Original source · versioned page text
SUPERSEDED - Reference Documents - MCU25 0079
Very large file (23.4 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU25/0079
NOOSA COUNCIL
10 DECEMBER 2025
Stormwater Management Report
Proposed Residential Development
4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
For: Alex Comino
17 July 2025
Ref: S22-011
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.
Full text of pages 2 to 35 (of 58)
Page 2
DO C UM E NT I NFO RM ATIO N
Client Contact: Alex Comino
Project Name: Proposed Residential Development
Westera Partners Ref: S22-011
Westera Partners Contact:
Jared Hill Phone: 0437 335 403
Email: [email protected]
Certified for Issue by:
Jared Hill RPEQ 19891
17 July 2025
Document Control:
Revision Author Approved for Issue Date
A L. Beattie J. Hill RPEQ 19891 09.02.2022
B L. Beattie J. Hill RPEQ 19891 10.02.2022
C L. Beattie J. Hill RPEQ 19891 17.07.2025
This report has been prepared for Alex Comino for the purpose of accompanying a development
application to Noosa Council. This report must only be used by Alex Comino 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: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
3.1 Existing Catchment .................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.1 DRAINS results for existing site .............................................................................................. 3
3.2 Developed Site ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.2.1 DRAINS results for developed site .......................................................................................... 4
3.3 Water Quantity Comparison .................................................................................................... 4
4 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 5
4.1 Operational Phase ................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Construction Phase ................................................................................................................. 5
4.2.1 Design Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................................................. 8
4.2.3 Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................ 9
5 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 10
6 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B – Engineering Drawings .................................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C – Site Survey & Architectural Drawings .......................................................................... C-1
iii
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 4
List of Tables
Table 1 - Existing site peak flow rates. ................................................................................................... 3
Table 2 - Developed site peak flow rates. ............................................................................................... 4
Table 3 - Existing vs developed peak flow rates ..................................................................................... 5
Table 4 – Pollutants Typically Generated During the Construction Phase ............................................. 5
Table 5 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 1 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 6 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 2 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Temporary Drainage Works ............................................................................................................... 7
Table 7 – SPP Appendix 2: Part 3 Construction Phase – Stormwater Management Design Objectives
for Emergency Spillways on Temporary Sediment Basins ..................................................................... 8
Table 8 - ESC maintenance requirements. ........................................................................................... 10
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Indicative site location (Nearmaps, 2019) ............................................................................. 1
iv
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 5
1 INT RO D UC TIO N
Westera Partners Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Alex Comino to prepare a Stormwater
Management Report to accompany a development application for a proposed residential development.
The proposal involves the construction of a proposed multi-storey residential development with ground
level features. Driveway access will be provided via an access crossover from Clipper Street.
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 4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach, also known as Lot 83 on
RP132135.
The proposed development area is approximately 921m2 and currently consists of a single detached
dwelling. The site currently falls generally to the east towards Clipper Street at an average grade of
approximately 10%.
The site is bound by the residential properties to the north and south, Ventura Street to the west, and
Clipper Street to the east. Refer to Figure 1 for an indicative site location and Appendix C for detailed
site survey information.
SITE
Figure 1 – Indicative site location (QLD Globe, 2022)
1
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 6
2. 2 Law fu l P oint of D is ch ar ge
Under existing site conditions, roofwater runoff from the existing dwelling appears to discharge to
Clipper Street via kerb outlets. Ground level runoff will also discharge to Clipper Street via overland
flow.
The lawful point of discharge for the development is proposed to be the existing kerb and channel in
Clipper Street as per existing conditions. New on site stormwater infrastructure shall be constructed to
direct runoff from the development to the lawful point of discharge in accordance with NC requirements
at the build phase. Refer to Appendix B for further information regarding the proposed stormwater works
for the development.
2. 3 Ups tr e am D r ain ag e C onne ct ion
An upstream stormwater drainage connection through the lower half of Lot 183 has been proposed to
convey stormwater flows from the proposed house on the upper portion of the site.
2. 4 Flood ing
Noosa Council’s Flood Hazard Overlay mapping indicates that the site is not impacted by any flood
planning overlay. The site can therefore be considered flood free.
3 STO R M WAT E R Q UA N TIT Y M AN AG E ME NT
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 2019 (ARR2019)
The following section of the report discusses the proposed development’s impact on peak stormwater
runoff from the site and compares the existing site condition to ensure no adverse impacts to
downstream properties.
