proposed addition and renovation · 4/3/2019 · proposed addition drawn by : and renovation 22...

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

D-2019/17

APPLICANT: Mr D G Deacon and Mrs N T Miller

PROPOSAL: Alterations & Additions to Dwelling

LOCATION: 22 Balook Street, LAUDERDALE

RELEVANT PLANNING SCHEME: Clarence Interim Planning

Scheme 2015

ADVERTISING EXPIRY DATE: 3 April 2019.

In addition to the Application Form(s), Certificate of Title(s) and any associated

consent documents the following information is available on request:

• Coastal Vulnerability Report

The relevant plans and documents can be inspected at the Council offices, 38 Bligh Street, Rosny Park,

during normal office hours until 3 April 2019.

Any person may make representations about the application to the General Manager, by writing to PO

Box 96, Rosny Park, 7018 or by electronic mail to [email protected]. Representations must be

received by Council on or before 3 April 2019.

To enable Council to contact you if necessary, would you please also include a day time contact

number in any correspondence you may forward.

Any personal information submitted is covered by Council’s privacy policy, available at

www.ccc.tas.gov.au or at the Council offices.

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :

PROPOSED ADDITIONAND RENOVATION

22 BALOOK STREET LAUDERDALETASMANIA 7021 AUSTRALIA

Mr DAVID DEACONA319 2019_01_29 22 Balook street LAUDERDALE 1

STOREY - Picture3

PROJECT NAME :

DRAWING TITLE :CLIENT :

SITE :

CHECKED BY :

PROJECT NO. A-319P +0439440009 | E [email protected]

DRAWING NO. A.0.0

REVISION NO. Emma Hall

Joel Kreiner

5/2/19As noted on A3paper sizeSCALE

notes revision stagesketch design

design development

contract documentation

DA

BA

construction drawings

design bureau tasmaniaABN 87217679513ACC. Number CC6540Address 63 Macquarie St Hobart 7000 AustraliaP +0418678301 | E [email protected] |W www.designbureautasmania.com

General NotesThe Builder shall check all dimensions and levels on site prior to construction.Notify any errors, discrepancies or omissions to the architect.Drawings shall not be used for construction purposes until issued for construction.Do not scale drawings.All boundaries and contours subject to survey

1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

artist impression

PROPOSED EXTENSIONFOR DAVID DEACON AND NIKKI MILLER

22 BALOOK STREET, LAUDERDALETASMANIA 7021

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

DRAWING REGISTER

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.0.1


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

THESE DRAWINGS ARE MADE BY DESIGN BUREAU TASMANIA TO COMPLY WITH THETASMANIAN PLUMBING CODE 2013, PLUMBING CODE OF AUSTRALIA, BUILDING CODE OFAUSTRALIA AND THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE; WHICH ARE DECREED ALIGNED.THE REFERENCED STANDARDS THEREIN SHOULD BE APPLIED. ALL WORKMANSHIP,MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, DESIGN SHOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THESE. THESEDRAWINGS MAY USE PROVISIONAL & DIAGRAMATIC MEANS TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT OFTHE GOALS OF THESE CODES & AS A INSTRUMENT TO ASSIST LICENSED TRADESPEOPLE,AUTHORITY OFFICERS, BUILDING SURVEYORS & BUILDERS APPLY THEIR EXCELLENCEFOR BRAVE PRACTICAL OUTCOMES WHILST ACKNOWLEDGING THE VALUE OF THESECODES & THE PARTLY PATHETIC LITIGIOUS & INSURANCE HINDERANCES THATINFLUENCE AGAINST CIRCUMSTANTIAL PRAGMATICS AY.THESE DRAWINGS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OTHER DOCUMENTSPERTINENT TO THIS PROJECT INCLUDING ANY ENGINEERING & ENERGY ASSESSMENTS.THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODEAS SUCH ARE SUITABLE FOR USE IN CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER ALL OTHER MATTERS OFDESIGN SUCH AS FORM & MATERIAL OPTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO OWNER CONFIRMATIONPROR TO ANY PURCHASING, ORDERING OR CONSTRUCTION.

TITLE N/AWIND SPEED N.ASOIL CLASS N/ATHERMAL CLIMATE ZONE 7CORROSION N/AENVIRONMENT N/ABUSHFIRE BAL N/A

BUILDING DESIGN DESIGN BUREAU TASMANIASTRUCTURAL ENGINEER N/ABUILDING SURVEYOR ROGERSON & BIRCH SURVEYORSDRAFTING DESIGN BUREAU TASMANIAWASTE/STORM WATER N/ABUSH FIRE N/AENERGY N/A

ADMINISTRATION BY OWNER

ATTACHMENTS

DRAWING REGISTER

A.0.0 COVERA.0.1 DRAWING REGISTERA.0.2 LOCATION PLAN

A.1.0 EXISTING SITE PLANA.1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLANA.1.2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANSA.1.3 DEMOLITION PLANSA.1.4 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLANA.1.5 FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND ROOF PLAN

A.2.0 NORTH ELEVATIONA.2.1 EAST ELEVATIONA.2.2 SOUTH ELEVATIONA.2.3 WEST ELEVATION

P.0.0 DRAINAGE PLANS

S.0.0 SUN STUDY

NOTES

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

LOCATION PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.0.2


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

A.0.2-

LOCATION PLAN1:2000

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

EXISTING SITE PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

54,910

18,960

52,040

18,290

NOTESURVEY BY ROGERSON & BIRCH SURVEYORSBoundaries shown hereon are a preliminary re-definition of the land for planning purposes only andshould not be considered as an authoritative re-definition of the correct boundary location.

Before commencement of any building workboundaries shown hereon should be verified by a fullcadastral re-definition of the land.

ROGERSON & BIRCH SURVEYORS and DESIGNBUREAU TASMANIA architecture accepts noresponsibility for the improper use of boundaryinformation shown on this plan.

Do not remove this note from this or subsequentplans until boundaries shown have been verified.

