RPS Ref: MRC Ref: DA-2016-103 - Mackay Council · RPS Ref: 134156-1 MRC Ref: DA-2016-103 Date: 23rd January, 2017 Attn: Kathryn Goodman Leah Harris The Chief Executive Officer Mackay

RPS Ref: 134156-1 MRC Ref: DA-2016-103

Date: 23rd January, 2017

Attn: Kathryn Goodman Leah Harris

The Chief Executive Officer Mackay Regional Council PO Box 41 Mackay Qld 4740

Via: eda 1477268343196

Dear Kathryn & Leah,

RE: REPRESENTATIONS ON CONDITIONS TERENCE P AND BARBARA J DUNCAN MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED >85SQM (STEEP LAND OVERLAY) 59 MDINA DRIVE, HABANA QLD 4740 LOT 16 ON SP128370

We refer to our eDA communication dated 19th December, 2016 in which we suspended the applicant’s appeal period to allow preparation of written representations in relation to the conditions of the Decision Notice dated 25th November, 2016, issued by Council and received on the 28th November, 2016.

In accordance with Section 361 of the Sustainable Planning Act 1997, please find below the applicant’s representations regarding the Decision Notice. Further to discussion with Kathryn Goodman and the writer the written representations are on the Development Engineering component - Geotechnical/Engineering Matters. 8. Geotechnical Certification A Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (Civil) with competence in geotechnical engineering, must certify that the risk level in relation to landslide is ‘low’, in accordance with ‘Landslide Risk Management’ Australian Geomechanics Journal Vol 42 No.1 March 2007, at the completion of work and prior to commencement of use. ASSESSMENT MANAGER’S ADVICE 1. Engineering Assessment An engineering assessment was not undertaken as part of this approval, therefore at Operational Works approval it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the proposal is able to be constructed with full compliance. We provide for Council’s perusal a copy of Cardno’s Site Investigation Report which was prepared 19th August, 2016 and not included with the Development Assessment material.

kevenea

Received (Auto Date)

Page 2

Excerpt:

At the time of the investigation the indicated site (displayed in Figure 2-1 below), was a semi-rural allotment which the client wishes to construct a shed on located at the rear of the property. The proposed area is relatively level cut pad on the side of a small hill. The pad is topped with gravel and appears free draining.

The results of the investigation indicate that the foundations at the site may be considered, from engineering principles, to have a predicted surface movement due to seasonal changes in moisture content of the order of between 20-40mm. The foundations should thus be considered to be Moderately reactive.

The applicant advises that after over 700 mm of rainfall recently, there has been no ground movement or soil erosion on benches or batters.

The report identifies a Site Classification: The results of the site investigation work indicate that the site may be classified Class ‘M’ in accordance with AS2870-2011 ‘Residential Slabs and Footings’.

Excerpt AS2870 Residential Slabs and Footings:

A Site Visit by Sasmit Dahal and John Galea of Council with the applicant Terry Duncan and the writer was undertaken on the 7th November, 2016.

Page 3

Site photographs taken by the writer 07.11.2016:

Refer to the email received from Sasmit Dahal provided 20161129 Email Sasmit Dahal. Excerpt:

The condition you have referred to is adopted straight from Planning Scheme. Geotechnical Report is submitted to Council before the application for the shed on steep land is approved, followed by certification of Low risk after construction.

We reiterate only the section of the site where the house is is affected by the Steep Land Overlay and the Cardno report identifies a Site Classification as Class M.

But in the case of shed at Mdina drive, the site was already cleared. Hence, it was decided that only certification would be appropriate. This is to ensure that shed, when constructed, would not be in risk of potential landslide due to the steep nature of the site.

We refer to the contours and the site photographs showing there is no ‘steep nature’ at the site of the Shed pad.

Moreover, the site classification would not certify the shed as per the condition on DA. It will only give detail of the soil for use in footing and structural design.

Ultimately the Shed is subject to Private Building Certification. John Tooma of Mackay Shed Company has been engaged to supply the shed, construct the slab and erect the Shed for the Duncan’s.

We refer to the following excerpts from the Town Planning Report outlining that the Steep Land Overlay only affects the dwelling house and pool area and not the land to the south of the gully.

Topography The subject site is mapped as Steep Land limited to the northern portion of the lot

which is already developed. The area chosen to site the oversized shed is outside of the mapped area and is relatively flat. Refer to the Site Photographs and Contour Mapping provided.

