Council archive · source document
Reference Documents Plans - MCU24 0112 · MCU24/0112
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU24/0112
NOOSA COUNCIL
7 FEBRUARY 2025
Stormwater Management Report
Proposed Residential Development
100 Hilton Tce
Noosaville
For: Snowlake Pty Ltd
7 November 2024
Ref: S24-163
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
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 28 pages
Page 2
DO C UM E NT I NFO RM ATIO N
Project Name: Proposed Residential Development
Westera Partners Ref: S24-163
Westera Partners Contact: Jared Hill
Phone: 0437 335 403
Email: [email protected]
Certified for Issue by: Jared Hill
RPEQ 19891
7 November 2024
Document Control:
Revision Author Certified for Issue Date
A P. Baxter J. Hill RPEQ 19891 07.11.2024
This report has been prepared for Snowlake Pty Ltd for the purpose of accompanying a development
application to Noosa Council. This report must only be used by Snowlake Pty Ltd 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.
ii
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 3
CO NT E NT S
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Location and Land Use ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Lawful Point of Discharge ........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Upstream Drainage Connection .............................................................................................. 2
2.4 Flooding ................................................................................................................................... 2
3 STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 2
4 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 2
4.1 Operational Phase ................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 MUSIC Model .......................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Construction Phase ................................................................................................................. 4
4.3.1 Design Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
4.3.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................................................. 7
4.3.3 Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................ 8
5 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 9
6 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B – Preliminary Engineering Plans ..................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C – Site Survey & Architectural Drawings .......................................................................... C-1
Appendix D – Noosa Council Food Information Certificate ................................................................ D-1
iii
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 4
List Of Tables
Table 1 – MUSIC model parameters ............................................................................................. 3
Table 2 - Treatment train effectiveness. ........................................................................................ 4
Table 3 – Pollutants Typically Generated During the Construction Phase ................................... 4
Table 4 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 1 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design
Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 5
Table 5 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 2 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design
Objectives for Temporary Drainage Works .......................................................................... 6
Table 6 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 3 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design
Objectives for Emergency Spillways on Temporary Sediment Basins ................................. 7
Table 7 - ESC maintenance requirements. ................................................................................... 8
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Indicative site location (Nearmaps, 2024) .................................................................... 1
Figure 2 - MUSIC layout for development ..................................................................................... 4
iv
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 5
1 INT RO D UC TIO N
Westera Partners Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Snowlake Pty Ltd to prepare a Stormwater
Management Report to accompany a development application for a proposed residential development.
The proposal involves demolishing the existing dwellings and the construction of a multi-level residential
development including access driveway, undercover parking and landscaping. It is proposed to
maintain to existing crossover from Hilton Tce.
This report documents how stormwater runoff will be managed on site in accordance with Noosa
Council’s (NC’s) requirements.
2 SI T E D ES CR I PT IO N
2. 1 Loc at i on an d L and U se
The proposed development site is located at 100 Hilton Tce, Noosaville; also known as Lot 1 on
SP315600.
The proposed development area is approximately 2,721m2, and currently a holiday park consisting of
multiple detached dwellings occupies the lot. The site has nominal falls throughout, with the concrete
hardstand and external areas generally grading towards the northern and southern property
boundaries.
The site is bound by a vacant parcel of parkland to the north, residential dwellings to the east and west
and Hilton Tce to the south. Refer to Figure 1 for an indicative site location and Appendix C for detailed
site survey information.
Figure 1 – Indicative site location (Nearmaps, 2024)
1
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 6
2. 2 Law fu l P oint of D is ch ar ge
There is currently no stormwater infrastructure within the proposed development site. Roof water from
the existing dwellings is assumed to discharge to the Hilton Tce kerb and channel via kerb adapters
and the remainder of the site assumed to discharge toward Hilton Tce and the northern boundary as
overland sheet flow
Stormwater drainage for the proposed development shall ensure no adverse impact on upstream,
downstream or adjoining properties. The proposed lawful point of discharge for the development shall
be the existing stormwater infrastructure on Hilton Tce, with the stormwater infrastructure to be
extended along Hilton Tce and a connection into the existing manhole proposed (Asset ID 189981).
Minor amounts of stormwater will continue to discharge to Hilton Tce as per existing site conditions.
