analysis aims to:
• support Noosa Shire Council’s understanding of the merit of different options
• assist Council to communicate the benefits and costs of options to stakeholders
• determine next steps for more detailed investigation.
The socio-economic analysis investigated the effects of sea level rise between 2020 and 2100.
Modelling undertaken by BMT in Phase 3 of the CHAP shows that sea level rise (relative to present day
extents) will lead to increasing risk of low-level inundation1 of the areas in Noosaville adjacent to the
Noosa River, creeks and lakes. If no management activities are undertaken, the risk to assets at these
locations progressively increases. These effects have been assessed at nominal timeframes of present
day, 2040, 2070, and 2100, selected to align with increases in sea level of 0.0m, 0.2m, 0.4m, and 0.8m
respectively.
The effects of low-level inundation include damage to public and private assets, and impacts on the
local community including reduced access to recreational areas, loss of tourist expenditure, and
disruption to residents from road closures. The effects on non-tourism businesses were not calculated
at this stage, as the temporary and occasional nature of the inundation indicates that other business
would see a delay in sales, rather than an overall decrease.
As part of the CHAP, technical investigations into potential adaptation options have been undertaken
by coastal engineers (BMT), including high-level cost estimates. A range of coastal adaptation options
were developed through earlier stages of the CHAP in consultation with the local community. The full
range of potential options were examined through a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) undertaken by BMT.
Those that scored highest in this process, or were considered to likely be of broader interest, were
included in the CBA. Aither’s analysis therefore assessed the following adaptation options:
• Option 1: Protect - Levees and stormwater infrastructure modifications (i.e. installing tide gates to
prevent egress into the stormwater network)
• Option 2: Accommodate - Road raising
This report provides findings for Phase 7 of the CHAP: Socio-economic appraisal of adaptation
options of the Noosa CHAP in line with the QCoast2100 CHAP minimum standards and guidelines.
Findings
The cost benefit analysis assesses the net benefits and costs over an 80-year period (2020-2100), using
a discount rate of 2.3 per cent reflecting Noosa Shire Council’s current cost of borrowing. The results
1
Inundated to depths of approximately 0.1m for less than an hour per day, occurring for roughly two consecutive days
every fortnight. Information on low-level inundation has been provided by HydraLogic.
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 2
Section 4
(Table 1) demonstrate that option 1 (Protect – Levee and stormwater infrastructure modifications)
provides the greatest net benefit to the community. This is driven by greater protection from
inundation leading to:
• avoided loss of tourism revenue
• avoided loss of benefits from access to recreational areas along the foreshore
• reduced road damage
• reduced damage to the stormwater network.
Option 2 (Accommodate – Road raising) has a similar discounted cost to option 1. However, it does
not provide as extensive protection from inundation and therefore delivers fewer benefits than option
1. The costs of option 2 may also be understated, as substantial modifications and community
inconvenience would be required to address matters such as driveway crossovers, grading of
intersections and pedestrian movements, which have not been included in the current costs.
Sensitivity analysis, which is included on pages 7-8 of the report, also demonstrates that option 1 is
the preferred option under a range of different assumptions.
Table 1: Present value results (discounted at 2.3 per cent, costs and benefits assessed for period
2020-2100)
Option 1 – Levee and Option 2 – road Confidence
stormwater modification raising
Net Present Value (NPV) $21.5m -$3.9m
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.11 0.80
Costs $19.4m $19.2m
Levee costs $8.9m Medium
Stormwater modification costs $10.5m Medium
Road raising costs $19.2m Medium
Benefits $40.9m $15.3m
Recreational benefits $6.5m $0.1m Low
Avoided property damage $0.1m $0.1m Low
Avoided road damage $1.1m $0.6m Medium
Tourism benefits $27.1m $10.8m Low
Avoided damage to stormwater $3.0m $0.6m Medium
network
Residential nuisance benefits $3.1m $3.1m Low
Assumptions
All input assumption values used in the cost benefit analysis have been included in technical appendix
A.