Access:

^N

The contour mapping included in Appendix B demonstrates that the area for the proposed oversized shed is relatively flat and does not require earthworks. Site photographs show the Shed Pad prepared by Mr Duncan who has 20+ years experience with previous employment at Department of Transport and Council.

Page 4

S> N^ Request: That the Steep Land Overlay requirement be downgraded as this section of the site is not mapped Overlay nor considered steep as it is less than 15% i.e. exempt.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

10. FURTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED Compliance Certificate Document ・ Geotechnical Certification

Mr Duncan had a budget in mind for this shed project and calculated the costs for the size of shed and the area most suited etc. Mr Duncan had Shoulder surgery the last week of December and is no longer able to carry out any of the building work on the Shed himself. In addition to the labour costs he has incurred fees for the Soil sample, survey work, and further costs with Geotech (multiplied by 2 if it has to be redone) plus the Operational Works Compliance Document application fee to Mackay Regional Council required to review a report that is already considered Low Risk. Mr Duncan approached a Company for a Geotech estimate and they were baffled that he could build the slab and shed but couldn’t commence using it without Geotech.

Request: That this requirement be downgraded similar to a “Condition for Amendment required” within Condition 8; permission to respond informally by email to Council once information is available i.e. without the expense of a further application and fees for same to Council.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In accordance with section 363 we ask that Council consider the above matter and, subject to further consultation, issue a Negotiated Decision Notice reflecting the above representations.

We trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however should you require any further details or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the writer by telephone.

Yours faithfully RPS

Fiona Smith Para Planner

Enc: 20161129 Email Sasmit Dahal P-2747 Site Classification Report

cc: T & B Duncan

1

Fiona Smith

From: Sasmit Dahal [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2016 9:36 AMTo: Fiona SmithCc: Kathryn GoodmanSubject: Site Visit - Mdina DriveAttachments: FW: Site Visit - Mdina Drive

Hi Fiona, I got forwarded the email from John because he doesn’t deal with DAs. I tried ringing you without any success. The condition you have referred to is adopted straight from Planning Scheme. Geotechnical Report is submitted to Council before the application for the shed on steep land is approved, followed by certification of Low risk after construction. But in the case of shed at Mdina drive, the site was already cleared. Hence, it was decided that only certification would be appropriate. This is to ensure that shed, when constructed, would not be in risk of potential landslide due to the steep nature of the site. Moreover, the site classification would not certify the shed as per the condition on DA. It will only give detail of the soil for use in footing and structural design. Hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks and Regards, Sasmit Dahal | Development Engineering Officer | Development Services | Mackay Regional Council Phone: 07 4961 9029 | Fax: 07 4944 2411 | [email protected] | mackay.qld.gov.au

Disclaimer This email and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information. You must not use or disclose this information, other than for the purposes for which it was supplied. The privilege or confidentiality attached to this email and attachments is not waived by reason of mistaken delivery to you. If for whatever reason this email is received by other than the intended recipient, you are requested to notify the sender promptly by telephone, email or facsimile and destroy and delete all copies of the original message. Any personal information collected by Mackay Regional Council will be for lawful purposes directly related to the functions of Council. Mackay Regional Council will take all reasonable precautions to respect

2

the privacy of individuals in accordance with the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and will protect the personal information it holds from misuse, unauthorised access and modification. Personal information will only be disclosed to a third party with your written authorisation or as required by law.

SITE INVESTIGATION

59 Mdina Drive, Habana Mackay Qld 4740 5676/P/2747

Prepared for Terry and Barbara Duncan 19th August 2016

SITE INVESTIGATION

59 Mdina Drive, Habana Mackay Qld 4740 5676/P/2747

SITE INVESTIGATION 59 Mdina Drive, Habana Mackay Qld 4740

19th August 2016 Cardno Pty Ltd ii

Contact Information Cardno ABN 74 128 806 735 PO Box 6735, Mackay Mail Centre Qld 4741 2 Progress Drive, Paget Qld 4740 Telephone: 61 7 4952 4750 Facsimile: 61 7 4952 4173 Email: [email protected]

www.cardno.com.au

Document Information

Prepared for Terry and Barbara Duncan

Project Name 59 Mdina Drive, Habana Mackay Qld 4740

Job Reference 5676/P/2747

Date 19th August 2016

Document Control

Ver

sio

n Date Description of Revision

Pre

par

ed

By

Prepared (Initials)

Re

vie

we

d

By

Reviewed (Initials)

0 22/08/16 Final Shontel McLeod SM Kel Gray KG


19th August 2016 Cardno Pty Ltd iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Site Description 2

3 Investigation Work 3

4 Subsurface Profile 4

5 Predicted Surface Movement 5

6 Allowable Bearing Capacity 6

7 Site Classification 7

8 Categorisation 8

9 Comments 9

Appendices

Appendix A Fieldwork Results

Appendix B Laboratory Testing Results

Appendix C Borehole Location Map

Appendix D General Notes

© Cardno 2013. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno.