New on-site stormwater infrastructure shall be constructed to direct stormwater to the lawful point of
discharge to ensure no adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
Refer to Appendix B for further information regarding the proposed stormwater works.
2. 3 Ups tr e am D r ain ag e C onne ct ion
The development site does not have any upslope properties unable to gravity drain to a lawful point of
discharge.
2. 4 Flood ing
A Noosa Council Flood Information Certificate has indicated that the proposed development site is
within the flooding and inundation overlay mapping, with the defined flood event the 1% AEP Under
2100 Climate Change Conditions. The certificate identifies a defined flood event level (DFL) of 2.40m
AHD. To ensure immunity to flooding throughout the site, the building floor levels are set at 2.70m AHD
as a minimum to ensure 300mm freeboard is achieved and is in line with the requirements. Refer to the
flood information certificate in Appendix D.
3 STO R M WAT E R Q UA N TIT Y M AN AG E ME NT
A detailed stormwater quantity analysis of the existing and developed site conditions has not been
undertaken as the proposed development's final impervious area is considered in line with existing
conditions. It is considered that as a result of the proposed development, it is unlikely to increase the
run-off to such an extent that the downstream drainage cannot cater for the site as it is already
developed to its full potential. It is also noted that stormwater detention on the proposed development
site would not be of benefit in reducing adverse impacts on downstream roads and adjoining
properties.
4 W AT ER Q U AL IT Y M A NAG E M EN T
4. 1 O pe r at io na l Ph a se
The proposed development must address the State Planning Policy (SPP 2017) as the development
site area exceeds 2500m2. The development shall ensure that environmental values of receiving waters
downstream of the development are maintained or enhanced during the construction and operation of
the development in accordance with State Legislation and Local Government requirements. The
stormwater quality management proposed for the development are required to achieve the following
pollutant load reduction objectives in accordance with SPP requirements for South-East Queensland
(south):
• ≥ 80 % reduction in total suspended solids load (TSS)
2
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 7
• ≥ 60 % reduction in total phosphorus load (TP)
• ≥ 45 % reduction in total nitrogen load (TN)
• ≥ 90 % reduction in gross pollutant load
Pollutants typically generated during the operational phase of the development include:
• Litter/gross pollutants;
• Sediment;
• Nutrients (N & P);
• Hydrocarbons (oils and grease); and
• Heavy metals.
Stormwater treatment measures are shown on the attached stormwater management drawings and
include:
• ATLAN FIL.30-EMC-M Filter system to be installed within the proposed combined treatment
tank within development site for final treatment of stormwater prior to discharging to the
stormwater network.
Stormwater modelling has been carried out using MUSIC modelling software to determine the required
infrastructure needed to meet the Water Quality Objectives (WQO’s) above.
4. 2 MU S IC M od el
MUSIC modelling for this development has been carried out using MUSIC Version 6.4 and rainfall data
obtained from the pluviograph tool on the eWATER website for Cooroy Composite. The developed site
catchment and treatment measure details included in the MUSIC model are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1 – MUSIC model parameters
Description Specification
Assumed road catchment to filter system 0.0368 Ha (100% impervious)
Assumed roof catchment to filter system 0.1084 Ha (100% impervious)
Assumed ground catchment to filter system 0.1140 Ha (30% impervious)
Assumed ground catchment bypassing filter 0.0066 Ha (19% impervious)
system
Assumed road catchment bypassing filter 0.0008 Ha (100% impervious)
system
Assumed access path bypassing filter system 0.0058 Ha (100% impervious)
and discharging from site via swale drain
Number of modelled ATLAN Filters 8
The MUSIC model layout is shown in Figure 2.
3
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 8
Figure 2 - MUSIC layout for development
The developed site treatment train effectiveness is outlined in Table 2.
Table 2 - Treatment train effectiveness.
Modelled Parameters Source nodes Residual load % Reduction
Flow (ML/yr) 3.04 3.04 0
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 413 80.2 80.6
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 0.894 0.268 70
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 6.31 2.79 55.8
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 70.7 1.07 98.5
Based on the MUSIC modelling results in Table 2 above, the proposed treatment train achieves the
required pollutant load reduction objectives for all pollutants. The proposed proprietary treatment
measures are therefore considered adequate for the development. Further review and refinement of
the water quality treatment measures should be undertaken at the detailed design phase.
4. 3 Con st ruc t io n Ph a se
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 3 below:
Table 3 – 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.