NEIGHBO

URING

DWELLIN

G

NEIGHBOURING

HOUSE

EXISTINGDWELLING

EXISTINGSHED

A.1.0-

EXISTING SITE PLAN1:200

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.1


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

54,910

18,960

52,040

18,290

1,4201,140

1,4201,140

4,000

33,875

7,200

4,050

6,250

4,600

2,285

720

3,740

12,45

0

8,320 7,0

50

31,720

33,710

PROPOSED WORKS

LEGEND PROPOSED WORKS

GARDENDECKDRIVEWAY





FLOOR AREA

DWELLING GND FLOOR 108.59m² 1ST FLOOR 23.29m² DECK 1 49.16m²CAR PARKING AND DRIVE: 176m2 TOTAL AREA: 181.04m²

* FLOOR AREA IS THE AREA MEASURED OVER THEENCLOSING WALLS OF THE BUILDINGNOTE

STORMWATER FROM PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT TO EXISTINGCOUNCIL STORMWATERCONNECTION

EXISTING BUILDINGPAVING

NEIGHBO

URING

DWELLIN

G

NEIGHBOURING

HOUSE

PROPOSEDDECK20.47m2

EXISTINGDWELLING

PROPOSEDEXTENSION35.58m2


PROPOS

ED FENC

ED WALKW

AY

PROPOSEDENTRANCEPERGOLA

NA.1.1-

PROPOSED SITE PLAN1:200

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONEXISTING GROUND FLOOR, EXISTING FIRST

FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.2


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

1

2

3

4

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

W

EXISTINGSHED

4

5

6

7

8 9 10

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

EX

ISTI

NG

RO

OF

A.1.2.1-

EXISTING GROUND FLOOR1:100

A.1.2.2-

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONDEMOLITION PLAN GROUND FLOOR, DEMOLITION

PLAN FIRST FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.3


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

4

5

6

7

8 9 10

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

EX

ISTI

NG

RO

OF

1

2

3

4

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

W

EXISTINGSHED

A.1.3-

DEMOLITION PLAN FIRST FLOOR1:100

A.1.3-

DEMOLITION PLAN GROUND FLOOR1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.4


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N FLOOR AREAGROUND 108.59 m2FIRST 23.29 m2DECKS 49.16 m2

DWELLING TOTAL: 181.04 m2

1

2

3

4

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

1

1

2

2

3

3

A A

B B

C C

D D

W

F

2,5002,250 4,2603,600

4,610

5,750

900

1,890

4,975

2,415

2,410

S-01A

S-01A NEW BEAMAS PER ENGINEERS

SPECIFICATIONFIREPLACE

T

FLOOR FINISH LEGEND

TIMBER/ BAMBOO FLOORING

CERAMIC TILES

TIMBER DECK

WALL TYPES

CARPET

CONCRETE

CB

W01EXISTING WALLS

EX02BULL NOSE WEATHERBOARDCAVITYVAPOUR PERMEABLE MEMBRANE90mm TIMBER STUD WITH R2.4 INSULATION10MM PLASTERBOARD

I0110mm PLASTERBOARD90mm STUD WALL10mm PLASTERBOARD / TILES IN WET AREAS

1. ENTRANCE2. LOUNGE EXTENSION3. DINING4. KITCHEN5. BED 16. BATHROOM7. WC8. BED 2

9. BED 310. EXISTING DECK11. DECK

1.

3.

4.

5.6.

7.

8.

Co

EXISTING 150mm STEPEXISTING 150mm STEP

11.

A.2.0A.2.0

A.2

.1A

.2.1

A.2.2A.2.2

A.2

.3A

.2.3

FIREPLACE COVERED OVER

D

C

C

T

B2. B

A.1.4-

PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONFIRST FLOOR AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN,

EXISTING ROOF PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.5


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020



4

5

6

7

8 9 10

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

1

1

2

2

3

3

A A

B B

C C

D D

S-01A

S-01A

A.2.0A.2.0

A.2.2A.2.2

A.2

.3A

.2.3

TIMBER PERGOLA

T

FLOOR FINISH LEGEND


CERAMIC TILES

TIMBER DECK

WALL TYPES

CB

EX01EXISTING WALLS



9.

10.

B


CARPET

CONCRETECo

Co


D

ROOF 1ROOF AREA PLAN VIEW = 25.42 m2ROOF AREA x BY PITCH (3º) =26.18 m2

Roof catchment area per downpipe 26.18m2 = 1 DP as per AS/NZS 3500.3.2 stormwater drainage, or AS/NZS 3500.5domestic installations, section 5stormwater drainage.



d.p.s to have greater than 5000mm crosssectional area

ROOF 01PITCH = 3 DEGREESAREA = 25.42m2

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

EX

ISTI

NG

RO

OF


2

2

3

3

S-01A

A.2.2A.2.2

EXISTING ROOF

A.1.5-

FIRST FLOOR AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN1:100

A.1.6-

EXISTING ROOF PLAN1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

NORTH ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

±0 ±0

+2,700 +2,700

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDS TO BE PAINTED WHITE

EXISTING ROOF

NEW ROOF

EXISTING CHIMNEY

EXISTING RED BRICK WALL TO BE PAINTED WHITE

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDSTO BE PAINTED WHITE

NEW BULL-NOSEDWEATHERBOARD PAINTED WHITENATURAL GROUND LEVEL

PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL

+2,050

+4,750

+2,050

+4,750

A.2.0-

NORTH ELEVATION1:50

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

EAST ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.1


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

±0 ±0

+2,700 +2,700

EXISTING WEATHERBOARD CLADDING TO BE PAINTED WHITE

EXISTING RED BRICKTO BE PAINTEDWHITE

EXISTING CHIMNEY

NEW SLIDING DOOR

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING RAILING

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDCLADDING TO BE PAINTEDWHITE