This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document.


19th August 2016 Cardno Pty Ltd 1

1 Introduction

As requested an investigation has been carried out to determine the foundation conditions at the above site and to classify the site in accordance with AS2870-2011 ‘Residential Slabs and Footings’.

This report should be read in conjunction with our ‘General Notes’ in Appendix C of this report.



2 Site Description

At the time of the investigation the indicated site (displayed in Figure 2-1 below), was a semi-rural allotment which the client wishes to construct a shed on located at the rear of the property. The proposed area is relatively level cut pad on the side of a small hill. The pad is topped with gravel and appears free draining.

Figure 2-1 59 Mdina Drive, Habana Mackay Qld 4740



3 Investigation Work

Fieldwork for the investigation was carried out on 16th August 2016 and included the drilling of two boreholes at the positions shown on the location plan, Figure 3-1 attached in Appendix B of this report.

Drilling was performed by us using a “Q Drill 1000”, mounted on a 4x4 Toyota Landcruiser utility.

The material encountered at each borehole is described on the borehole log sheets in Appendix A of this report. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests were also carried out beside each borehole and these tabulated test results are included on the borehole log sheets.

Shrink/swell testing was unable to be carried out due to difficulties in obtaining an undisturbed tube sample imposed by the granular/hard nature of the soils encountered. Laboratory classification tests were carried out on a selected sample (in lieu of shrink/swell) and these test results are as follows:

BH No. Depth (m) LL (%) PI (%) Ls (%) %<75 m

1 0.3-0.8 49 23 15.5 64



4 Subsurface Profile

The results of the fieldwork indicated that variable subsurface conditions existed at the borehole locations.

The material encountered in borehole one contains a loose, low plastic sandy clayey gravel overlying a dense low plastic silty sand. Subjacent to these materials is firm to stiff, medium to high plastic sandy clay overlying a stiff, medium to high plastic sandy clay until borehole termination at 1.5m. Borehole two reveals loose, low plastic sandy clayey gravel overlying a stiff, medium to high plastic sandy clay. Underlying these soils is a stiff, medium plastic sandy clay overlying a stiff, medium plastic sandy gravelly clay until auger refusal at 1.0m.



5 Predicted Surface Movement

The results of the investigation indicate that the foundations at the site may be considered, from engineering principles, to have a predicted surface movement due to seasonal changes in moisture content of the order of between 20-40mm.

The foundations should thus be considered to be Moderately reactive.

The calculations of surface movement potential have been based on the classification test results using a correlation factor between Atterberg limits, grading and Shrink/Swell index. This correlation factor has been developed through long-running comparison testing by Cardno.



6 Allowable Bearing Capacity

The results of the fieldwork indicate that the near surface foundation strata within the proposed building area should provide an allowable bearing capacity of at least 100kPa.

It would usually be expected that this would be sufficient to support the expected building loads from a residential dwelling.



7 Site Classification

The results of the site investigation work indicate that the site may be classified Class ‘M’ in accordance with AS2870-2011 ‘Residential Slabs and Footings’.



8 Comments

We recommend that engineering interpretations and design for building foundations be sought before any construction work commences. The site classification classified above could change considerably if any site excavation and or filling are undertaken.

Should you have any queries in relation to this report please do not hesitate to contact Kel Gray.

Yours faithfully

KEL GRAY Driller/ Waste Designer for Cardno (QBCC Licence No. 1222433)



59 Mdina Drive, Habana Mackay Qld 4740

APPENDIX A FIELDWORK RESULTS

BOREHOLE LOG SHEETMackay QLD 4741

0749524173Fax:2-4 Progress Drive, Paget

0749524750Phone:74 128 806 735ABN:

Mackay LaboratoryLaboratory:Cardno Construction Sciences

DESCRIPTION(SOIL NAME, plasticity/particle characteristics, colour,

minor components, moisture, consistency, structure, ORIGIN)

USC

S Sy

mbo

l

Gra

phic

Log

Sample orField Test

Gro

undw

ater

Cas

ing

Was

hbor

e

Auge

r 'TC

' Bit

Auge

r 'V'