4
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 9
Pollutant Sources
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;
• aesthetic pollution of drainage paths; and
• damage to local ecosystems.
4.3.1 De si gn O bj e ct i v es
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 4, Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 4 – 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%
5
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 10
Issue Desired Outcomes
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.
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 5 – 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
6
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 11
Table 6 – 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 4-6. This is discussed
in the following section.
4.3.2 E ro sio n and Se dim en t Co ntr ol
Management of stormwater runoff during construction is necessary to avoid pollution of downstream
waterways from sediment and gross pollutant loading. Impacts of inadequate erosion and sediment
control downstream from the site include:
• traffic safety problems;
• blocked drains;
• local flooding problems;
• aesthetic pollution of drainage paths; and
• damage to local ecosystems.
Best practice erosion and sediment controls must be installed to minimise the discharge of sediment
laden runoff during construction. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be developed during detailed
design phase and must be continually maintained and amended as required to minimise environmental
harm.
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 maintained in an effective operational condition. Sediment disposal
from site is to occur to the satisfaction of Noosa Council. 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
7
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 12
• 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.
The proposed development has scored a ‘13’ on the IECA erosion hazard assessment with one trigger
score value exceeded as a result of the site slope (refer Appendix A for details). Further details of
proposed on site erosion and sediment control measures will be required at the detailed design phase
of the development.
4.3.3 Ma int en an ce and M o nit o ri ng Re qui r em ent s
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 7.
Table 7 - 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 Noosa
Council.
8
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 13
5 CO N CLU S IO N
This SWMP outlines how stormwater runoff from the site will be managed in order to not adversely
impact the receiving environment.
The proposed lawful point of discharge for the development shall be the existing stormwater
infrastructure on Hilton Tce, with a connection proposed into the existing manhole. New on-site
stormwater infrastructure shall be constructed to collect stormwater runoff and direct it to the lawful
point of discharge. Stormwater detention is not considered to be required as the proposed
development's final impervious area is considered in line with existing conditions, and as a result of the
proposed development, it is unlikely to increase the runoff to such an extent that the downstream
drainage cannot cater for the site.
Stormwater quality treatment is proposed to be managed on-site to achieve the water quality objectives
through treatment from ATLAN filter cartridges in the treatment tank. MUSIC modelling has been
undertaken to demonstrate runoff from the development site achieves the water quality pollution load
reduction targets of the State Planning Policy.
Further refinement of the proposed stormwater management measures is recommended at the detailed
design phase to ensure coordination with the final architectural layout.
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.
9
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 14
6 AP P E ND IC E S
App end ix A – E ro sio n H az ar d As s es sm en t
A-1
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 15
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
0 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 3
• 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 1 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] 13
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 1
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 16
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
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 17
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
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 18
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
Silty sands SM Suitable [2] 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
Inorganic clays CH Suitable [2] 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
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 19
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