EXISTING RED BRICK TO BEPAINTED WHITE

NATURAL GROUND LEVEL


+2,050

+4,750

+2,050

+4,750

A.2.1-

EAST ELEVATION1:50

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

SOUTH ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.2


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

±0 ±0

+2,700 +2,700

NEW BULL-NOSEDWEATHERBOARDCLADDING - WHITE

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDCLADDING PAINTED WHITE

EXISTING ROOF

NEW CORRUGATED IRONROOF

WHITE TIMBER SCREEN

OUTDOOR FIRE PLACENATURAL GROUND LEVELPROPOSED GROUND LEVEL

+2,050

+4,750

+2,050

+4,750

A.2.2-

SOUTH ELEVATION1:50

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

WEST ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.3


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

±0 ±0

+2,700 +2,700

EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY

EXISTING BALUSTRADETO BE PAINTED WHITE

NEW CORRUGATED IRONROOF

NEW BULL-NOSEDWEATHERBOARDCLADDING - WHITE


EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

NEW WINDOWS

EXISTING WINDOWSNATURAL GROUND LEVEL


+2,050

+4,750

+2,050

+4,750

A.2.3-

WEST ELEVATION1:50

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

DRAINAGE PLAN GROUND FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. P.0.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

1234

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

W

SCEPTIC TANKS TO BE DECOMMISSIONEDAND REMOVED/FILLED IN BY LICENSEDPERSON

WASTEWATER TO BECONNECTED TO COUNCILSEWER SYSTEM

LEGEND

EXISTING SEWER

PROPOSED SEWER

EXISTING STORM WATER

PROPOSED STORM WATER

D.P

SCEPTIC TANKS

WET AREAS TO COMPLY WITH N.C.C. 3.8.1.2AND AS3740ALL PLUMBING WORK SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH THE TASMANIANPLUMBING CODE 2016, THE NATIONALPLUMBING CODE, AS 3500 & HOBART CITYCOUNCIL.

DN100 UP

VC SEWE

R PIPE 1:1

00 MIN FA

LL

150mm UV

PC

STORMWA

TER PIPE

MIN

1:100 FALL

P.0.0-

DRAINAGE PLAN GROUND FLOOR1:200

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

SUN STUDY

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. S.0.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

9AM 21ST JUNE 10AM 21ST JUNE 11AM 21ST JUNE

12PM 21ST JUNE 1PM 21ST JUNE 2PM 21ST JUNE 3PM 21ST JUNE

N

S.0.0-

SUN STUDY

ref: HB19054H001 Rep 31P Rev 00 Page 1 of 19

22 Balook Street, Lauderdale

Assessment about the Coastal Erosion

Vulnerability of a Proposed Development

Prepared for

Mr D Deacon & Ms N Miller

Client representative

Mr D Deacon

Date

14 March 2019

Rev00

ref: HB19054H001 Rep 31P Rev 00/NC/cy

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................2

2. Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Geomorphological Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Coastal Abbreviations Defined ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Erosion, Recession and the Design Setback ............................................................................................................................4

3.1 Geological Conditions..................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Previous Research ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Calculated Recession and Design Setback at Roches Beach ......................................................................................... 4 3.4 Planning Requirements about Recession on Roches Beach .......................................................................................... 7 3.5 Recommended Setback Line at 22 Balook Street, Lauderdale ....................................................................................... 8

4. Coastal Processes ....................................................................................................................................................................8

4.1 Waves ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Other Coastal Processes ................................................................................................................................................ 8

5. Statistical Tools Used to Evaluate Natural Influences ............................................................................................................. 11

6. Planning and Legislative Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 11

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 6.2 Planning Requirements – Overview re Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones ......................................................................... 11

7. Pressures on Coastal Processes ............................................................................................................................................ 13

8. Managing Risk ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13

9. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 13

10. References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14

List of figures

Figure 1: Satellite images of the subject property at Lauderdale (Adapted from the original, source: Google Earth Pro, 2019) ...........2

Figure 2: Plan showing the reference sections at Roches Beach, 22 Balook Street is located between Profiles 9-10 (Adapted from the original, source: Shand et al, 2011, Water Research Laboratory Report 2011/05) ........................................................................5

Figure 3: Boundaries at 22 Balook Street (source: ‘theList’, 2018) ......................................................................................................5

Figure 4: Profile 9 cross section on Roches Beach close to 22 Balook Street Lauderdale (Adapted from the original, source: Shand T. & Carley J., 2009, Water Research Laboratory Report 2009/31) ....................................................................................................6

Figure 5: Coastal erosion medium hazard area at 22 Balook Street (Adapted from the original, source: IPS, 2015 and ‘theList’, 2018) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Figure 6: View seaward from 22 Balook Street (source: Josh Hniat, 2019) .........................................................................................9

Figure 7: View of the dunes near 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019) ........................................................................................9

Figure 8: View of the foredunes near 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019) ................................................................................ 10

Figure 9: View of the front yard/driveway at 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019) ...................................................................... 10

Figure 10: View of the proposed development site at 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019) ....................................................... 11

List of tables

Table 1: WRL simplified estimates of SLR in Clarence City (after Shand et al, 2011) ........................................................................7

Table 2: Design Setbacks (Adapted from the original, source: Shand et al, 2011) with factors ‘S3 to S5’ rearranged ........................7

ref: HB19054H001 Rep 31P Rev 00/NC/cy

Appendices

Appendix A — Drawings from others

Prepared by — Noel Carroll Date — 14/03/2019

Reviewed by — Robert Casimaty Date — 14/03/2019

Authorised by — Robert Casimaty Date — 14/03/2019

Revision History

Rev No. Description Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by Date

A Draft Report N Carroll R Casimaty N Carroll 01/03/2019

00 First Issue N Carroll R Casimaty N Carroll 14/03/2019

2019 pitt&sherry

This document is and shall remain the property of pitt&sherry. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was

commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any

form is prohibited.

ref: HB19054H001 Rep 31P Rev 00/NC/cy Page i

Executive Summary

A development application has been lodged with Clarence City Council (CCC) relating to the proposed development

(building extension < 40 square metres) on the land at 22 Balook Street, Lauderdale.

This document describes the coastal erosion vulnerability assessment undertaken by pitt&sherry.

