Original source · versioned page text
Attachment E - Cardno Statement - flood
Attached to the e-mail MCU18/0009 - Representations to conditions of approval.
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
Technical Memorandum
Title CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM
186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565
Client Noosa Care Project No WE17064
Date 27 September 2018 Status
Author Zac McCosker Discipline Water and Environment
Reviewer Helen Doherty Office Brisbane
INTRODUCTION
Cardno has been commissioned by Noosa Care to provide assistance in gaining development approval for
the construction of additional aged care units at 186 Cooroy Noosa Road, Tewantin. This technical
memorandum aims to address concerns Council raised as part of conditional approval for the development
regarding changes to the proposed development layout from what was modelled in the Flood Impact
Assessment, WE17064_Carramar_TM01.
In particular, Council sought to clarify:
New Fencing and the potential for blockage;
Does the new fencing need to be designed to collapse during flood events;
New development areas within or adjacent to the flood extents; and
Runoff from the proposed development.
This memo addresses the items above – that is, a review of the existing flood impact assessment flood
model with reference to the above items.
DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND
Cardno has previously issued a flood study report (Flood Study Noosa Care – Carramar WE17064 24 July
2017) for the Carramar Tewantin site for Noosa Care on the 24th of July 2017. Results from the flood study
determined the extent of flooding around the site in the 1% and 10% AEP climate change events and
defined the minimum floor level for the development. This initial flood study was supplemented in the
WE17064_Carramar_TM01 technical memo (Appendix A), which addressed concerns raised by Council
regarding blockage and debris impact on the proposed buildings.
LAYOUT CHANGES
Figures 1 & 2 show the differences in the development layouts. As part of the conditional approval, Council
required what was previously Villas 3 & 4 to be removed from the flood plain area. As part of the aged care
requirement, the installation of a boundary fence is required. This fence is approximately 2 metres high with
vertical bars at 100 mm spacing. The fence location is shown on Figure 2.
Carramar Tech Memo Addendum Update_hd.docx Page 1
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 up to a minute.
Full text of sections 2 to 30 (of 65)
Section 2
CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM 186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565
Figure 1 Layout Modelled in FIA
WE17064 Cardno 27 September 2018
Prepared for Noosa Care Page 2
Section 3
CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM 186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565
Figure 2 New Layout
WE17064 Cardno 27 September 2018
Prepared for Noosa Care Page 3
Section 4
CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM 186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565
LAYOUT CHANGE IMPACTS
New Fencing and the potential for blockage
The new layout and fence location was assessed against the previous layout. In the FIA report the building
extents were blocked out to simulate complete blockage of these areas as shown in Figure 3 as magenta
lines. The proposed fence is shown on the same figure as a solid red line. Clearly in the location shown
on Figure 3, the proposed fence will have less of an impact than what was originally proposed as it is further
outside the Q100 flood line than the previous building layout.
Figure 3 Blockage Lines
The fence location to the south, shown in Figure 4, is roughly in line with the blocked out area for Villa 3 as
modelled in the FIA, therefore this section of fence is not expected to have any impacts due to the blockage
factor previously applied in the FIA. In this section the fence also aligns with the direction of flows.
WE17064 Cardno 27 September 2018
Prepared for Noosa Care Page 4
Section 5
CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM 186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565
Figure 4 Southern Section of Fence Line
The northern section of fence, shown in Figure 5, is located clear of the 1% AEP inundation area hence
there is no chance of negative impacts.
WE17064 Cardno 27 September 2018
Prepared for Noosa Care Page 5
Section 6
CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM 186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565
Figure 5 Northern Section of Fence Line
Does the new fencing need to be designed to collapse during flood events;
Based on the results obtained in the FIA, those sections of fence that are impacted by flood waters will not
need to be designed to collapse. The affected sections of fence line are located in floodwater that is slow
moving (< 0.2 m/s) and less than 1 m deep. They are also aligned with the direction of flow. It should be
noted that the fence line is located adjacent to dense bush land and downstream of a culvert crossing, both
of which will capture large debris before it can impact the fence. Any overland flow from the development
is expected to pass through the fence with minimal obstruction. This will be confirmed at the detailed design
stage.
New development areas within or adjacent to the flood extents
There are no new development areas apart from the addition of the fence as outlined above.
Runoff from the proposed development.
Runoff from the new layout will be less than previously as two villas have been removed, decreasing the
impervious area.