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 20
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
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 21
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
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 22
App end ix B – P re li mi na ry Eng in ee r ing Pl a n s
B-1
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 23
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU24/0112
LEGEND NOOSA COUNCIL
7 FEBRUARY 2025
V
W
V
W
V
V
W
V
W
V
W
V
S
V
W
W
S
W
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
HILTON TERRACE
V
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
W
S
SITE PLAN
DESIGNED BRISBANE T 07 3852 4333 SURVEYOR DATUM DRAWING STATUS
E [email protected]
PROJECT
DRAWN
GOLD COAST T 07 5571 1599
CHECKED
E [email protected] LOCATION DRAWING NUMBER
SUNSHINE COAST T 07 5391 3777 USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES
E [email protected] CHECK WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT
APPROVED
WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL
For and on behalf of
NORTHERN NSW T 02 6674 8047
DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS TITLE
DATE E [email protected] SHEET NUMBER REVISION
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD. AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS
www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 CENTRAL VICTORIA T 03 5441 0922 THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE CARRIED OUT WITH
No. DATE REVISIONS DES DRN CHK APD DOCUMENT CONTROL APPROVED E [email protected] DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 24
W
S
V
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
S
W
V
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
HILTON TERRACE
S
W
V
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
V
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
V
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
V
W
V
S
W
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER
V
MANAGEMENT PLAN
S
W
V
S
W
V
DESIGNED BRISBANE T 07 3852 4333 SURVEYOR DATUM DRAWING STATUS
REFERENCE DOCUMENT E [email protected]
PROJECT
DRAWN
GOLD COAST T 07 5571 1599
MCU24/0112 E [email protected] LOCATION DRAWING NUMBER
CHECKED
NOOSA COUNCIL SUNSHINE COAST T 07 5391 3777
E [email protected]
USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES
CHECK WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT
APPROVED
7 FEBRUARY 2025 For and on behalf of
NORTHERN NSW T 02 6674 8047
WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL
DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS TITLE
DATE E [email protected] SHEET NUMBER REVISION
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD. AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS
www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 CENTRAL VICTORIA T 03 5441 0922 THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE CARRIED OUT WITH
No. DATE REVISIONS DES DRN CHK APD DOCUMENT CONTROL APPROVED E [email protected] DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 25
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
HILTON TERRACE
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER
CONCEPT PLAN
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU24/0112
NOOSA COUNCIL
7 FEBRUARY 2025
SECTION
DESIGNED BRISBANE T 07 3852 4333 SURVEYOR DATUM DRAWING STATUS
E [email protected]
PROJECT
DRAWN
GOLD COAST T 07 5571 1599
CHECKED
E [email protected] LOCATION DRAWING NUMBER
SUNSHINE COAST T 07 5391 3777 USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES
E [email protected] CHECK WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT
APPROVED
WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL
For and on behalf of
NORTHERN NSW T 02 6674 8047
DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS TITLE
DATE E [email protected] SHEET NUMBER REVISION
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD. AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS
www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 CENTRAL VICTORIA T 03 5441 0922 THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE CARRIED OUT WITH
No. DATE REVISIONS DES DRN CHK APD DOCUMENT CONTROL APPROVED E [email protected] DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 26
EARTHWORKS LEGEND
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
V
MCU24/0112
W
NOOSA COUNCIL
V
7 FEBRUARY 2025
W
V
V
W
V
W
LEGEND
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
HILTON TERRACE
V
W
W
S
W
V
W
S
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
V
W
S
V
W
V
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
EARTHWORKS SITE PLAN
W
S
W
S
DESIGNED BRISBANE T 07 3852 4333 SURVEYOR DATUM DRAWING STATUS
E [email protected]
PROJECT
DRAWN
GOLD COAST T 07 5571 1599
CHECKED
E [email protected] LOCATION DRAWING NUMBER
SUNSHINE COAST T 07 5391 3777 USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES
E [email protected] CHECK WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT
APPROVED
WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL
For and on behalf of
NORTHERN NSW T 02 6674 8047
DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS TITLE
DATE E [email protected] SHEET NUMBER REVISION
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD. AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS
www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 CENTRAL VICTORIA T 03 5441 0922 THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE CARRIED OUT WITH
No. DATE REVISIONS DES DRN CHK APD DOCUMENT CONTROL APPROVED E [email protected] DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 27
W
S
V
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
W
S
V
S
W
V
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
HILTON TERRACE
S
W
V
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
V
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
V
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
W
V
S
V
W
V
S
W
PRELIMINARY
V
EARTHWORKS PLAN
S
W
V
S
W
V
DESIGNED BRISBANE T 07 3852 4333 SURVEYOR DATUM DRAWING STATUS
REFERENCE DOCUMENT E [email protected]
PROJECT
DRAWN
GOLD COAST T 07 5571 1599
MCU24/0112 E [email protected] LOCATION DRAWING NUMBER
CHECKED
NOOSA COUNCIL SUNSHINE COAST T 07 5391 3777
E [email protected]
USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE, IF A DISCREPANCY ARISES
CHECK WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. DO NOT
APPROVED
7 FEBRUARY 2025 For and on behalf of
NORTHERN NSW T 02 6674 8047
WORK FROM REDUCED SCALE DRAWINGS (A1-A3 SIZE PAPER). COPYRIGHT OF ALL
DRAWINGS & WORKS EXECUTED FROM THEM IS VESTED IN WESTERA PARTNERS TITLE
DATE E [email protected] SHEET NUMBER REVISION
WESTERA PARTNERS PTY. LTD. AND USE OF THERE FORE WITHOUT PERMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED! IT IS
www.westerapartners.com.au ABN 52 097 417 975 CENTRAL VICTORIA T 03 5441 0922 THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL WORKS ARE CARRIED OUT WITH
No. DATE REVISIONS DES DRN CHK APD DOCUMENT CONTROL APPROVED E [email protected] DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CLIENT
Document Set ID: 23352733
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2024
Page 28
TOW: 3.800
PROPERTY LINE
4.45
0.91 2.54
DRYING COURT
WC BBQ B50
L'DRY Overall Length 4.450m
Overall Width 1.660m
KITCHEN Overall Body Height 1.356m
FF-01 Min Body Ground Clearance 0.094m
1:20 Track Width 1.400m
PANTRY POOL TERRACE
Lock-to-lock time 4.00s
Wall to Wall Turning Radius 5.600m
FF-01
GARAGE UNIT A RL: 2.700
TYPE 1 RL: 2.690
COURTYARD TERRACE POOL
B50 REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU24/0112
LOUNGE NOOSA COUNCIL
ENTRY LIVING
EXISTING
B50 RL: 2.700 DINING
1800mm
FENCE
7 FEBRUARY 2025
CROSSOVER
RL: 2.000 STAIR
BBQ
L'DRY
KITCHEN FF-01
ACCESS ROAD
1:20 1:20 UNIT B POOL TERRACE
DRIVEWAY TYPE 2
BIKE PATH
WC COURTYARD
GARAGE FF-01 RL: 2.700
RL: 2.550 TERRACE RL: 2.690
POOL
ENTRY LIVING DINING LOUNGE
RL: 2.700 1800mm
FENCE
BBQ
L'DRY
1:20 KITCHEN FF-01
UNIT C POOL TERRACE
TYPE 2
GARAGE COURTYARD FF-01 RL: 2.700
TERRACE
RL: 2.475 RL: 2.690
ENTRY
POOL
LIVING DINING
B50
LOUNGE
1:20 1800mm
FENCE
DRYING COURT
WC
L'DRY BBQ
KITCHEN
FF-01
PANTRY POOL TERRACE
1:20 FF-01
GARAGE UNIT D FFL: 2.690 RL: 2.700
RL: 2.400 RL: 2.690
TYPE 1 COURTYARD
ON TERRACE POOL
B50 1.2m HIGH FENCE
LOUNGE 1800mm FOLLOWING NATURAL
LIVING FENCE
RL: 2.700
PROPERTY LINE
ENTRY DINING
ACCESS PATH RL: 1.470 ALL DRAWINGS ARE DESIGNED TO
BE PRINTED AND READ IN COLOUR
IT IS THE CONTRACTORS' RESPONSIBILITY TO
PRINT DRAWINGS IN COLOUR TO AVOID ANY
PROPERTY LINE POTENTIAL DISCREPANCIES IF DRAWINGS
ARE PRINTED IN BLACK AND WHITE
TOW: 3.800 TOW: 4.100 1 TOW: 4.530 RL: 1.4700
108A HILTON TERRACE
2000 3.06m EXISTING FENCE HEIGHT AT REAR OF PROPERTY
EXISTING NEIGHBOURING
FENCE SETBACK DWELLING DA1005 4000
CLIENT
100 HILTON TERRACE C REVISION J.Y. A.J. 24/01/2025
DISCLAIMER
Copyright by Urbis Pty Ltd. This drawing or parts thereof may not be reproduced for any
purpose or used for another project without the consent of Urbis. The plan must not be BLIGHT RAYNER
PROJECT NO.
P0056312
DATE
24/01/2025
B50 SMALL CAR SWEPT PATH B VISITOR BAY ADDITION R.P. A.J. 09/01/2025 used for ordering, supply or installation and no relevance should be placed on this plan for
any financial dealing of the land. This plan is conceptual and is for discussion purposes
only and subject to further detail study, Council approval, engineering input, and survey.
1:200 @ A3 DRAWING NO. REVISION
A ORIGINAL ISSUE J.Y. A.J. 30/10/2024
Document Set ID:Level
23517104
32, 300 George Street | Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia | +61 7 3007 3800 | URBIS Pty Ltd | ABN 50 105 256 228
Version: 1, Version Date: 30/01/2025
REV DESCRIPTION DWN CHK DATE
Cadastral boundaries, areas and dimensions are approximate only. Written figured
dimensions shall take preference to scaled dimensions.