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 3
Section 5
Options and costs The cost benefit analysis assesses the net change in the costs and benefits of each adaptation option relative to the base case. The base case and two separate options considered are: • Base case: No additional coastal adaptation or risk mitigation efforts are undertaken • Option 1: Protect (Levees with Stormwater infrastructure modifications) • Option 2: Accommodate (Road Raising) Under the base case, with no additional coastal adaptation or risk mitigation efforts being undertaken, low-level inundation continues to affect the Noosaville area. Over time there is an increase in areas being affected, and the inundation occurs more regularly and for longer durations. Under the base case there is increasing damage to roads and stormwater assets from increased inundation, and properties are at increased risk of salinity damage. Local recreational areas are increasingly inaccessible to the local population during inundation, and tourism is likely to decrease over time as access to important areas such as the foreshore and jetties are inundated more often. Under option 1, levees or barriers are constructed around the river, creek, or lake frontages of the area. Different structural forms of differing heights (earth bunds, revetment extensions or clear glass vertical panels) have been specifically selected and costed for each location. This option also includes modifications to the stormwater network involving three different types of devices to prevent the egress of tidal water into the network (e.g. tide flap, duckbill valve or inline check valve). Under this option the stormwater infrastructure modifications occur from 2040, whilst the levees are not constructed until 2070. Under option 2 all roads that experience some level of inundation are raised, to prevent flooding of the roads. It is worth noting that the road raising option can potentially cause significant inconvenience to the local community, both during construction and once complete. Additional costs associated with substantial modifications required to address matters such as driveway crossovers, grading of intersections, pedestrian movements, and other issues, have not been included in the analysis at this stage. Under this option the road raising takes place from 2070. The management costs included in the CBA are set out in Table 2. These costs have been provided by BMT and include high-level assessments of the potential costs of undertaking the relevant adaptation options. These costs only include the estimated construction costs and do not include any maintenance costs associated with future damage. REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 4
Section 6
Table 2: Estimated costs (undiscounted)
2040 2070 2100
Option 1
Levee costs - $15.6 million $24.0 million
Stormwater $9.4 million $9.4 million $9.4 million
modification costs
Option 2
Road raising - $26.8 million $65.2 million
Source BMT (2020)
Benefits
The benefits assessed through the CBA are described here and include benefits associated with a
range of tangible and intangible assets including:
• property protection
• public asset protection, predominantly roads and stormwater assets
• recreational use
• tourism
All data and assumptions used in the analysis have been provided in Appendix A.
Avoided road damage
Frequent low-level inundation of roads can cause damage due to:
• increased plasticity from wetting and drying of road base and surrounding soils leading to
movement and buckling of road surface
• formation of salt crystals in road material, eventually leading to boils and cracking of top layer This
reduces the effective lifespan of the roads, increasing the costs of maintenance for council.
Under the base case, where there is ongoing inundation of many local roads in the Noosaville area,
road maintenance, at council’s expense, will need to occur on a regular basis to overcome the damage
caused by frequent inundation.
Under the proposed adaptation options the frequency of inundation is reduced, thereby reducing the
damage to roads and reducing the costs of council road maintenance. There is a benefit from the
avoided costs of road maintenance compared to the base case. Assumptions on the expected
maintenance costs and the different lifespan of the roads under different levels of inundation have
been provided by Noosa Shire Council and are provided in Appendix A.