Bit

DC

P

RL

Dep

th (m

)

Angle From Horizontal: 90.0°Date Logged: 16/08/2016Logged By: Kelwin GrayDriller: KEL GRAY

Location: BH1Casing Diameter: -Rig Type: QUICK DRILL

Lab Reference: 5676/S/84550Groundwater: -Drilling Completed: 16/08/2016Mdina Drive, Lot 59Project:

Borehole Number: BH1Relative Level: -Drilling Commenced: 16/08/2016Duncan, Terry and BarbaraClient:

Page 1 of 1

BOREHOLE TERMINATION

SANDY CALY, Medium plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, brown, stiff,ALLUVIAL

CI-CH

SANDY CLAY, Medium to high plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, red/brown, firmto stiff, moist, ALLUVIAL

CI-CH

SILTY SAND, Low plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, dark brown, dense, moist,ALLUVIAL

SM

SANDY CLAYEY GRAVEL, Low plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, gravel is finegrained, sub-angular, blue/grey, loose, moist, FILL (UNCONTROLLED)

GP

5

6

4

4

3

3

5

5

2

2

See Standard Sheets for details of abbreviations & basis of descriptions

BOREHOLE LOG SHEETMackay QLD 4741

0749524173Fax:2-4 Progress Drive, Paget

0749524750Phone:74 128 806 735ABN:


DESCRIPTION(SOIL NAME, plasticity/particle characteristics, colour,

minor components, moisture, consistency, structure, ORIGIN)

USC

S Sy

mbo

l

Gra

phic

Log

Sample orField Test

Gro

undw

ater

Cas

ing

Was

hbor

e

Auge

r 'TC

' Bit

Auge

r 'V'

Bit

DC

P

RL

Dep

th (m

)

Angle From Horizontal: 90.0°Date Logged: 18/08/2016Logged By: Kelwin GrayDriller: KEL GRAY

Location: BH2Casing Diameter: -Rig Type: QUICK DRILL

Lab Reference: 5676/S/84551Groundwater: -Drilling Completed: 16/08/2016Mdina Drive, Lot 59Project:

Borehole Number: BH2Relative Level: -Drilling Commenced: 16/08/2016Duncan, Terry and BarbaraClient:

Page 1 of 1

AUGER REFUSAL

SANDY GRAVELLY CLAY, Medium plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, gravel isfine to coarse grained, sub-angular, brown, stiff, moist, Natural

CI

SANDY CLAY, Medium plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, brown, stiff, moist,ALLUVIAL

CI

SANDY CLAY, Medium plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, red/brown, stiff, moist,ALLUVIAL

CI-CH

SANDY CLAYEY GRAVEL, Low plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained, gravel is finegrained, sub-angular, pale blue/grey, loose, moist, FILL (UNCONTROLLED)

GP

15

13

12

10

8

6

7

6

5

1

See Standard Sheets for details of abbreviations & basis of descriptions




APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

Page 1 of 122/08/2016Report Date / Page:Area Description:

Client Reference/s:Component:

5676/T/21338Internal Test Request:HabanaLocation:

Lot Number:Mdina Drive, Lot 59Project:

5676/P/2747Project Number:59 Mdina Drive, HabanaClient Address:

5676/R/35010-1Report Number:Duncan, Terry and BarbaraClient:

QUALITY OF MATERIALS REPORTMackay QLD 4741

2-4 Progress Drive, Paget

[email protected]:Address:

0749524173Fax:0749524750Phone:74 128 806 735ABN:


Sandy ClayMaterial DescriptionDry SievedAtterberg Preparation

ExistingMaterial TypeAir DriedAtt. Drying Method

ExistingMaterial Source18/08/2016Date Tested

Kelwin GraySampled By

16/08/2016Date Sampled

0.3 - 0.8mDepthAS1289.1.2.1 Cl 6.5.3Sampling Method

1Borehole No5676/S/84472Sample Number

AS1289.3.6.1, AS1289.3.1.2, AS1289.3.2.1, AS1289.3.4.1, AS1289.2.1.1, AS 1289.3.3.1Test Procedures

15.5Linear Shrinkage (%)

23Plastic Index (%)

26Plastic Limit (%)

49Liquid Limit (%)

SpecificationMaximumResult

SpecificationMinimum

Test Result

640.075

810.425

962.36

994.75

1009.5

SpecificationMaximum

PercentPassing (%)