This assessment relates to coastal engineering matters and requirements of the CCC Interim Planning Scheme 2015

(IPS, 2015) pertaining to coastal conditions. A review about the pertinent regulatory requirements has been

undertaken also.

Suitable robust building and structural design together with piled footings are warranted and appropriate for the

proposed development. Specifications for same ought to be prescribed by an experienced and qualified Engineer

who is familiar with the design of buildings that are susceptible to coastal processes.

It is expected that accessibility to the site would be maintained by CCC.

Healthiness of the site is an existing risk that needs to be managed by alteration of the on-site waste water treatment.

It is understood that planning for removal of the septic tank and connection to the CCC reticulated sewer is underway.

In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to manage the projected risk of coastal erosion by suitable robust building

methods, mitigation and adaptation, generally as noted in this report, that is undertaken by or on behalf of the subject

property owners.

Accordingly, it is my view, that approval of the application for the proposed development (an extension of < 40 square

metres) should not be withheld on the grounds of coastal erosion risk.

ref: HB19054H001 Rep 31P Rev 00/NC/cy Page 2

1. Introduction

Mr D Deacon and Ms N Miller have lodged a Development Application for an extension and alterations to their existing

dwelling at 22 Balook Street, Lauderdale. The Clarence City Council (CCC) Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (IPS, 2015)

has several planning overlays that pertain to coastal conditions and this property in Balook Street is affected by coastal

management, inundation and coastal erosion overlays.

David Deacon requested pitt&sherry to undertake an assessment about the coastal erosion vulnerability only and

prepare a brief report describing its findings. Details of this assessment are recorded further herein.

Figure 1 is a series of aerial photographs of the subject property and adjacent Roches Beach, over a seven year period. 13/11/2017 (Google) aerial photo below

9/1/2016 (Google) aerial photo below

15/2/2010 (Google) aerial photo below

Figure 1: Satellite images of the subject property at Lauderdale (Adapted from the original, source: Google Earth Pro, 2019)

Subject site at 22 Balook St., Lauderdale


CCC representative (Mr Max Melton) advised me that Council Engineering staff will consider the provisions of the

inundation/coastal management overlays. They will advise the Council Planner about the required minimum floor level for

the proposed development and other coastal planning matters because the extension is small with a floor area less than

40 m².

2. Definitions

2.1 Geomorphological Definitions

Erosion

“The offshore movement of sand from the sub-aerial beach during storms” (Coastal Management Manual, 1990).

This is a term used to describe the temporary removal of soil (e.g. sand) from the beach and its deposition offshore.

During seasonal cycles it is commonly expected that sand will be redeposited onto the beach again (accretion).

The use of the term ‘erosion’ is recommended to describe short term coastal change whilst recession to describes long

term coastal change.

Recession

This is “.... the progressive landward shift in the average long-term position of the coastline (Coastal Management

Manual, 1990).

This is a term used to describe the sustained removal of soil (e.g. sand) from the back beach and its deposition offshore;

thereafter the sand is not redeposited onto the beach (due to a sand deficit offshore).

Recession represents the long-term balance between erosion and accretion, where erosion dominates.

Accretion

Natural accretion is the build-up of land (generally sand) on a beach by the action of waves or wind.

During milder wave conditions between storms, swell waves move sand from offshore back onto the sub-aerial beach

resulting in a larger sub-aerial volume. Onshore winds can further enhance dune building above the ambient wave runup

limit.

Accretion is the opposite of erosion. Artificial accretion is a build-up of land on the coast caused by a deliberate

anthropogenic act.

2.2 Coastal Abbreviations Defined

AEP annual exceedance probability (refer to Section 5 for some brief explanatory information)

AHD Australian Height Datum

HAT highest astronomical tide

MSL mean sea level

SLR sea level rise

SWL still water (sea) level.


3. Erosion, Recession and the Design Setback

3.1 Geological Conditions

Balook Street is located on a large geotechnical unit of quaternary sediments (windblown sand, etc.) according to

information shown on the geological map ‘Engineering Geology Greater Hobart Area Map 1’ (1980), 1: 25,000 series,

published by the Division of Mines and Mineral Resources.

The depth of this geotechnical unit is noted on that map to vary between 0 - 5+ metres. Anecdotally, a rock stratum is not

near the surface and the obvious reef off the end of Bambra Street is a local ‘anomaly’.

The quaternary sediments in Balook Street are susceptible to erosion and it is expected that piled footings are necessary to support the proposed development.

3.2 Previous Research

Previous research about coastal erosion has been undertaken by Carley et al (2008), Shand and Carley (2009), Shand

et al (2011), Mariani et al (2012), Sharples et al (2013) and others, e.g. CoastAdapt (2016). Chris Sharples also

produced a preliminary erosion assessment, etc., prior to 2007 or thereabouts.

This research quantified the likely recession that may be expected behind Roches Beach in Lauderdale.

3.3 Calculated Recession and Design Setback at Roches Beach

Calculation of recession at Roches Beach was reassessed by Shand et al (2011) as a review of earlier work by Carley et

al (2008).

Figure 2 is an aerial view (plan) of the subject area showing the location of various reference profiles (Shand et al, 2011).

22 Balook Street is located between profiles 9 & 10.

Figure 3 is an aerial view and plan of the boundaries around the subject property.

Figure 4 shows the beach and dune profile from previous surveying undertaken for CCC at Profile 9 along Roches

Beach; MSL is about 0.0 m AHD.

The distance from the seaward dune crest to the nearest boundary is about 20 metres, when measured on 18 February

2019.