WE17064 Cardno 27 September 2018
Prepared for Noosa Care Page 6
Section 7
CARRAMAR NOOSA CARE FIA ADDENDUM 186 Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin Qld 4565 SUMMARY The new development layout has been compared against the original proposal modelled in the FIA. From this comparison it has been shown that the new layout will have less of an impact than the layout that was modelled in the FIA. This is primarily due to the removal of two villas and associated filling from the flood plain area. The impact of the southern section of fence being affected by blockage was effectively modelled in the FIA as blockage factors at the villa footprints as the proposed fence and the previously proposed villas were located in a similar location. Generally the proposed fence is aligned with the direction of flow which lessens the potential for negative impacts and or blockage. WE17064 Cardno 27 September 2018 Prepared for Noosa Care Page 7
Section 8
APPENDIX A WE17064_CARRAMAR_TM01 [OCR of page images] APPENDIX A WE17064_CARRAMAR_TMO1 | CY Cardna
Section 9
Project Title Carramar Tewantin –Technical Memo - Flood Impact Assessment
Project No: WE17064
Date: 13 July 2018 Ref: WE17064_Carramar_TM01
Author: Timothy Shen
Reviewed By: Zac McCosker
Issued To: Noosa Care Inc
Attachments: DA Drawings, Flood Map figures
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Cardno has previously issued a flood study report (Flood Study Noosa Care – Carramar WE17064
24 July 2017) for the Carramar Tewantin site for Noosa Care on the 24th of July 2017. Results from
the flood study determined the extent of flooding around the site in the 1% and 10% AEP climate
change events and defined the minimum floor level for the development.
This technical memo has been prepared to address issues raised by Noosa Council, ref Email from
Patrick Murphey, dated Friday, 15 June 2018 2:08 PM Subject: RE: MCU 18/0009 Carramar.
1.2 Information Request Response
The following provides a detailed response to the information request issued in relation to the
previous flood study:
Item 1:
‘Demonstrate compliance with the Natural Hazards Overlay Code Table (13.10 Flood Hazard
Areas).
We believe that this has been addressed with the exception of O22 of the Natural Hazards
Overlay Code Table (13.10 Flood Hazard Areas), which states:
Flood Impacts
O22 Development does not directly, indirectly or cumulatively alter the flood
characteristics external to the development site for all flood events up to and including
the defined flood event based on— a) current climate conditions; and b) incorporating
an appropriate allowance for the predicted impacts of climate change.
The Cardno response provides clarification to the other points raised in the RFI relating to
stormwater and notes that the previous report has modelled all the buildings as inactive areas
in the model and that flow cannot pass through these areas. This advice is inconsistent with
the previous report which:
1. Presents flood mapping that has flow passing through the buildings
2. Does not present a pre and post comparison of the flooding to demonstrate the flood
characteristics are no altered.’
Section 10
Issue:
The provided information does not demonstrate that the development does not directly,
indirectly or cumulatively alter the flood characteristics external to the development site for
all flood events up to and including the defined flood event based on— a) current climate
conditions; and b) incorporating an appropriate allowance for the predicted impacts of climate
change.
Information Required:
Model the proposed buildings, fences and earthworks associated with the development to
show that the development will not affect flooding and that the flooding will not impact human
safety.’
Response
Flow passing through the buildings was to be expected as buildings were modelled off the ground.
No flood storage is removed from the area as the buildings are proposed to be on stumps with the
area underneath inundated. Minimal storage has been removed from the area as a result of the fill
proposed in drawing DA 04E (Attachment A).
Additional hydrologic and hydraulic modelling has been undertaken in this technical memo to resolve
this item. All design events up to the defined flood event (39% to 1% AEP) have been modelled to
meet requirement O22 of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code.
Section 5 provides a summary of the hydraulic results from the modelling. The results indicated
that the proposed development does not cause any negative impacts both internal and external to
the site. Maximum flood depths, water surface elevations, velocities, affluxes and hazards have
been provide in the figures attached (Attachment B).
Item 2:
‘Ensure the flood study employs methods that are consistent with one version of ARR. Apply
appropriate parameters to the RORB model. The Rational Method can be used as a
‘checking tool’ but not for calibration of numerical models. Update the modelling and report
to reflect these changes.’
Response
Whilst the approach was not changed, it was demonstrated that the approach that was adopted was
conservative. Hence it is considered that this item has been addressed.
Item 3:
‘Model the proposed buildings and earthworks associated with the development to show that
the buildings will not affect flooding and that the flooding will not impact human safety.
Issue:
The provided information does not demonstrate that the development does not directly,
indirectly or cumulatively alter the flood characteristics external to the development site for
all flood events up to and including the defined flood event based on— a) current climate
conditions; and b) incorporating an appropriate allowance for the predicted impacts of climate
change.
Information Required:
Model the proposed buildings, fences and earthworks associated with the development to
show that the development will not affect flooding and that the flooding will not impact human
safety.’