Avoided stormwater network damage
As with the damage to roads described above, frequent inundation of the stormwater network with
saltwater causes damage, reducing the effective lifespan of the assets and increasing the costs of
maintenance for council. Under the base case, where there is ongoing inundation of stormwater assets
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 5
Section 7
in the Noosaville area by tidal waters, maintenance of the stormwater network will need to occur on a more regular basis to overcome the damage caused by frequent inundation. Under the proposed adaptation options the frequency of inundation by tidal waters is reduced, thereby reducing the damage to stormwater assets and mitigating the costs of maintenance for council. Assumptions on the expected maintenance costs and the different lifespan of the stormwater assets under different levels of inundation have been provided by Noosa Shire Council and are provided in Appendix A. Avoided property damage Although the inundation caused by sea level rise is not expected to be of a depth or velocity to cause significant property damage in the region, there may be minor damages caused by increased salinity from frequent inundation or saline groundwater intrusion. Under the base case properties close to the river, creeks and lake are potentially affected by low-level inundation which may lead to increased maintenance costs for property owners (for example of gardens and driveways). A report on dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin (S Wilson, 2004) provides expected yearly property repair costs due to increased salinity. Whilst these are driven by dryland and urban salinity impacts there is limited data on the impacts of coastal salinity damage. These costs have been used to approximate the potential damage costs to residential properties and tourist accommodation in relevant areas, however these costs are low confidence, and should therefore be investigated further. Under the project options the extent of inundation is reduced thereby mitigating the expected property damage caused in comparison to the base case. Recreational and amenity benefits Publicly accessible open space provides amenity benefits to the local community. Amenity benefits can include both tangible benefits such as recreation, or non-tangible benefits such as aesthetic appreciation. These open spaces in Noosaville, in particular those along the river foreshore, are at greater risk of being affected by the increased inundation as a result of sea level rise. Under the base case the local community is restricted from accessing these areas whilst they are inundated, and therefore the amenity value of these assets is reduced. There are also likely to be additional costs associated with maintaining and restoring recreational areas affected by inundation, however due to limited information available these costs have not been included at this stage of the analysis. Under the project options the extent of recreational areas inundated is reduced and the recreational and amenity benefits associated with access to these public open spaces are therefore greater compared to the base case. These benefits have been quantified based on average yearly household willingness to pay for public open space (Ambrey and Fleming, 2014), and the amount of additional time these spaces are accessible. Tourism benefits Tourism is a key benefit to the region. It is assumed that low-level inundation, especially of areas along the foreshore and other popular visitor locations, will have a negative effect on the number of visitors to the Noosaville area. The reduction in visitation is assumed based on the amount of time that key areas of Noosaville are expected to be inundated each year. REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 6
Section 8
Tourism benefits are therefore calculated based on:
• the assumed effect of inundation on tourism visitation to Noosaville and its accessibility
• the proportion of tourists who only visit the Noosaville area in Noosa LGA (to calculate net impact
on tourism at the LGA level)
• the average expenditure per tourist
• the average benefit per dollar of expenditure to the local community 2.
Under each of the project options, the reduction in inundation will lead to an increase in tourism
benefits compared to the base case.
Residential nuisance benefits
Under the base case, low-level inundation is expected to cause inconvenience to the local community
due to road closures. These nuisance benefits are calculated based on the effects of road flooding
close to residential properties. Given the short duration of the road closures (less than 30 mins), it is
assumed that there will not be a significant inconvenience for the majority of Noosaville residents.
These effects are therefore only applied to the population directly affected, i.e. those living in the
affected residential areas.
Under the base case these nuisance effects are calculated based on the assumed length of time the
roads are closed, the value of time, and the size of the local population. Under the project options the
reduction in inundation of roads within Noosaville is therefore expected to deliver benefits compared
to the base case.
Limitations and sensitivity analysis
The cost benefit analysis has been undertaken using the best available data and evidence on the
impacts, costs and benefits of the base case and adaptation options. However, much of the data is
limited and the analysis has relied on assumptions based on expert knowledge. Sensitivity analysis has
been undertaken by testing the effect each of the following input assumptions has on the NPV,
individually. The sensitivity analysis has focused on using the most conservative input assumptions to
test the lower bounds of the benefits of each option.