Figure 2: Plan showing the reference sections at Roches Beach, 22 Balook Street is located between Profiles 9-10 (Adapted from the original, source: Shand et al, 2011, Water Research Laboratory Report 2011/05)

Figure 3: Boundaries at 22 Balook Street (source: ‘theList’, 2018)


Figure 4: Profile 9 cross section on Roches Beach close to 22 Balook Street Lauderdale (Adapted from the original, source: Shand T. & Carley J., 2009, Water Research Laboratory Report 2009/31)

The recommended design setback distance at Profile 9 for planning and management of the coastal zone is calculated

from a number factors, according to Shand et al (2011) and Mariani et al (2012), as follows:

• Factor ‘S1’ – an allowance for short term erosion (storm demand) = 25 m for 2 consecutive 1% AEP storms that

are estimated to erode 92-100 m³/m of beach length

• ‘S2’ – an allowance for the ongoing underlying recession = 0.2 m/year

• ‘S3’ – an allowance for recession due to future SLR (see below)

• ‘S4’ – an allowance for beach rotation = 0 (Shand et al, 2011; on p 22)

• ‘S5’ – an allowance for dune stability where there is a zone of reduced foundation capacity = 3 to 11 m, say = 5

m

• FoS – a factor of safety that may be applicable to one or more of the factors ‘S1 to S5’ = 1.0, say

• ‘N’ – the number of years for which the setback distance is being calculated, assuming 2010 as the starting year.

NOTE – the factors are as defined in Mariani et al (2012) and Sharples et al (2013).

Re ‘S3’, the sea level rise component, this part of the total recession is calculated from a simplistic ‘Bruun Rule’

coefficient whereby the recession, R = C x SLR (simple equation). For Roches Beach others have determined that a

minimum value of 40 ought to be adopted for the coefficient, C and 50 is recommended; this is not considered to be

unreasonable. Thus, if SLR = 0.3 m, in the year 2050, the recession is expected to be = 0.3 x 50 = 15 metres.

Table 1 records the simplified engineering estimates of global SLR and no reliable information is available showing that

the local sea level rise for Clarence differs substantially from the estimates (SGS and WRL, 2009); these estimates were

repeated in Shand et al (2011). The simplified scenarios were developed for engineering application by the Water

Research Laboratory (WRL) relative to the IPCC report AR4 released in 2007 with the 2050 values modified to align with

the work by NCCOE in 2004.

The year 2050 corresponds to a medium risk per IPS (2015) whilst 2100 relates to a low risk.

pitt&sherry calculates the 2050 ‘high’ SLR setback distance = (S1 + NxS2 + S3 + S4) x FoS + S5

= [25 + (2050-2010) x 0.2 + 0.3 x 50 + 0] x1 + 5

= 53 metres, for a ‘Bruun’ factor of 50.


Table 1: WRL simplified estimates of SLR in Clarence City (after Shand et al, 2011)

Sea level scenario

Year

2050

2100

Estimated SLR (m)

Adopted ‘mid’ scenario

0.2

0.5

Adopted ‘high’ scenario

0.3

0.9

Table 2 shows the Design Setbacks per Shand et al (2011). Each figure within parentheses are the actual value whereas

Shand et al (2011) has rounded the setback distance up. NOTE – the factors ‘S3 to S5’ are rearranged from the

information in that source, according to the order defined in Mariani et al (2012) and Sharples et al (2013).

Table 2: Design Setbacks (Adapted from the original, source: Shand et al, 2011) with factors ‘S3 to S5’ rearranged

‘Profile’

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Design Setback

Erode 2 x 1% AEP

Storm

(m)

Yearly Recedes

(m, p.a.)

Bruun Coeff

2050 Mid SLR Recedes

(m)

2050 High SLR

Recedes

(m)

Beach Rotate

(m)

Stable Zone

(m)

2010

(m)

2050 Mid SLR (m)

2050 High SLR

(m)

9 25 0.2 50 10 15 0 3 30

(28)

50

(48)

55

(53)

10 25 0.2 50 10 15 0 4 30

(29)

50

(49)

55

(54)

3.4 Planning Requirements about Recession on Roches Beach

Figure 5 shows the coastal erosion hazard bands relating to the subject property that are derived from IPS (2015). It is

noted that the medium hazard band in IPS (2015), as shown over the subject property, is slightly less conservative than

the ‘theList’ (2018) coastal erosion hazard band 20161201 extents for 2050.

Building and infrastructure assets within the ‘medium risk’ and ‘low risk’ zones are at risk if adaptation and/or mitigation

measures are not implemented. It is emphasised that all the land within a ‘medium risk’ hazard band is very likely to be

eroded by recession due to sea level rise in 2100.


Figure 5: Coastal erosion medium hazard area at 22 Balook Street (Adapted from the original, source: IPS, 2015 and ‘theList’, 2018)

3.5 Recommended Setback Line at 22 Balook Street, Lauderdale

Recession is projected to occur along Balook Street and the recommended design setback line ought to be at the least

along the north-western edge of the ‘medium risk’ zone that is shown in Figure 5 from IPS (2015).

The ‘medium risk’ setback line lies beyond the proposed development and the proposed development on the subject site

is projected to be subject to an erosion hazard.

4. Coastal Processes

4.1 Waves

Shand et al (2011) describe the WRL assessment of swell and local wind wave heights, wave periods and their related

effects, e.g. wave runup, etc.

A detailed evaluation of this information is beyond the scope of this report.

4.2 Other Coastal Processes

Other coastal processes that may have an influence on coastal hazards/risk are, as follows:

• Tides

• Storm surge

• Coastally trapped waves

• Littoral drift

• Rainfall and overland flow arising from precipitation.

However, consideration of these processes is beyond the scope of this report.

Figures 6 to 8 are recent views on the seaward side at the subject property.


Figure 6: View seaward from 22 Balook Street (source: Josh Hniat, 2019)

Figure 7: View of the dunes near 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019)


Figure 8: View of the foredunes near 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019)

Figures 9 and 10 are recent views on the landward side at the subject property.

Figure 9: View of the front yard/driveway at 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019)


Figure 10: View of the proposed development site at 22 Balook St. (source: Josh Hniat, 2019)

5. Statistical Tools Used to Evaluate Natural Influences Statistics provide important tools to evaluate naturally occurring influences on the coastal zone.

The Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) is defined as the likelihood (probability) that the magnitude of an event/effect

arising from natural influences, e.g. wind speed, will be exceeded once per annum. Annual exceedance probability, AEP,

is preferred by some researchers because there is no implicit connection to a time frame (at least not beyond one year).