Section 11
Response Additional hydrologic and hydraulic modelling has been undertaken in the technical memo to provide a solution to this issue. All design events up to the defined flood event (39% to 1% AEP) have been modelled to meet requirement O22 of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code. Section 5 provides a summary of the hydraulic results from the modelling. The results indicated that the proposed development does not cause any negative impacts both internal and external to the site. Maximum flood depths, water surface elevations, velocities, affluxes and hazards have been provide in the figures attached (Attachment B). The modelling determined that for all design events, no negative impacts were caused by the proposed development either on or offsite. Access to the proposed buildings as per the drawings shown in Attachment A remains flood free with no impacts on human safety identified. 2 Site Description A site description can be found in the original flood study, (Flood Study Noosa Care – Carramar WE17064 24 July 2017). 3 Hydrology Model The original flood study (Flood Study Noosa Care – Carramar WE17064 24 July 2017) setup a hydrology model with a full range of rainfall event durations for the 10% and 1% AEP events. The same hydrology model and methodology were adopted to capture the peak events for the new 39%, 10%, 5% and 2% AEP events. 3.1 RORB Parameters An initial and continuing loss approach was adopted to represent the expected losses from the design storm events. An initial loss of 15.0 mm and a continuing loss of 2.5 mm/hr were adopted. The parameters adopted for this study are provided in Table 3-1, which has been validated using the Rational Method. The AR&R 2016 Intensity Frequency Duration (IFD) data was used to define the rainfall intensities for use in the hydrology model. To account for the impact of climate change the rainfall intensities were increased by 20 percent. 3.2 RORB Validation As there was no stream flow gauge within the catchment, there was no opportunity to calibrate the rainfall and runoff model (RORB) using known flow hydrographs and rainfall. Validation of the RORB model was undertaken using the Rational Method at the outlet point of the catchment. The Bransby-Williams method was used to calculate the time of concentration. Table 3-1 below shows the Rational Method parameters adopted, with validation results presented in Table 3-2. The C10 values adopted are in line with the parameters previous flood study. Table 3-1 Rational Method Parameters Ration Method Parameters Total Catchment Catchment Area (ha) 503 Fraction Impervious 0.24 Runoff Coefficient (C10) 0.76 Time of Concentration (min) 77.5
Section 12
Table 3-2 compares the peak flow values from RORB to the results of the Rational Method. The
values indicate that the hydrologic model is generating consistent peak flows compared to the
Rational Method. Kc values were selected for all events that gave the best match to the Rational
Method discharges without underestimating flow at the outlet
Table 3-2 Hydrology Cross check
AEP Peak Flow
Kc
(%) (m3/s)
Inputs
Rational Method RORB
39 41.3 41.3 1.61
18 58.3 58.2 1.44
10 68.8 68.8 1.77
5 82.9 82.9 1.97
2 106.2 106.1 2.00
1 122.9 122.6 1.84
4 Hydraulic Model
The hydraulic model built for the previous flood study was adapted for the additional analysis. The
model was altered to integrate the additional storms and new development layout of the buildings.
Plate 4-1 depicts the lot layout of the development.
Plate 4-1 Development Lot Layout
4.1 Model Setup
4.1.1 Grid Cell Size
A grid cell size of 4 m was adopted for the model area as per the original study. This size was
considered a fine enough resolution to appropriately define topographical features such as roads
and open drains whilst remaining computationally efficient.
Section 13
4.1.2 Model Extent
The hydraulic model has been extended upstream of the site to allow for flood storage on the
southern side of Cooroy-Noosa Road. Plate 4-2 shows the model extent.
4.1.3 Inflows
Inflows have been incorporated into the TUFLOW model as Flow/Time dependent 2D boundary
conditions. The locations of the 2D inflow locations into the model are illustrated in Plate 4-2. The
inflows were generated using a RORB model of the catchment (Section 2.1). Inflows for the tributary
were located upstream of Cooroy-Noosa Road, so that the storage provided by this crossing could
be properly accounted for.
4.1.4 Roughness
Within the hydraulic model, a Manning’s ‘n’ parameter was used to describe the hydraulic
roughness. The hydraulic roughness for the overland flow model was described using a two-
dimensional map of Manning’s 'n' values. This was developed by digitising different land-
use zones from the aerial photography and cadastre within a GIS environment. Table 4-1
summarises the variety of land-uses present in the catchment and adopted hydraulic
roughness parameters assumed for each.
Table 4-1 Manning’s n Roughness Values
Land Use Manning’s ‘n’
Roads 0.02
Golf course 0.03
Dense Vegetation 0.12
Easements 0.06
Urban 0.2
Buildings 0.5
4.1.5 Cross-sections
Cross-sections from the flood study undertaken in 2006 have been used in defining Wooroi
Creek and the tributary to the east of the study site. From a comparison of the LiDAR data
against the cross sections, modification of the 2D grid was undertaken to reflect the bottom
level of the cross sections.