Sensitivity analysis has been undertaken on the following input assumptions:
• 4 per cent discount rate – the discount rate used under the central analysis is 2.3 per cent in line
with Noosa Shire Council’s average borrowing costs, a 4 per cent rate has been included in the
sensitivity analysis to align with State Government guidance
• 1 per cent improvement in tourist visitation – under the central case it is assumed that under
options 1 and 2, tourism visitation will be 5 per cent and 2 per cent higher respectively than under
the base case due to reduced impacts from inundation. Given the high level of uncertainty over the
2 The average benefit per dollar of expenditure to the local community is based on an assumed profit rate. This is
because it is important to also account for any costs associated with tourist expenditure to avoid overestimating
the benefits. Consistent with the Queensland Government’s Project Assessment Framework, changes in gross
regional or state product should not be included in cost benefit analysis. The profit rate has therefore been used as
an alternative to any GRP assessment of tourism.
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 7
Section 9
impacts of inundation on tourism to the area this has been reduced to a 1 per cent increase in
tourism relative to the base case.
• Conservative decline in lifespan from inundation – in the central analysis it is assumed that for
roads and stormwater assets that are frequently inundated, their useable lifespans may be more
than 50 per cent shorter than without inundation. Under the sensitivity analysis the more
conservative reduction in lifespan of 15 per cent is assumed.
The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 3. The results show that option 1 still delivers
a net benefit to the community under most assumptions. These input assumptions are conservative
and therefore it is highly likely that option 1 will deliver a net benefit to the community if undertaken.
However, the sensitivity analysis also demonstrates the importance of the tourism benefits to the
results as these benefits are important in delivering a positive net present value. Better understanding
of the impacts of flooding on tourism should therefore be a key area of focus for the next stages of
assessment.
Table 3: Sensitivity analysis
Option 1 (NPV/BCR) Option 2 (NPV/BCR)
Central results $21.5 m / 2.11 -$3.9 m / 0.80
4 per cent discount rate $5.6 m / 1.61 -$1.2 m / 0.823
7 per cent discount rate -$0.6 / 0.82 -$0.2 / 0.80
1 per cent improvement in -$0.2 m / 0.99 -$9.3 m / 0.51
tourist visitation
Conservative decline in $18.9 m / 1.97 -$4.6 m / 0.76
lifespan from inundation
20 per cent decrease in $14.8 m / 1.76 -$6.1 m / 0.68
tourism and recreational
values
In addition to the sensitivity analysis, a threshold value assessment has been undertaken. This provides
an assessment of the total value of the benefits that would need to be delivered to achieve a BCR of
1.0 or greater. Comparing this to the local population can provide an estimate of the potential benefit
needed for each member of the community. The threshold value approach shows that the Noosaville
population would need to be willing to pay on average $238 per household per annum between 2040
and 2100 under option 1, and an average $255 per household per annum between 2040 and 2100
under option 2.
Recommendations
This report demonstrates that accommodating sea level rises through option 2 (road raising) is
unlikely to deliver net benefits to the community as it provides insufficient protection from low-level
3
For option 2, a higher discount rate improves the benefit cost ratio as the results for this option are driven by high
costs in the later years of the analysis. The higher discount rate therefore reduces the present value of costs by a
greater amount than it reduces the benefits.
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 8
Section 10
inundation. This is without factoring in the additional costs and community inconvenience which have not been captured through this analysis. However, undertaking some form of protection through levees and stormwater infrastructure modification, as demonstrated in option 1, is likely to provide net benefits to the community. This is mostly driven by the prevention of future declines in tourism due inundation. This option therefore merits further consideration and more detailed future assessments. As discussed previously this analysis is a high-level, early stage assessment of the potential costs and benefits of adaptation options for the Noosaville area. There is limited data on the expected impacts and values for some of the costs and benefits. Some key assumptions in the analysis have a significant effect on the results and should therefore be subject to further investigation prior to implementing any project option. These assumptions and some proposed future work that can support future assessments are set out in Table 4. REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 9
Section 11
Table 4: Next steps for assessment
Assumption Confidence Sensitivity Description
Costs of options Medium High Costings for levees, stormwater modifications
and road raising are an early stage estimate.