AEP data is included in various Australian Standards, e.g. AS 4997-2005. AEP may be expressed as a figure or %.

For the purposes of this review, the Design Life (DL) for the proposed development on the subject site is assumed to be

50 years, i.e. until 2069. However, it is customary for development applications to consider the planning requirements in

2100.

Notwithstanding the estimated erosion event magnitude is based upon 1% AEP, there is a 39% chance that event could

occur during the nominated 50 year Design Life.

6. Planning and Legislative Requirements

6.1 Introduction

I am not a planner. However, I have interpreted the requirements in IPS (2015) to the best of my ability.

6.2 Planning Requirements – Overview re Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones

Planning within Clarence City Council is based on the Clarence Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (IPS, 2015). Within this

scheme different overlays are provided.

The coastal erosion hazard overlay and other overlays apply to this development as noted in section 3.4

IPS (2015) prescribes a variety of requirements, as follows:


• Section E.16.1.1 of the Coastal Erosion Hazards Code (Purpose)

o Subclauses (a) to (c) are obvious and have been mentioned elsewhere in this report

o Subclause (d); in my opinion the proposed development is not likely to increase coastal dynamic

effects in a way that would be detrimental to the development site and other property

o Subclause (e/i); in my opinion people, property and infrastructure are not likely to be exposed to an

unacceptable risk by the proposed development

o Subclause (e/ii); in my opinion, if the proposed development is constructed as recommended

herein, future costs for adaptation, etc., would be minimised

o Subclause (e/iii); in my opinion, the requirements in this subclause are not relevant to the proposed

development

o Subclause (f); in my opinion, the requirements in this subclause are not relevant to the proposed

development

• Section E.16.2.1 of the Coastal Erosion Hazards Code (Application)

o Subclauses (a) and (b) are obvious and applicable to the proposed development

o Subclause (c); in my opinion, the requirements in this subclause are not relevant to the proposed

development

• Section E.16.3.1 of the Coastal Erosion Hazards Code (Definition of Terms)

o The subclauses in this section are taken as read

• Section E.16.4.1 of the Coastal Erosion Hazards Code (Exempt Development)

o In my opinion the proposed development is not exempt from the requirements in this section

• Sections E.16.5.1/16.5.2 of the Coastal Erosion Hazards Code (Application Requirements)

o In my opinion, CCC have prescribed what their requirements are in lieu of the requirements in this

section

• Section E.16.7.1 of the Coastal Erosion Hazards Code (Building & Works)

o Subclause (a); in my opinion people, property and infrastructure are not likely to be exposed to an

increased level of risk by the proposed development

o Subclause (b); in my opinion erosion risk from wave runup could be mitigated to an acceptable

level in the proposed development by structural and design methods that avoid damage or loss

o Subclause (c); the building methods that ought to be used to avoid damage or loss should be

designed by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer

o Subclause (d); in my opinion the need for future remediation works in the proposed development

would be minimised if appropriate structural and design methods are used in the building

o Subclause (e); in my opinion the health and safety of people would not be placed at risk if

appropriate structural and design methods are used in the building

o Subclause (f); important natural features are not likely to be damaged or requiring protection form

the proposed development

o Subclause (g); in my opinion, the proposed development would not obstruct the present public

access to the foreshore

o Subclause (h); in my opinion, access to the site should not be lost and is unlikely to be substantially

compromised by expected future erosion on the subject property or off-site

o Subclause (i); this subclause is outside my scope for decision making

o Subclause (j); in my opinion, the proposed development is not located on a presently active

landform.


In summary, the proposed development on 22 Balook Street (extension to the existing dwelling) is susceptible to the

impacts of erosion and recession that is projected to occur by 2050 or beforehand together with the effect of other

coastal processes. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the proposed modest sized extension is unlikely to cause an

unreasonable risk to nor increase coastal dynamic effects on people, property or infrastructure.

It is considered necessary to implement mitigation measures and progressive adaptation to regulate the projected risk

and the proposed development ought to include structural & design methods that significantly reduce or avoid the need

for future remediation. In my opinion, the proposed extension ought to be designed with piled footings and other

protective measures such as robust walls, etc., by a suitably qualified Engineer who is experienced with specifying the

requirements for works in a vulnerable coastal location.

Protection of the existing dwelling ought to be considered in conjunction with the design of the proposed development, at

the least those parts of the dwelling that would be difficult to retrofit protection to later when the extension is completed,

albeit this is not a mandatory requirement by pitt&sherry.

7. Pressures on Coastal Processes The proposed development on the subject property is not expected to add significant pressure on physical coastal

processes, in my opinion.

The provision of on-site wastewater treatment should be terminated as soon as is practicable. I am advised by the

owner’s representative that connection of the 22 Balook Street property to the Council reticulated sewer system is

intended and the planning for that connection is underway.

8. Managing Risk It is very important to consider what to do and what to avoid during development and maintenance of the subject property

and dunes to protect coastal values. “To work successfully in the coastal zone, and to avoid costly problems in the future,

land managers will need an understanding of physical coastal processes and have the wisdom to know when it is better

to do nothing, by applying the precautionary principle. It is important to seek specialist advice and consult broadly with

other coastal stakeholders and the community.” (Page and Thorp, 2010)

9. Conclusions and Recommendations SGS and WRL (2009) have noted that, from a survey of residents, > 80% strongly support CCC providing shoreline

protection and limiting development in high risk areas amongst other options available to the Council. “The preferences

expressed for the different policy options suggest that the community place a greater emphasis on preventing physical

damage and are relatively less concerned about the loss of property value that policies or preventative actions may

cause. Where respondents that named protection measures, elaborated their answers further, it is clear that they are

calling for measures that would keep beaches in their current state. Protection measures that protect houses and

infrastructure but result in the loss of beaches are unlikely to be welcomed to the same degree.” (pp 6,7)

In my opinion, it is unlikely that CCC would abandon roadways through Lauderdale adjacent to the Roches Beach dunes

and Balook Street would remain open to traffic thus maintaining accessibility to the subject property, for other residents

and services.