4.1.6 Dam
A dam is located on the tributary near the downstream boundary of the site. From the survey
data, the main dam embankment is graded from 8.2 mAHD to 8.0 mAHD, with the spillway
level at 7.53 mAHD. The dam has been modelled using these levels.
4.1.7 Road Levels
The LiDAR data obtained for the study agreed well with the levels used in the 2006 study.
4.1.8 Structures
Dimensions of key hydraulic structures have been obtained from the Noosa Council
Interactive Mapping website. These have been represented using 1D elements in the
hydraulic model. The location of structures is shown in Plate 4-2.
Section 14
4.1.9 Debris Blockage & Fill
To account for the potential debris build up, the ground level at the building faces opposing the
direction of flow have been elevated by 1m to simulate this scenario. Ground levels were also
increased where fill is proposed See Plate 4-3 to see these changes.
Plate 4-2 Hydraulic Model Setup &
Section 15
Technical Memo
Plate 4-3 DEM Modifications
This document may contain confidential and/or privileged information that is the property of Cardno. The information may not be Page No. 7 of 10
disclosed, used or reproduced other than by agreement with Cardno. Cardno shall not assume any responsibility or liability
whatsoever to any party arising out of any unauthorised use or reliance on the information.
Section 16
Technical Memo
5 Results
The developed case peak, flood depth, water surface level, velocity and hazard maps for the 39%
to 1% AEP events have been plotted in the attached figures (Attachment B). Afflux maps comparing
the developed case with the existing are also included in Attachment B. The 1% AEP climate change
water surface level for the developed case has also been included as Figure 2-0 in Attachment B.
Changes to the water surface level that can be seen on the extremities of the building footprints are
a result of the topography modifications blocking water from these cells and in no way effect the
models reliability.
It can be seen in the figures provided that Villa No.3 is situated within the flood extent and the flood
extent encroaches marginally onto Villas No. 2 and 3. The elevated walls simulating debris build up
did not have an effect on the hydraulic outcomes and at no time do the building finished floor levels
become inundated. In response to Item 1 of Council’s RFI, the development presents no internal and
external impacts to the site.
Table 5-1 shows the peak water surface levels extracted from the centroid of Villa 3. This
demonstrates that there is no change to the water surface levels due to the development at this
location. As discussed in the original flood study, peak water surface levels at this site are primarily
controlled by the weir located nearby on the downstream side of the development.
Table 5-1 Peak Water Surface levels
WSL (mAHD)
AEP Existing Developed Difference (m)
39% 8.02 8.02 0
18% 8.12 8.12 0
10% 8.16 8.16 0
5% 8.19 8.19 0
2% 8.21 8.21 0
1% 8.24 8.24 0
1%CC - 8.28
6 Conclusions
Additional flood modelling was completed to respond to issues raised by Noosa Council. The RORB
and TUFLOW models simulated for the Carramar Tewantin site were adopted and altered from the
previous Cardno issued flood study to enable the request for information responses. The revised
model included the 39% up to the 1% AEP event, an updated lot layout of the proposed development
and included filling proposed.
The modelling determined that for all design events, no negative impacts were caused by the
proposed development either on or offsite. Access to the proposed buildings as per the drawings
shown in Attachment A remains flood free with no impacts on human safety identified.
This document may contain confidential and/or privileged information that is the property of Cardno. The information may not be Page No. 8 of 10
disclosed, used or reproduced other than by agreement with Cardno. Cardno shall not assume any responsibility or liability
whatsoever to any party arising out of any unauthorised use or reliance on the information.
Section 17
Technical Memo
Minutes of Meeting
ATTACHMENT
DA DRAWINGS
This document may contain confidential and/or privileged information that is the property of Cardno. The information may not be Page No. 9 of 10
disclosed, used or reproduced other than by agreement with Cardno. Cardno shall not assume any responsibility or liability
whatsoever to any party arising out of any unauthorised use or reliance on the information.
Section 18
~
__..
__.. $ ·
__.. (J1
__.. 0 Ill
(J1 0
__..
0 Ill
0 I _.. Ill
:::::l
I~
0...
:5
I I\:> rr
)>
m
z
-i <
:0 r
-< r
OJ )>
c r\)
r
0
z
G)
0
i\)
:;,g
0
)>
rn
""'0 m
< 0(11
z
-i
r :0
s;: 0
0 -<
"Tl OJ
r c
0 r
0 0
0 z
c G)
z
m
<
r
s;:
c.v
:5 0 ~""'0
r 0
r m;::
)> z :t>Z
c.v 0 -i-i
:0 Im
m mo
-i :011
m OJo
~
0
0
r
c
~
z ~
(f) s;:~
:5 § 'i-
r
~ f·
r
)>
~
< C.