The DRAINS software package has been used for modelling the peak flows off site. ARR2019 rainfall
patterns have been adopted in drains utilising an Initial Loss – Continuing Loss (IL-CL) hydrological
model with loss parameter input as specified by the ARR2019 data hub for Noosa.
The following losses have been adopted in the DRAINS hydrological model:
• Effective impervious area initial loss 1 mm
• Effective impervious area continuing loss 0 mm/hr
• Remaining area initial loss 20 mm
• Remaining area continuing loss 3.4 mm/hr
Design ARR2019 storms for Noosa have been added into DRAINS utilising a rainfall pattern file
downloaded from the ARR2019 data hub along with IFD rainfall depth files downloaded from the Bureau
of Meteorology (BOM) website.
3. 1 E xi st i ng C at c hm ent
Catchment Area
The existing site currently consists of a detached dwelling. The existing surface generally falls to the
east towards Clipper Street.
The existing site area is currently approximately 921m2.
2
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 7
The total impervious area of the existing site was extrapolated from the survey plan and was found to
be approximately 40% impervious area (fi=0.40) which equates to approximately 370m2 of impervious
area.
Roofwater runoff from the existing dwelling appears to discharge to Clipper Street via kerb outlets.
Ground level runoff will also discharge to Clipper Street via overland flow.
Time of Concentration (tc)
The time of concentration is determined by using a combination of standard inlet time and pipe /
overland flow time as described in QUDM.
A time of concentration of 5 minutes has been deemed appropriate for the existing site as it is improved
with a detached dwelling and the natural topography is relatively steep:
tc, existing = 5 minutes
3.1.1 DR AI NS re su lt s f o r e xi st i ng s ite
The existing site catchment is summarised below:
• Area – 0.0921Ha
• Total time of concentration (tc) – 5 minutes
• Percent Impervious (fi) – 40%
Peak flow rates from the existing site have been determined by modelling various storm durations for
each AEP storm ensemble. The peak flow rate for the median AEP storm event are given in Table 1
below.
Table 1 - Existing site peak flow rates.
AEP Storm Event Peak flow rate (L/s)
1EY 20
0.5EY 26
0.2EY 36
10% 40
5% 47
2% 59
1% 66
3. 2 De v elo ped Sit e
Catchment Area
The proposal involves the construction of three residential units including access driveway and ground
level features. The final catchment area will remain unchanged at approximately 921m2. The proposal
also will take into account the proposed development within the upper half of Lot 183, which is a
residential development.
3
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 8
The proposed lawful point of discharge for the site shall be the existing kerb and channel within Clipper
Street. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development shall be collected on site and directed to the
kerb via the construction of new on site drainage.
The total impervious area of the developed site was calculated to be 679m2 which equates to
approximately 74% fraction impervious (fi=0.74).
Time of Concentration (tc)
The time of concentration has been determined by using a combination of standard inlet time and pipe
flow time as described in QUDM.
A standard inlet time of 5 minutes has also been deemed appropriate for the proposed development
time of concentration:
tc, developed = 5 minutes
3.2.1 DR AI NS re su lt s f o r d ev e lop ed s ite
The developed site catchment is summarised below:
• Area – 0.0921 Ha
• Total time of concentration (tc) – 5 minutes
• Percent Impervious (fi) – 74%
Peak flow rates from the existing site have been determined by modelling various storm durations for
each AEP storm ensemble. The peak flow rate for the median AEP storm event are given in Table 2.
Table 2 - Developed site peak flow rates.
AEP Storm Event Peak flow rate (L/s)
1EY 21
0.5EY 27
0.2EY 38
10% 42
5% 50
2% 60
1% 66
3. 3 W ate r Q u ant it y C omp ar i son
Table 3 compares the peak flow rates for the median design storm for each of the existing and
developed cases.
4
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 9
Table 3 - Existing vs developed peak flow rates
AEP Storm Event Existing peak flow rate Developed peak flow Change in peak flow
(L/sec) rate (L/sec) rate
(L/Sec)
1EY 20 21 1
0.5EY 26 27 1
0.2EY 36 38 2
10% 40 42 2
5% 47 50 3
2% 59 60 1
1% 66 66 0
As shown in Table 3, the peak flow rate of stormwater runoff has marginally increased for the developed
case from that of the existing case as a result of the increase in impervious area. Due to the marginal
increase in flow, and that the proposed kerb outlets will also not exceed a flow of greater than 25L/s for
the design event (10%), stormwater detention is not considered to be required.