Further assessment should be undertaken to
support more robust cost estimates.
Value of recreational Low High It is difficult to fully value the benefit of access
areas to recreational areas. Community consultation
could provide further insights on the associated
benefits of reducing inundation to recreational
areas.
Damage to Low Low As well as reducing access to recreational areas,
recreational areas inundation is likely to cause damage that will
require repair and maintenance which will be an
additional cost to council, and will further affect
access. A better understanding of these costs
would further support the analysis.
Property damage Low Medium Currently, property damage is calculated based
on the costs of dryland and urban salinity.
Further work could be undertaken to better
understand the costs to properties from
frequent low-level inundation in the Noosaville
area.
Effects on tourism Low High It is assumed that inundation will have a
negative effect on tourism in the Noosaville
area, however the magnitude of this impact is
not well understood. Further engagement with
the community and visitors could provide
insights into the negative effects of inundation
on tourism.
Road and stormwater Medium Medium It is assumed that inundation will have a
network damage negative effect on roads and stormwater assets,
reducing their lifespan and increasing
maintenance costs for council. However, the
magnitude of the expected impacts are not well
understood, further work to refine the estimates
of changes in lifespan would support more
robust future cost estimates.
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 10
Section 12
Appendix A – Technical data Inundation under base case Extent inundated (m2) 2040 2070 2100 Foreshore recreational 94,186 94,186 165,245 areas and football oval Properties (residential 27,290 27,290 91,200 and tourist) Roads (formed) 52,998 52,998 143,248 Roads (unformed) 9,484 9,484 12,332 Stormwater pipes (m) 43,931 50,055 52,971 Note Data provided by HydraLogic Assets protected Option 1 Extent protected (m2) 2040 2070 2100 Foreshore recreational 0 85,939 118,043 areas and football oval Properties (residential 0 5,108 54,477 and tourist) Roads (formed) 0 45,466 123,864 Roads (unformed) 0 9,484 6,475 Stormwater pipes (m) 19,000 37,000 40,000 Note Data provided by HydraLogic and BMT REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 11
Section 13
Option 2 Extent protected (m2) 2040 2070 2100 Foreshore recreational 0 0 59,838 areas and football oval Properties (residential 0 5,108 55,729 and tourist) Roads (formed) - 28,491 138,122 Roads (unformed) 0 5,151 12,332 Stormwater pipes (m) 0 12,000 17,000 Note Data provided by HydraLogic and BMT Benefits Avoided road damage Assumption Value Source Total cost ($/m3) $858 Noosa Council Average depth (mm) 50 Noosa Council Lifespan without inundation 20 years Noosa Council Lifespan with infrequent 13.3 years Noosa Council inundation Lifespan with semi frequent 6.7 years Noosa Council inundation Semi frequent inundation >= 2 mins, 52 days per year HydraLogic Frequent inundation >= 1hrs, 157 days per year HydraLogic REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 12
Section 14
Avoided stormwater damage
Assumption Value Source
Total cost ($/m) – 300 mm $300 Noosa Council
pipe
Lifespan without inundation 30 years Noosa Council
Lifespan HAT 26 years Noosa Council
Lifespan MWHS 15 years Noosa Council
Avoided property damage
Assumption Value Source
Infrequent salinity damage $75/household/year Murray Darling Basin
Commission (Wilson, 2004)
Semi frequent salinity damage $250/household/year Murray Darling Basin
Commission (Wilson, 2004)
Regular salinity damage $2135/household/year Murray Darling Basin
Commission (Wilson, 2004)
Infrequent inundation >= 2 mins, 52 days per year HydraLogic
Semi frequent inundation >= 1hrs, 157 days per year HydraLogic
Regular inundation >=6hrs, 365 days per year HydraLogic
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 13
Section 15
Recreational benefits
Assumption Value Source
Impact on time to access
Calculated based on mapping
recreational spaces – infrequent 0.5%
from HydraLogic
inundation
Impact on time to access