~£
~
<
r ?
s;: r\)
?ft
(11
)>
m
""'0
0(11
0
0
"'T1 Architects
r MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE F L
0 Architect Reg. No.· P Midd~ • 001850
0 a.b.n. 89 671 642 980
0 P.O.Box 1352
c. NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
z
m
Ph· 041 7 214 096
Email • [email protected]
Cl ient:
Noosa Care·•nc.
Project :
Cartwright Village Exten ion
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewartin
DRAWING
Development Application
PROPOSED SHE
__..
(J1
Ill
ELEVATIONS
0 :::::l scale date drawn
(J1 0...
0 1 : 400@A3 Nov 2017 SP
o m
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA06
Issue
l:J.
Section 19
.. /
I
.,.
I
I
tl
,, I
I
'I
' ,. rl I
II I
.I I
G)Z JJ()
t'- JJ)> mo
Q-1 -lz
~ I cc ~()
z:U ZJJ
v 0)>r -m
z-1
~ c G)m
v z
m :Eco
)> r
~
~
r Fo
(/)~
i==
i==
~I
r
I==
~ I
......
i==
i==
I==
I==
J
. /
-- ·.' I
Im fill
/ I
/
' I
,·-, , . I
.. l I
·I l 1
I
It
I I 11..1'-'----' ~c.~-==...Jt--t-----,
· I-~ I
- L f 14=====tl ~
, - ~ I "Ur
Q)>
I I
JJ()
00
I~
I.J1
~ I.
If~
oz
-(/)
or
C()
,o
~ l in.-~
:S:)> cnJJ I
"U ;:r: CD <
m
0
mO
~-e
I;;;·
I.. .r- Z \f I~
w ~~
~
r'f
I
Q c
~ ......
0 I~ ::J
I I 01
0 I a.
~
I 0
()
0 c:.S>
z
I
0
JJ
m I
1-
-1
m
() .·.· I I
0
r
c
:::;::: :-P I
z
(/) :;: , I
I
l I v I\)
Architects
MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE P/L
/vchitect Reg. No. · P Midd"' -001850
a.b.n. 89 671 642 980
I rn P.O.Box 1352
NOOSA VILLE OLD 4566
Ph· 0417 214 096
Email • [email protected]
Client :
Noosa Care lnc.
Project:
Cartwright Village Exter sion
pr LOCATION
w Carramar
~
01
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewantin
...... Ill DRAWING
0
0'1
::J
n. Development Applicatio ~
0
0 0'> SITE SECTIONS
~ sca le
1 : 2QQ@A3
date
Nov 2017
drawn
SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA0 7
Issue
Section 20
22·0tv\
0
DOD
D
D
0
0
D
L I
-- --L__
-
ENTRY FLO·OR PLAN
CD 1:200
Architects
MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE F/L
Nchitect Reg. No.- P r-Jidd""- 001850
<l.b.n. 89671.642 9.80
p,.D.Bax 1352.
NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
Pb - 0417214096
Email - [email protected]
Client :
Noosa Care Inc.
ENTRY ROOF PLAN Project:
1:200 Cartwright Village Exten ion
LOCATI ON
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewar tin
DRAWING
Development Applicatior
PROPOSED ENTRY/CAFE
FLOOR PLAN
scal e date drawn
} :200@A:> Nov 2.017 SP
Pmj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA08
Issue
~
Section 21
ENTRY SOUTH ELEVATION
1: 200
,.---- COLORBOND ROOF SHEETING }/\JN.c COLOU~
TYP. ENTRY 3D VIEW 1
PAINTED FC WEA~~BOARD Architects
CLADD ING AND~ Wtf IT£ l)Silr ax.cxJQ... MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE P L
P/ch ~ ect Reg. No.· P ~iddap • 001850
a.b.n. 89 67 1 &42 980
TYP. ENTRY 30 VIEW 2
P.O.Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
Ph - 0417 21 4 096
Email - [email protected]
Client:
Noosa Care Inc.
Proj et:t:
Cartwright Village Exten ion
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewan in
DRAWING
Development Application
PROPOSED ENTRY/C
ELEVATIONS
scale date rawn
1 : 200@A3 Nov 2017 p
Proj no.
1717
Issue
Section 22
LINE OF ROOF OVER
ROOM 07 ROOM 08
_____________ U
VILLA 1 FLOOR PLAN
ED 1:200
Ol
,C:
0 "'0-..::;
0 c: (])
0 om
.o..C:
0 ci .... C/)
0
0
o-
(50
ci
...- oe
Oi
c:
-g~
o iD
0
0 ,e~
o. ·o-
- 0
00
(.)._
Architects
MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE P/L
Archhect Reg. No. · P Midd"' · 001850
a.b. n. 89 671 642 980
P.O.Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
Ph· 0417 214 096
Email · [email protected]
Client :
VILLA 1 ROOF PLAN Noosa Care Inc.