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 is not required to meet the Queensland Governments State Planning Policy
(July 2017) as the development site area does not exceed the 2,500m2 minimum. Table SC6.14.3G of
the SCRC Planning Scheme Policy for Development Works (PSPDW) states that stormwater quality
management must still be undertaken by the harvesting and reuse of roof water runoff and runoff from
impervious area is to be directed to landscaped areas where possible.
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.
4. 2 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 4 below:
Table 4 – Pollutants Typically Generated During the Construction Phase
5
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 10
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;
• aesthetic pollution of drainage paths; and
• damage to local ecosystems.
4.2.1 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 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.
6
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 11
Issue Desired Outcomes
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.
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
7
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 12
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 4-6. This is discussed
in the following section.
4.2.2 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
8
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 13
• 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 15 on the IECA erosion hazard assessment with no trigger
score values exceeded (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.
4.2.3 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. Any installed 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.
9
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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 Noosa
Council.
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 kerb and channel
within Clipper Street. Stormwater detention is not considered to be required for the development site.
Stormwater runoff will need to be collected on site and directed to the lawful point of discharge at the
build phase to ensure no adverse impacts to neighbouring properties as a result of the development.
Stormwater treatment should be managed through the implementation of best management practices
on site. 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.
10
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 15
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: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
2 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 0 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
1
• 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: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
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: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
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
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 23
App end ix B – Eng in e er ing D r aw ing s
B-1
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 24
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MCU25/0079
NOOSA COUNCIL
10 DECEMBER 2025
CL
IP
PE
R
ST
R
REET
EE
T
A ST
TUR
VEN
LEGEND
NOTES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 25
App end ix C – Si t e Su rv e y & A rc hit ec tu ra l Dr aw ing s
C-1
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 26
Skyline Surveyors
Suite 11C
Brightwater Corporate Centre PHONE
07 5493 4877
69 Attenuata Drive
MOUNTAIN CREEK QLD 4557
E: [email protected]
W: www.skysurv.com.au
Document Set ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 27
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
21-038
U00
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT @ 4 VENTURA STREET, SUNRISE BEACH
Q.B.C.C Lisence No.
Project Status:
PCD 19
126221
Project Issue Date :
11/01/2024
Title Page
Sheet Name:
4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
RLH Homes
Project Address :
Client Name :
Issued by
Revision Schedule
Date
Description
Number
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au
PROPOSED STREET VIEW PERSPECTIVE
* Indicative Image Only
Document Set ID: 23959990
C COPYRIGHT The Drawing and the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 28
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
21-038
U01
Q.B.C.C Lisence No.
Project Status:
PCD 19
126221
Perspectives
Project Issue Date :
11/01/2024
Sheet Name:
4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
PROPOSED STREET VIEW PERSPECTIVES
* Indicative Images Only
RLH Homes
Project Address :
Client Name :
Issued by
Revision Schedule
Date
Description
Number
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au
Document Set ID: 23959990
C COPYRIGHT The Drawing and the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 29
RT H
CLI EET
STR
N O
PPE
Real Property Description
Lot 83 on R.P. 132135
Area : 920.45 m²
Site Cover : 44.7 %
R
25.5% (House)
19.2% (Triplex)
1.5m (Max) Retaining Wall on Boundary with 1.8m fence over Local Authority :
Noosa Shire Council.
2180
Visitor Park 5896
ack
Min. Setb Proposed Setback Relaxation
Setback
ET
2186 equir d
e Orange hatch indicates area requiring
Retaining Wall height 2.8m (Max.) with 2.0m fence over
6000 - R
a front boundary setback relaxation.
Area : 0.32m2
2.5°
TRE
Raised
Terrace
Proposed Driveway
Location and size to be verified on site.
Driveway construction to be in accordance with
A S
SEQ R0-050, estate and local council regulations.
Gate
5.0°
(Exposed aggregate)
5.0° 4 x Letterboxes
TUR
5 3 x Unit boxes - 1 x Body Corp.
1009
2.0°
y
Verif 4712 Existing pool to be completely
demolished and filled in.
3.0°
VEN
1991
ge
Bin S tora
2.0°
Gate
Proposed Triplex
Builder to ensure surface water is to fall
away from the proposed building and
prevent pooling in excavated locations.