The proposed development ought to include structural & design methods that significantly reduce or avoid the need for

future remediation. The proposed extension ought to be designed with piled footings and other protective measures such

as robust walls, etc., by a suitably qualified Engineer who is experienced with specifying the requirements for works in a

vulnerable coastal location.

Piling is recommended to support the proposed development and mitigate the risk of damage that is otherwise expected

to occur because of erosion, recession and other coastal processes. Additional information ought to be obtained through

a site specific geotechnical assessment to discover the stable foundation depth for piling.


Adaptation and mitigation measures are expected to be necessary over time to protect against the altered site conditions

arising from the projected erosion, recession and other coastal processes.

The healthiness of the site (on-site human waste management) is a risk that requires alteration. It is understood that the

existing septic tanks located in the yard seaward from the existing dwelling will be removed; this on-site wastewater

treatment should be terminated as soon as is practicable. I am advised by the owner’s representative that connection of

the 22 Balook Street property to the Council reticulated sewer system is intended and the planning for that connection is

underway.

In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to manage the projected risk of coastal erosion by suitable robust building methods,

mitigation and adaptation, generally as noted in this report, that is undertaken by or on behalf of the subject property

owners.

Accordingly, it is my view, that approval of the application for the proposed development (an extension of < 40 square

metres) should not be withheld on the grounds of coastal erosion risk.

10. References

AS 4997 (2005), Guidelines for the design of maritime structures, Australian Standard, Standards Australia, Sydney,

NSW

Carley et al (2008), “Coastal Processes, Coastal Hazards, Climate Change and Adaptive Responses for Preparation of a

Coastal Management Strategy for Clarence City, Tasmania”, WRL Technical Report No 2008/04, Water Research

Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales October 2008

CoastAdapt (2016), www.coastadapt.com.au

Coastal Management Manual (1990), New South Wales Government, September 1990

IPS (2015), Clarence Interim Planning Scheme 2015, www.iplan.tas.gov.au, Tasmanian Government

Mariani et al (2012), “Generic Design Coastal Erosion Volumes and Setbacks for Australia”, WRL Research Report 247,

Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, June 2012

Page, L. and Thorp, V. (2010), “Tasmanian Coastal Works Manual: A best practice management guide for changing

coastlines”, Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment, Government of Tasmania, December 2010

SGS and WRL (2009), “Climate change impacts On Clarence coastal areas – Final Report, WRL Project No 06071.02,

Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, published

by Clarence City Council, April 2009

Shand, T. & Carley, J. (2009), “Dune Building using Beach Scraping at Cremorne Ocean Beach and Roches Beach,

Clarence City, Tasmania”, WRL Technical Report No 2009/31, Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, December 2009

Shand et al (2011), “Roches Beach Coastal Hazard Lines Reassessment”, WRL Technical Report No 2011/05, Water

Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, September 2011

Sharples et al (2013), “Coastal erosion susceptibility zone mapping for hazard band definition in Tasmania”, Blue Wren

Group, School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania and the Department of Premier &

Cabinet, Tasmania, October 2013

theList (2018), Land Information System Tasmania, www.thelist.tas.gov.au, Tasmania Government.

http://www.coastadapt.com.au/http://www.iplan.tas.gov.au/http://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/


Drawings from others

Appendix A

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONA319 2019_01_29 22 Balook street LAUDERDALE 1

STOREY - Picture3

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.0.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

artist impression

PROPOSED EXTENSIONFOR DAVID DEACON AND NIKKI MILLER

22 BALOOK STREET, LAUDERDALETASMANIA 7021

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

DRAWING REGISTER

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.0.1


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

THESE DRAWINGS ARE MADE BY DESIGN BUREAU TASMANIA TO COMPLY WITH THETASMANIAN PLUMBING CODE 2013, PLUMBING CODE OF AUSTRALIA, BUILDING CODE OFAUSTRALIA AND THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE; WHICH ARE DECREED ALIGNED.THE REFERENCED STANDARDS THEREIN SHOULD BE APPLIED. ALL WORKMANSHIP,MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, DESIGN SHOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THESE. THESEDRAWINGS MAY USE PROVISIONAL & DIAGRAMATIC MEANS TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT OFTHE GOALS OF THESE CODES & AS A INSTRUMENT TO ASSIST LICENSED TRADESPEOPLE,AUTHORITY OFFICERS, BUILDING SURVEYORS & BUILDERS APPLY THEIR EXCELLENCEFOR BRAVE PRACTICAL OUTCOMES WHILST ACKNOWLEDGING THE VALUE OF THESECODES & THE PARTLY PATHETIC LITIGIOUS & INSURANCE HINDERANCES THATINFLUENCE AGAINST CIRCUMSTANTIAL PRAGMATICS AY.THESE DRAWINGS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OTHER DOCUMENTSPERTINENT TO THIS PROJECT INCLUDING ANY ENGINEERING & ENERGY ASSESSMENTS.THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODEAS SUCH ARE SUITABLE FOR USE IN CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER ALL OTHER MATTERS OFDESIGN SUCH AS FORM & MATERIAL OPTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO OWNER CONFIRMATIONPROR TO ANY PURCHASING, ORDERING OR CONSTRUCTION.