Project :
1:200 Cartwright Village Exte sion
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewr. ntin
DRAWING
Development Applicatic n
PROPOSED VILLA 1 I LOOR
& ROOF PLANS
scale date drawn
1 : 200@A3 Nov 2017 SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA10
Issue
~
Section 23
VILLA 1 NORTH ELEVATION
1:200
. - - - COLORBOND ROOF SHEETING
P\) 1-lt: (()1.00~
... - -.-
. . ·-
---
:- -. --
-- -- -. -· -_ -_- .---
.
- .-.·. .-_ - _: ~ -.
. .. -
.-::-_ : . :_- .
TYP. VILLA 1 3D VtEW 1·
Architects
MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE /L
PAINTED FC WEATHERBOARD .Aichitect Reg. No. · P Midd~- 001850
CLADDING ~ t-JTI¢Jt; \AHnt l)5A CA.OO '2... a.b.n. 89 67 1 642 980
P.O.Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
TYP. VILLA 1 30 VIEW 2 Ph - 0417 214 096
Email -
Client:
ter@madarc ..com.au
Noosa Care Inc.
Project :
Cartwright Village Exte sion
LOCATI ON
Carra mar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tew
DRAWIN G
Development Application
PROPOSED VlllA I
ELEVATIONS
scale date dra wn
1: 200@A3 Nov 201 7 SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA 11
Issue
~
Section 24
LOUNGE
STORE D
1
"====_=_:::==-_-~.::.....R-O:__O=M.:0=5_:!::R:O:O:M:0:6:~ ~
.. ----o-.u. ~0-0M-07- R
- O-OM: ~
VIllAS 2, 5, & 6 FLOOR PLAN
1:200
d>
C '
-o<=
c Q)
oa>
.0 ..c ,
..... Ill '
o ._
ao
oe
0
0
0
c)
Al:crutects
MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE P/L
Architect Reg. No. - P Middap- 001850
a.b. n. 89 671 642 980
P.O.Box 1352
VILLAS 2, 5, &6 ROOF PLAN NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
Ph- 0417 214 096
Email - [email protected]. au
1 :200 Client:
Noosa Care Inc.
.f'ro)ect:
Cartwright Village Exte 1sion
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tew ntin
DRAWING
Development Applicati n
PHOPOSEDVttlA 2, >, & 6
FLOOR PLAN
scale date drawn
1: 200@A3 Nov 2017 SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA12
Section 25
VILLA 2 WEST ELEVATION
ED 1 : 200
,----- COLORBOND ROOF SHEETING
1)\)~t; CCto\1~
TYP. VILLA 2, 5, &6 3D VIEW 1
...___ PAINTED FC WEATHERBOARD
Architects
CLADDING AN~ ~r111t;: (()\i()\)1<_
MIOOAP ARCHITECTURE
.Aichn~ R&g. no. - P Midd~- O£n85lt
a.b.n. 89 67 1 642 980
TYP. VILLA 2, 5, &6 3D VIEW 2
P.O.Brnf 1352
NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
Ph· 0417 21 4 096
Email ·
Client:
Noosa Care Inc.
Project:
Cartwright Village
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd T n
DRAWING
Development Applicati
PROPOSED VILLA 2,
ELEVATIONS
seal~ date drawn .
1: 200@A3 Nov 2017 SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA 13
Issue
&
Section 26
rr ----- ll
~ VERANDAH
7·'?"J<' "5·0
~
~OWING~ .
o·Qa r-1 R-L-10-
.5---,0 I
-= D ec=:
~LOUNGE ......""---t
D --~------
VILLA 3 &4 FLOOR PLAN
ED 1:200
~1
Cl
c
"0:;::::;
c <1>
oa>
.o..C
..... Ill Ol
o..._ c
- o
0 0 "0:;::::;
(),._ c Q)
oa>
.o..C
..... Ill
Cl 0 o..._
c 0 - o
-o ·.;::::; 0 00
(.),._ 0
c Q)
c:i 0
o<D ..... 0
.o..C
..... Ill c:i
o..._
- o
0
0
.....
0 0
(.),._ 0
c:i
.....
Cl
c
---
"0:;::::;
2.00 ° c Q)
oa>
.o..C
.... Ill
Cl
c
o..._
"0:;::::;
-
00
o
c Q) (.),._
0 Q)
.o..C
..... Ill 2.00 °
o..._
~ ,~
-
00
o
o ....
.....
/ ~ II
VILLA 3 &4 ROOF PLAN
Architects
1:200 MIDDAP ARCHITECTURE F 'L
Archnect Reg. No. - P Miadap • 001850
ab.n. ~ 671 64Z 98(1
P.O.Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE OLD 456S
Ph-0417214096
Email ~ [email protected]
Client :
Noosa Care Inc.