Approximate Pad RL 30.9m
Approximate FFL RL 31.2m
Location and size to be verified on site.
Stormwater Note
Proposed Main Residence All stormwater drainage shall be in accordance
Builder to ensure surface water is to fall with A.S. 3500.3.
away from the proposed building and
prevent pooling in excavated locations. All stormwater drainage shall be in accordance
Approximate Pad RL 33.7m with S.C.R.C. guidelines to minimise erosion
Approximate FFL RL 34.0m and scouring. Stormwater flow other than
Location and size to be verified on site. Climate Code Requirements natural overland flow shall not be discharged
Energy efficiency assessor to confirm onto neighbouring property.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN adequacy of proposed construction.
All stormwater drainage design is preliminary
Scale : 1 : 200 Provide insulation to N.C.C. code requirements
or to BERS certification requirements. and shall be confirmed by a licenced hydraulics
designer.
Revision Schedule Client Name: RLH Homes
Sheet Number: U02 Project Number:21-038
Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date Issued by Project Address: 4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
Climate Zone: 2
Wind Category: To engineers spec.
Site Plan
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au Project Issue Date: 11/01/2024 Project Status: PCD 19 Scale: As indicated
Phone:Set
0488209840 Checked/Signed By Director: Bradley Hunt Drawn By: Aaron Waters QBCC LIC# 126221
Document ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version
C COPYRIGHT Date:and23/07/2025
The Drawing the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Page 30
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
Dimensions Note:
All wall dimensions are taken from
21-038
the outside faces of the stud wall.
U03
(i.e. selected cladding over omitted for
clarity excluding brick veneer walls).
ORT H Note: Vertical plumbing
N 1800h blockwork wall
ducts to be discussed
Q.B.C.C Lisence No.
1.5m (Max) Retaining Wall on Boundary with 1.8m fence over
750
Project Status:
500mm Landscape Screening
PCD 19
wall.
126221
Clearance
2171
1m Retaining Wall
1m wall P.O.S. 2000
94
??m2
0
First Floor Balcony/Planter
L and s
2118 sd
2800
caping
870 cs
1m high planter / retaining wall
Foyer Entry
First Floor Balcony
Entry Path
UNITS - Ground Floor
0618 sw
2730
Bed 1 870 cs
0615 fg
Queen Bed 6000
2127 concealed tp
Unit 1
Project Issue Date :
WM
11/01/2024
3000
870 cs Robe Garage
Sheet Name:
DR
1700
0
644
Ens Storage from
720
garage
Wall height 2.8m (Max.) with 2.0m fence over
1800h
Robe
900
1m high planter / retaining wall
Fence Entry
4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
P.O.S. Queen Bed Bed 1 0615 fg
2700
??m2 Foyer
870 cs
870
2127 concealed tp
Unit 2
870 cs
3000
S/L
Garage
Laundry
Ens
0612 sw
WM
1350
700
Lette
6000
r bo x
DR
RLH Homes
Gate
Project Address :
7799
Client Name :
1800h 6000
DR
Fence
2127 concealed tp
Unit 3
Robe
700
Laundry
Bed 1
Lan
Queen Bed
3000
Garage
1m high planter / retaining wall
S/L
WM
dsc
apin
P.O.S.
Issued by
g
3000
870 cs
Foyer
870
Revision Schedule
??m2
870 cs 0615 fg
1506 lvr obs
Store.
Date
g
e Screenin
450
Landscape
Landscap
1506 lvr obs
Ens 900
2066
Description
0606 awn obs Entry
Gate
Number
Screening
Landscape
Screened Bin Storage - 1800h
Allowance for 6 bins - TBC
Gate
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au
AREAS
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3
GROUND FLOOR UNIT PLAN Ground Floor Residence : 46.0m² Ground Floor Residence : 46.3m² Ground Floor Residence : 47.5m²
Scale : 1 : 100
Document Set ID: 23959990
C COPYRIGHT The Drawing and the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 31
Project Number:
Dimensions Note:
Sheet Number:
All wall dimensions are taken from
21-038
the outside faces of the stud wall.
U04
(i.e. selected cladding over omitted for
clarity excluding brick veneer walls).
RT H
NO
Q.B.C.C Lisence No.