Calculated based on mapping
recreational spaces – semi 10%
from HydraLogic
frequent inundation
Impact on time to access
Calculated based on mapping
recreational spaces – frequent 25%
from HydraLogic
inundation
Park value 1,156,121 $/ha/year Ambrey and Fleming (2014)
Infrequent inundation >= 2 mins, 52 days per year HydraLogic
Semi frequent inundation >= 1hrs, 157 days per year HydraLogic
Regular inundation >=6hrs, 365 days per year HydraLogic
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 14
Section 16
Tourism benefits
Assumption Value Source
Tourism Research Australia 2018 - Local
Tourist visitation - day trip 1160000 Government Area profiles
Tourism Research Australia 2018 - Local
Tourist visitation - overnight 4470000 Government Area profiles
Tourism Research Australia 2018 - Local
Tourist expenditure - day trip $118 Government Area profiles
Tourism Research Australia 2018 - Local
Tourist expenditure - overnight $225 Government Area profiles
Dwyer et. al. 2005 - The economic impacts
Profit rate 17% and benefits of tourism in Australia
Reduction in tourism due to Assumed based on proportion of time key
10%
inundation under base case tourist areas are impacted
Reduction in tourism under
5% Assumed based on asset protection
option 1 (2070 onwards)
Reduction in tourism under
8% Assumed based on asset protection
option 2 (2070 onwards)
Proportion that will not visit
28% SGS, Value of Tourism to Noosa Community
other parts of Noosa LGA
Residential nuisance benefits
Assumption Value Source
Minutes of delay (based on most
road impacts being affected for 30 HydraLogic
mins, 89 times per year) 1068 minutes per year
Austroads guidance, ABS
Value of time $12.8/hour average weekly earnings
Population of affected areas
ABS Census data (2016)
(residential areas along foreshore) 1,900
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 15
Section 17
References
Ambrey, C. and Fleming, C., 2014. Public greenspace and life satisfaction in urban Australia. Urban
Studies, 51(6), pp.1290-1321.
BMT 2020 (unpublished), Noosa Shire Council Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan
Dwyer, Larry. & Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism., 2005. Economic impacts and
benefits of tourism in Australia : a general equilibrium approach. Gold Coast, Qld : CRC for
Sustainable Tourism
QCoast2100 2016, Developing a Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy: Minimum Standards and
Guideline for Queensland Local Government viewed 2 April 2020,
<http://www.qcoast2100.com.au/documents/6143606/6155749/Minimum Standards and
Guidelines>
Wilson, S.M. 2004. Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview &
guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts, Murray-Darling Basin Commission,
Canberra
REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 16
Section 18
Document History Revision: Revision no. 1 Author/s Sarah Leck Checked Martijn Gough Approved Martijn Gough Distribution: Issue date 5 August 2020 Issued to Noosa Shire Council Description Final Report For information on this report: Please contact Martijn Gough Mobile 0418 753 760 Email [email protected] Citation: Aither 2020, Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 , Aither Pty Ltd. www.aither.com.au © 2020 Aither Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. This document has been prepared on the basis of information available to Aither Pty Ltd at the date of publication. Aither Pty Ltd makes no warranties, expressed or implied, in relation to any information contained in this document. This document does not purport to represent commercial, financial or legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. Aither Pty Ltd does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any party using or relying on information provided in this document. Any party that uses information contained in this document for any purpose does so at its own risk. The information contained in this document is confidential and must not be reproduced, distributed, referred to or used, in whole or in part, for any purpose without the express written permission of Aither Pty Ltd. REPORT | Noosa Shire Council CHAP – Phase 7 17
Section 19
AITHER