Project:
Cartwright Village Exten ion
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewar tin
DRAWING
Development Applicatior
PROPOSED VILLA 3 &
FLOOR & ROOF PLAN ~
scale ,d,ate fj,r~wn
1 : 200@A3 Nov 2017 SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA14
Issue
B
Section 27
VIlLA 3 &4 SOUTH ELEVATION
1:200
. - - - COLORBOND ROOF SHEETING
D~l-lt; ~vt..
VILLA 3 &4 30 VIEW 1
Architects
c _ __ _ PAINTED FC WEATHERBOARD
~!?,?,9~:.. ~~~~-~!~ECTURE rl
a.b.n. 89 67 1 642 980
CLADDING ANTI~ \N\-\fTE. C.O\.C\le_ P.O.Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE OLD 4566
Ph- 0417 214 096
Email - [email protected]
Cllent;
Noosa Care Inc.
VILLA 3 &4 3D VIEW 2 Project:
Cartwright Village Exten ion
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewantin
DRAWING I
Development Application
PROPOSED VILLA 2, 5, & 6
ELEVATIONS
scale date drawn
1 : 2QQ@A3 Nov 2017 SP
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA15
Issue
Section 28
0.2% AEP
Q500 flood line
0
9.
9 .5
GT
GT 600rcp
SMH GT
771 883
ME*S14 882
BL*S12 MA*S16
9 .5
9.5 LI
10 . 0
872
8.5
10 . 0
10 . 0
774 BO*S14 871870
bridge LI FI*S20 873 MA*S12
BO*S14 0.2% AEP
MA*S12 Q500 flood line
LI
garden
1%AEP
LI
Q100 flood line
fence line
8 .0
garden
concrete path
10% AEP
Q10 flood line
Auxilary Lodge
FFL 13.00
building
Berry Lodge
FFL 13.98
Quota Lodge
line
Cartwright North
garden
LI 5
7.
FFL 14.00 Existing 16 Residents Rooms
FFL 10.35
Wilson Lodge
FFL 13.88
9.0
754
MA*S10
0
Robena Lodge
7.
FFL 13.00/10.39 GT 922
751 MA*S12
concrete path
750MA*S12
250pvc BO*S12
building line
tank
RP177554
0.2% AEP
8 .5
Butler Lodge SV
fence line
FFL 14.32 Q500 flood line
Cartwright South 653
6.5
Existing 16 Residents Rooms 1%AEP BL*S10 917
Q100 flood line 652 MA*S12
FFL 10.35
cu
MA*S8
garden
645
r
10% AEP MA*S12
re
646
n
Q10 flood line MA*S10 915
ts
MA*S12
ta
Harlow Lodge
n
6.5
SW
600rcp
di
FFL 13.88 651
ng
SW
MA*S8
650
w
644 647 MA*S10
at
EMH MA*S12 MA*S10648 649
er
642
shed
timber deck
643 MA*S12 MA*S10
MA*S8
lin
MA*S8
8 .0
edge of swam
e
10 . 0
9 .5
TT*S8
p / mowen
k
top of ban
TT*S8 498
TT*S6
TT*S6 MA*S8
TT*S6
area
existi
TT*S10 TT*S10TT*S6
TT*S10 TT*S12
TT*S8 499
TT*S8 MA*S8
Community Centre 1%AEP 7.0
ng ch
FFL 12.90/10.30 PI*S6 Q100 flood line
Harlow Lodge TT*S10
FFL 14.27 Administration TT*S10 0.2% AEP
FFL 12.90/10.30 Q500 flood line
ainwir
Staff Area TT*S8
FFL 13.56 TT*S6 TT*S6
7.5
TT*S10 TT*S8
TT*S6
gate
TT*S8TT*S8
TT*S10
e fen
LI
906
TT*S6 MA*S14
TT*S10 TT*S8 TT*S6 TT*S8
TT*S8 TT*S8 905
ce
TT*S6 MA*S14
MacDonald Lodge TT*S6 MA*S6
FFL 14.75 TT*S10 TT*S8 TT*S8
TT*S6 TT*S12
PA*S4 TT*S6 MA*S12
MA*S12
0 LI
TT*S8
1
TT*S6
.0
TT*S6
TT*S6
TT*S6 TT*S8
Existing Rubbish MA*S6
Sorting and MA*S14 TT*S6
904
TT*S8 MA*S14
gully
TT*S6
SV TT*S8
Pick Up Area TT*S6 10% AEP
Q10 flood line
SW
TT*S12 TT*S8
TT*S6
7.5
TT*S8 375pvc
LI
MA*S6 GT
TE
EMH FLAG
1
300pvc
.5
0
8. 5 0.2% AEP
Dorathy Ward and Blanche Wood Lodges GT Q500 flood line
8 .5
LI
FFL Upper 14.38 9. 0
7. 5 7. 5
kerb & ch.