2180
Project Status:
3370
5896
PCD 19
126221
Storage 1204 aw Planters 1204 aw Planters
Privacy Screening
2 sl
870 cs
4390 3810
1218 sw
Bed 2
2900
212424 cnr stk
Living Deck
2320
4010
UNITS - First Floor
Dining
90
0606 awn obs
870 cs robe
1212 gs awn
Kitchen
Project Issue Date :
1900
Bath
11/01/2024
Sheet Name:
Pty Fr. OHC
OHC
Pty Fr.
0606 awn obs
1212 gs awn
1350
Bath robe
Living Kitchen
5440
870 cs
4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
870 cs
2500
4230
Privacy Screening
2790
1218 sw
2124 stk
2540
Bed 2 S/L Deck
Dining
robe
Privacy Screening
RLH Homes
3090 3300
Project Address :
2127 stk
Client Name :
Bed 2
1218 sw
3000
3000
S/L Dining
Pty Living Deck
870 cs 870
Kitchen
Issued by
Bath Planters
Revision Schedule
Fr. OHC
0615 fg
Date
0606 awn obs
2056
Description
2017
Number
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au
AREAS
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3
First Floor Residence (Exc. Voids) : 43.2 m² First Floor Residence (Exc. Voids) : 41.9 m² First Floor Residence (Exc. Voids) : 35.7m²
First Floor Deck: 10.0 m² First Floor Deck: 8.9 m² First Floor Deck: 9.6 m²
First Floor Total : 53.2 m² First Floor Total : 50.8 m² First Floor Total : 45.3m²
FIRST FLOOR UNIT PLAN Unit 1 Overall Total : 99.6 m² Unit 2 Overall Total : 97.1 m² Unit 3 Overall Total : 90.8 m²
Scale : 1 : 100
Document Set ID: 23959990
C COPYRIGHT The Drawing and the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 32
8m Max Build Height
Colorbond trimdek roof sheeting From NGL
fixed to manufacturers specification
for required wind category. (2° pitch). Framed extrusion to engineers detail
with EPS rendered and painted over.
Parapet flashing to builders detail.
Select 50 x 50 P.C. Aluminium batten
screen @ 100 crs to manufacturers
detail. 1600mm high.
Scyon Axon 133 (Or similar)
cladding to manufacturers detail.
Living/ Kitchen Joinery
Pitching Height
Aluminum framed windows
2440
2400
Joinery
2100
to manufacturers specification.
Built to boundary steel post to
Concealed Garage Concealed Garage Concealed Garage engineers detail.
Ceiling Height
Selected concealed panel lift door fixed to
2400
Joinery
2100
manufacturers specification.
Boundary retaining wall to engineers detail.
Max Retained 1.5m
Select feature timber cladding to
manufacturers specifications. Approx. Proposed Ground Line.
Approx. Existing Ground Line.
EAST ELEVATION
Scale : 1 : 100
Colorbond trimdek roof sheeting
fixed to manufacturers specification
for required wind category. (2° pitch).
Aluminum framed windows
to manufacturers specification. Select 50 x 50 P.C. Aluminium batten
8m Max Build Height screen @ 100 crs to manufacturers
Colorbond slotted gutter, fascia From NGL detail. 1600mm high.
to match roofing. Fix to manufacturers Parapet flashing to builders detail.
specification.
Framed extrusion to engineers detail
with EPS rendered and painted over.
Living/ Kitchen Joinery
Pitching Height
2440
2400
Joinery
2100
Scyon Axon 133 (Or similar)
cladding to manufacturers detail.
Ceiling Height
Select feature timber cladding to
2400
Joinery
manufacturers specifications.
2100
Framed extrusion to engineers detail
with EPS rendered and painted over.
Approx. Proposed Ground Line.
Approx. Existing Ground Line.
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale : 1 : 100
Revision Schedule Client Name: RLH Homes
Sheet Number: U05 Project Number:21-038
Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date Issued by Project Address: 4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
Climate Zone: 2
Wind Category: To engineers spec.
Elevations
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au Project Issue Date: 11/01/2024 Project Status: PCD 19 Scale: 1 : 100
Phone:Set
0488209840 Checked/Signed By Director: Bradley Hunt Drawn By: Aaron Waters QBCC LIC# 126221
Document ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version
C COPYRIGHT Date:and23/07/2025
The Drawing the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Page 33
8m Max Build Height
From NGL Colorbond trimdek roof sheeting
fixed to manufacturers specification
for required wind category. (2° pitch).