TITLE N/AWIND SPEED N.ASOIL CLASS N/ATHERMAL CLIMATE ZONE 7CORROSION N/AENVIRONMENT N/ABUSHFIRE BAL N/A

BUILDING DESIGN DESIGN BUREAU TASMANIASTRUCTURAL ENGINEER N/ABUILDING SURVEYOR ROGERSON & BIRCH SURVEYORSDRAFTING DESIGN BUREAU TASMANIAWASTE/STORM WATER N/ABUSH FIRE N/AENERGY N/A

ADMINISTRATION BY OWNER

ATTACHMENTS

DRAWING REGISTER

A.0.0 COVERA.0.1 DRAWING REGISTERA.0.2 LOCATION PLAN

A.1.0 EXISTING SITE PLANA.1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLANA.1.2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANSA.1.3 DEMOLITION PLANSA.1.4 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLANA.1.5 FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND ROOF PLAN

A.2.0 NORTH ELEVATIONA.2.1 EAST ELEVATIONA.2.2 SOUTH ELEVATIONA.2.3 WEST ELEVATION

P.0.0 DRAINAGE PLANS

S.0.0 SUN STUDY

NOTES

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

LOCATION PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.0.2


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

A.0.2-

LOCATION PLAN1:2000

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

EXISTING SITE PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

54,910

18,960

52,040

18,290





NEIGHBO

URING

DWELLIN

G

NEIGHBOURING

HOUSE

EXISTINGDWELLING

EXISTINGSHED

A.1.0-

EXISTING SITE PLAN1:200

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.1


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

54,910

18,960

52,040

18,290

1,4201,140

1,4201,140

4,000

33,875

7,200

4,050

6,250

4,600

2,285

720

3,740

12,45

0

8,320 7,0

50

31,720

33,710

PROPOSED WORKS

LEGEND PROPOSED WORKS

GARDENDECKDRIVEWAY





FLOOR AREA

DWELLING GND FLOOR 108.59m² 1ST FLOOR 23.29m² DECK 1 49.16m²CAR PARKING AND DRIVE: 176m2 TOTAL AREA: 181.04m²

* FLOOR AREA IS THE AREA MEASURED OVER THEENCLOSING WALLS OF THE BUILDINGNOTE

STORMWATER FROM PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT TO EXISTINGCOUNCIL STORMWATERCONNECTION

EXISTING BUILDINGPAVING

NEIGHBO

URING

DWELLIN

G

NEIGHBOURING

HOUSE

PROPOSEDDECK20.47m2

EXISTINGDWELLING



PROPOS

ED FENC

ED WALKW

AY

PROPOSEDENTRANCEPERGOLA

NA.1.1-

PROPOSED SITE PLAN1:200

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONEXISTING GROUND FLOOR, EXISTING FIRST

FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.2


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

1

2

3

4

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

W

EXISTINGSHED

4

5

6

7

8 9 10

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

EX

ISTI

NG

RO

OF

A.1.2.1-

EXISTING GROUND FLOOR1:100

A.1.2.2-

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONDEMOLITION PLAN GROUND FLOOR, DEMOLITION

PLAN FIRST FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.3


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

N

4

5

6

7

8 9 10

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

EX

ISTI

NG

RO

OF

1

2

3

4

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

W

EXISTINGSHED

A.1.3-

DEMOLITION PLAN FIRST FLOOR1:100

A.1.3-

DEMOLITION PLAN GROUND FLOOR1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.4


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020



1

2

3

4

UP

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

1

1

2

2

3

3

A A

B B

C C

D D

W

F

2,5002,250 4,2603,600

4,610

5,750

900

1,890

4,975

2,415

2,410

S-01A

S-01A NEW BEAMAS PER ENGINEERS

SPECIFICATIONFIREPLACE

T

FLOOR FINISH LEGEND


CERAMIC TILES

TIMBER DECK

WALL TYPES

CARPET

CONCRETE

CB

W01EXISTING WALLS





1.

3.

4.

5.6.

7.

8.

Co

EXISTING 150mm STEPEXISTING 150mm STEP

11.

A.2.0A.2.0

A.2

.1A

.2.1

A.2.2A.2.2

A.2

.3A

.2.3

FIREPLACE COVERED OVER

D

C

C

T

B2. B

A.1.4-

PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACONFIRST FLOOR AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN,

EXISTING ROOF PLAN

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.1.5


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020



4

5

6

7

8 9 10

10R

(270

mm

)9G

(279

mm

)

1

1

2

2

3

3

A A

B B

C C

D D

S-01A

S-01A

A.2.0A.2.0

A.2.2A.2.2

A.2

.3A

.2.3

TIMBER PERGOLA

T

FLOOR FINISH LEGEND


CERAMIC TILES

TIMBER DECK

WALL TYPES

CB

EX01EXISTING WALLS



9.

10.

B


CARPET

CONCRETECo

Co


D





d.p.s to have greater than 5000mm crosssectional area


EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING ROOF

EX

ISTI

NG

RO

OF


2

2

3

3

S-01A

A.2.2A.2.2

EXISTING ROOF

A.1.5-

FIRST FLOOR AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN1:100

A.1.6-

EXISTING ROOF PLAN1:100

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

NORTH ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.0


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

±0 ±0

+2,700 +2,700

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDS TO BE PAINTED WHITE

EXISTING ROOF

NEW ROOF

EXISTING CHIMNEY

EXISTING RED BRICK WALL TO BE PAINTED WHITE

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDSTO BE PAINTED WHITE

NEW BULL-NOSEDWEATHERBOARD PAINTED WHITENATURAL GROUND LEVEL


+2,050

+4,750

+2,050

+4,750

A.2.0-

NORTH ELEVATION1:50

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

EAST ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.1


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA




1 3 4 5 10 152 Meters @ 1:10020

±0 ±0

+2,700 +2,700


EXISTING RED BRICKTO BE PAINTEDWHITE

EXISTING CHIMNEY

NEW SLIDING DOOR

EXISTING ROOF

EXISTING RAILING

EXISTING WEATHERBOARDCLADDING TO BE PAINTEDWHITE

EXISTING RED BRICK TO BEPAINTED WHITE

NATURAL GROUND LEVEL


+2,050

+4,750

+2,050

+4,750

A.2.1-

EAST ELEVATION1:50

Plot Date:

DRAWN BY :



Mr DAVID DEACON

SOUTH ELEVATION

PROJECT NAME :


SITE :

CHECKED BY :


DRAWING NO. A.2.2


Joel Kreiner



design development


DA

BA



General NotesThe Builder shall check all dimensions an

proposed addition and renovation · 4/3/2019 · proposed addition drawn by : and renovation 22...

Documents