894
MA*S16
Margaret Angus Lodge
5
FFL 14.38
0.
0
9.5
0.
10% AEP
1 1
existing bitumen 55 carpark Q10 flood line
identifing number
flagged trees with
1%AEP
8.0
9 .0
450rcp Q100 flood line
9. 0
5
8.
SW
0.2% AEP
Q500 flood line
OSA ROAD
COOROY - NO
Existing Trees over 300mm Approximate Area of Biodiversity Overlay
MA*S6 diameter Refer Noosa Plan Map OM 9.1
Existing Site Rubbish Area
Approximate Area of Possible
10% AEP Swamp Crayfish Habitat
Q10 flood line Identified Crayfish position
1%AEP
Q100 flood line
0.2% AEP
Q500 flood line
Architects
Middap Architecture Pty Ltd
Architect Reg. No. - P Middap - 001850
a.b.n. 89 871 642 961
P.O. Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
Ph - 0417 214 096
Email - [email protected]
CLIENT
Noosa Care Inc
PROJECT
Cartwright Village Extension
LOCATION
Carramar
Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewantin
DRAWING
Development Section 29
Application
EXISTING SITE PLAN
scale date drawn
1:1000 Nov 2017 PM
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA 01E
Issue
Section 30
SMH GT
9.5
9 .5 LI
10 . 0
10 . 0
10 . 0
bridge LI
LI
garden
LI
Villa No6
fence line
8 .0
garden
FFL 10.50 Villa No5
concrete path
FFL 10.50
building
Villa Rubbish Area
line
Cartwright North
garden
LI 5
7.
Existing 16 Residents Rooms Villa Rubbish Area
FFL 10.35
9.0
Villa Rubbish Area
7 .0
GT
concrete path
building line
tank
250p
Villa No4
RP177554
vc
8 .5
SV FFL 10.50
fence line
Cartwright South
6 .5
Existing 16 Residents Rooms
FFL 10.35
cu
garden
rre
ts n
ta
6. 5
SW
nd
in
SW
g
w
at
EMH
shed
Villa Rubbish Area
er
timber deck
lin
8.0
10 .0
e
9 .5
k
top of ban
TT*S10
TT*S10
7. 0
Villa No3
FFL 10.50
gate
LI
Entry Bldg Rubbish Area
0 LI
Entry Building
.0 1
FFL 10.5
Existing Rubbish
Sorting and
Villa Rubbish Area
Pick Up Area
gully
SV
SW
Landscaped Podium
7.5
LI
TE
EMH FLAG
1
.5
0
LI
Villa Rubbish Area 9. 0
7 .5 7.5
894
MA*S16
Villa No2
FFL 11.50
5
0.
Villa No1
0
0.
1 1
FFL 11.50 Landscaped Q10 flood line
Podium
identifing number
flagged trees with
8 .0
Q1
00
flo
od
lin
e
5
8.
ROAD
COOROY - NOOSA
Trees to remain Approximate Area of Biodiversity Overlay
Refer Noosa Plan Map OM 9.1
SITE DETAILS
Trees to be removed Lot 2 on RP 177554
Parish of Tewantin
County of March
Approximate Area of Possible
Area 40468sqm
10% AEP Swamp Crayfish Habitat
Q10 flood line Identified Crayfish position
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
1%AEP Existing GFA -----------9093.2sqm (22.5%)
Q100 flood line
Existing Site Cover ----7680.6sqm (18.9%) Architects
0.2% AEP Bushfire Attack Level Zone Existing Residential Rooms -- 142 Middap Architecture Pty Ltd
Q500 flood line
Based on BAL 19 Existing Height 2 Storeys - 8.5m Architect Reg. No. - P Middap - 001850
a.b.n. 89 871 642 961
Site/Villa Rubbish Area 14.1 m wide zone Existing parking bays 88 bays (18 in surplus) P.O. Box 1352
NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
Proposed GFA -----------12,045sqm Ph - 0417 214 096
Email - [email protected]
Buildings at Upper level (2952sqm additional area) (29.75%)
CLIENT
Generally RL 10.5 Proposed Site Cover ----11,350sqm
(3652sqm additional area)(28.05%) Noosa Care Inc
with RL 11.5 over carpark PROJECT
Existing Residential Rooms -- 190
Cartwright Village Extension
(48 additional rooms) LOCATION
Proposed Height 2 Storeys - 8.5m Carramar
(same as existing) Cooroy Noosa Rd Tewantin
Proposed parking bays 106 bays DRAWING
(18 additional - 36 in surplus) Development Application
(does not include external parking) PROPOSED SITE PLAN
scale date drawn
1:1000 Nov 2017 PM
Proj no. Dwg no.
1717 DA 02E
Issue
The text continues on section 31.