Attachment E - Cardno Statement - flood

 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.’