0 1 2 3 4 5m SK02 C
Page 29
TOW: 3.800
PROPERTY LINE
B9 Vehicle (Realistic min radius) (20 4)
B9 Vehicle (Realistic min radius) (20 4)
5.2
DRYING COURT
WC BBQ
L'DRY
KITCHEN
FF-01 0.95 3.05
1:20
PANTRY POOL TERRACE
B99 Vehicle (Realistic min radius) (2004)
Overall Length 5.200m
FF-01 Overall Width 1.940m
UNIT A Overall Body Height 1.878m
GARAGE RL: 2.700 Min Body Ground Clearance 0.272m
TYPE 1 RL: 2.690 Track Width 1.840m
Lock-to-lock time 4.00s
COURTYARD TERRACE POOL Curb to Curb Turning Radius 6.250m
LOUNGE
ENTRY LIVING
EXISTING
B9 Vehicle (Realistic min radius) (20 4) RL: 2.700 DINING
1800mm
FENCE REFERENCE DOCUMENT
CROSSOVER MCU24/0112
NOOSA COUNCIL
RL: 2.000 STAIR 7 FEBRUARY 2025
BBQ
L'DRY
KITCHEN FF-01
ACCESS ROAD
1:20 1:20 UNIT B POOL TERRACE
DRIVEWAY TYPE 2
BIKE PATH
WC COURTYARD
GARAGE FF-01 RL: 2.700
RL: 2.550 TERRACE RL: 2.690
POOL
ENTRY LIVING DINING LOUNGE
RL: 2.700 1800mm
FENCE
BBQ
L'DRY
1:20 KITCHEN FF-01
UNIT C POOL TERRACE
TYPE 2
GARAGE COURTYARD FF-01 RL: 2.700
TERRACE
RL: 2.475 RL: 2.690
ENTRY
POOL
LIVING DINING LOUNGE
1:20 1800mm
FENCE
DRYING COURT
WC
L'DRY BBQ
KITCHEN
FF-01
PANTRY POOL TERRACE
1:20 FF-01
GARAGE UNIT D FFL: 2.690 RL: 2.700
RL: 2.400 RL: 2.690
TYPE 1 COURTYARD
ON TERRACE POOL
1.2m HIGH FENCE
LOUNGE 1800mm FOLLOWING NATURAL
LIVING FENCE
RL: 2.700
PROPERTY LINE
ENTRY DINING
ACCESS PATH RL: 1.470 ALL DRAWINGS ARE DESIGNED TO
BE PRINTED AND READ IN COLOUR
IT IS THE CONTRACTORS' RESPONSIBILITY TO
PRINT DRAWINGS IN COLOUR TO AVOID ANY
PROPERTY LINE POTENTIAL DISCREPANCIES IF DRAWINGS
ARE PRINTED IN BLACK AND WHITE
TOW: 3.800 TOW: 4.100 1 TOW: 4.530 RL: 1.4700
108A HILTON TERRACE
2000 3.06m EXISTING FENCE HEIGHT AT REAR OF PROPERTY
EXISTING NEIGHBOURING
FENCE SETBACK DWELLING DA1005 4000
CLIENT
100 HILTON TERRACE DISCLAIMER
Copyright by Urbis Pty Ltd. This drawing or parts thereof may not be reproduced for any
purpose or used for another project without the consent of Urbis. The plan must not be BLIGHT RAYNER
PROJECT NO.
P0056312
DATE
24/01/2025
VISITOR PARKING BAY B REVISION J.Y. A.J. 24/01/2025 used for ordering, supply or installation and no relevance should be placed on this plan for
any financial dealing of the land. This plan is conceptual and is for discussion purposes
only and subject to further detail study, Council approval, engineering input, and survey.
1:200 @ A3 DRAWING NO. REVISION
A ORIGINAL ISSUE R.P. A.J. 09/01/2025
Document Set ID:Level
23517104
32, 300 George Street | Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia | +61 7 3007 3800 | URBIS Pty Ltd | ABN 50 105 256 228
Version: 1, Version Date: 30/01/2025
REV DESCRIPTION DWN CHK DATE
Cadastral boundaries, areas and dimensions are approximate only. Written figured
dimensions shall take preference to scaled dimensions.
0 1 2 3 4 5m SK03 B
Used in these records
Reference Documents Plans - MCU24 0112Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.8 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.