450mm deep Heka hood to Colorbond slotted gutter, fascia
manufacturers specifications. to match roofing. Fix to manufacturers
specification.
Aluminum framed windows
Living/ Kitchen Joinery
to manufacturers specification.
Pitching Height
2440
2400
Joinery
2100
Scyon Axon 133 (Or similar)
cladding to manufacturers detail. Privacy screen
Privacy screen Privacy screen
Ceiling Height
2400
Joinery
2100
Tiered retaining walls
to engineers detail.
500
Approx. Proposed Ground Line. Aluminum framed sliding doors
Approx. Existing Ground Line. to manufacturers specification.
450mm deep Heka hood to
WEST ELEVATION manufacturers specifications.
Scale : 1 : 100
Select 50 x 50 P.C. Aluminium batten screen Colorbond trimdek roof sheeting
@ 100 crs to manufacturers detail. 8m Max Build Height fixed to manufacturers specification
From NGL for required wind category. (2° pitch).
SHS post to engineers detail.
Aluminum framed windows
Parapet flashing to builders detail. to manufacturers specification.
Colorbond slotted gutter, fascia
Framed extrusion to engineers detail to match roofing. Fix to manufacturers
with EPS rendered and painted over. specification.
Living/ Kitchen Joinery
Pitching Height
2440
2400
Scyon Axon 133 (Or similar)
Joinery
2100
cladding to manufacturers detail.
2000
1000h solid balustrade
Fill
Ceiling Height
Built up blockwork retaining
2400
2725
Joinery
2100
500
wall to engineers detail.
1761
1000
Tiered retaining to
Select feature timber cladding to engineers detail.
manufacturers specifications.
Approx. Proposed Ground Line.
NORTH ELEVATION Approx. Existing Ground Line.
Scale : 1 : 100
Revision Schedule Client Name: RLH Homes
Sheet Number: U06 Project Number:21-038
Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date Issued by Project Address: 4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
Climate Zone: 2
Wind Category: To engineers spec.
Elevations
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au Project Issue Date: 11/01/2024 Project Status: PCD 19 Scale: 1 : 100
Phone:Set
0488209840 Checked/Signed By Director: Bradley Hunt Drawn By: Aaron Waters QBCC LIC# 126221
Document ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version
C COPYRIGHT Date:and23/07/2025
The Drawing the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Page 34
600
600
600
600
153.3m2
16.6% Unit Site Cover
2.4% Uncovered Site Cover
238.6 m2
25.9% House Site Cover
22.9 m2
Site Cover (Including Deck) : 414.8m2 (45.0%)
Site Cover (Excluding Deck) : 391.9m2 (42.5%)
PROPOSED SITE COVER
Scale : 1 : 120
Revision Schedule Project Address : Sheet Name: Project Status: Project Number:
Number Description Date Issued by 4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach Site Cover PCD 19 21-038
Client Name : Project Issue Date : Q.B.C.C Lisence No. Sheet Number:
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au RLH Homes 11/01/2024 126221 U07
Document Set ID: 23959990
C COPYRIGHT The Drawing and the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
Version: 1, Version Date: 23/07/2025
Page 35
Proposed Residence Proposed Triplex
Screened
e
Bin Storag
River stones or
Screened low maintenance
Bin Storage planting (eg mondo no mow
grass)
Soft Landscaping : 254m² (68.8% of 369m²)
Hardscape : 115.0m²
Total Landscaping Provided : 369m² (40%)
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Total Landscaped Area Required : 920.45m² / 35% = 322.1 m²
Scale : 1 : 150
Total Soft Landscaping Area Required : 322.1 m² / 60% = 193.3 m²
Revision Schedule Client Name: RLH Homes
Sheet Number: U08 Project Number:21-038
Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date Issued by Project Address: 4 Ventura Street, Sunrise Beach
Climate Zone: 2
Wind Category: To engineers spec.
Landscaping
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iconbuildingdesign.com.au Project Issue Date: 11/01/2024 Project Status: PCD 19 Scale: 1 : 150
Phone:Set
0488209840 Checked/Signed By Director: Bradley Hunt Drawn By: Aaron Waters QBCC LIC# 126221
Document ID: 23959990
Version: 1, Version
C COPYRIGHT Date:and23/07/2025
The Drawing the design depicted on this sheet remains the property of Icon Building design. Reproduction in part or whole is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Icon Building Design. Plans are design for use on the job address specified in the titleblock only.
The text continues on page 36.