AS Sieve (mm)

CurlingLinear Shrinkage Defects

1250.8LS x 0.425 Ratio (%)

1856.1PI x 0.425 Ratio (%)

0.800.075/0.425 Fines Ratio

SpecificationMaximumResult


Test Result

5676Corporate Site Number:

1986Accreditation Number:

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in thisdocument are traceable to Australian/national standards.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

W85Rep Rev 1Form ID:

David GrayApproved Signatory:

Remarks

Queensland ● Acacia Ridge ● Cairns ● Townsville ● Whitsunday ● Mackay ● Moranbah ● Emerald ● Rockhampton ● Gladstone ● Sunshine Coast ● Geebung ● Gold Coast New South Wales ● Sydney ● Coffs Harbour Victoria ● Bendigo ● Tullamarine ● Geelong Western Australia ● Perth ● Bunbury Northern Territory ● Berrimah

Cardno Construction Sciences Pty Ltd ABN 74 128 806 735 2 Progress Drive Paget QLD 4741 Australia PO Box 6735 Mackay MC QLD 4741 Australia Phone: 61 7 4952 4750 Fax: 61 7 4952 4173 www.cardno.com.au


APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOCATION MAP

Job No:

Borehole Locations only

Figure 3-1Note: This sketch is for the sole purpose of identifying the borehole locations and/or the site contours as per the requirements of

the QBCC’s Subsidence Policy. This sketch is NOT TO SCALE and should not be used for the design of any site structures.

SITE LOCATION SKETCH

59 Mdina Drive

Habana Qld 4740

5676/P/2747

Form: DOC: CSMKY65 Rev 0 Date: 06/05/2015

N

Cut Pad

35m

5m

8m

8mBH/1

BH/2




APPENDIX D GENERAL NOTES



GROUNDWATER

Unless otherwise indicated the water levels given on the test hole logs are the levels of free water or seepage in the test hole recorded at the given time of measuring. The actual groundwater level may differ from this recorded level depending on material permeabilities. Further variations of this level could occur with time due to such effects as seasonal and tidal fluctuations or construction activities. Final confirmation of levels can only be made by appropriate instrumentation techniques and programmes.

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The discussion and recommendations contained within this report are normally based on a site evaluation from discrete test hole data. Generalised or idealised subsurface conditions (including any cross-sections contained in the report) have been assumed or prepared by interpolation/extrapolation of these data. As such these conditions are an interpretation and must be considered as a guide only.

CHANGE IN CONDITIONS

Local variations or anomalies in the generalised ground conditions used for this report can occur, particularly between discrete test hole locations. Furthermore, certain design or construction procedures may have been assumed in assessing the soil structure interaction behaviour of the site.

Any change in design, in construction methods, or in ground conditions as noted during construction, from those assumed in this report should be referred to this firm for appropriate assessment and comment.

FOUNDATION DEPTH

Where referred to in the report, the recommended depth of any foundation (piles, caissons, footings, etc.) is an engineering estimate of the depth to which they should be constructed. The estimate is influenced and perhaps limited by the fieldwork method and testing carried out in connection with the site investigation, and other pertinent information as has been made available. The depth remains, however, an estimate and therefore liable to variation. Footing drawings, designs and specifications based upon this report should provide for variations in the final depth depending upon the ground conditions at each point of support.

REPRODUCTION OF REPORTS

Where it is desired to reproduce the information contained in this report for the inclusion in the contract documents or engineering specification of the subject development, such reproduction should include at least all the relevant test hole and test data, together with the appropriate standard description sheets and remarks made in the written report of a factual or descriptive nature.

This report is the subject of copyright and shall not be reproduced either totally or in part without the express permission of this firm.

GENERAL NOTES

GENERAL April 2005

This report comprises the results of an investigation carried out for a specific purpose and client as defined in the introduction section(s) of the document. The report should not be used by other parties or for other purposes as it may not contain adequate or appropriate information.

TEST HOLE LOGGING

The information on the Test Hole Logs (Boreholes, Backhoe Pits, Exposures etc.) has been based on a visual and tactile assessment except at the discrete locations where test information is available (field and/or laboratory results).

Reference should be made to our standard sheets for the definition of our logging procedures (Soil and Rock Descriptions).

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical report. To help avoid these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropriate design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relevant to geotechnical issues.

BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING REPORT

Further boring logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their interpretation of field logs assembled by site personnel and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimise the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated results are the all-to-frequent result.

To minimise the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorised for their use. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and adversarial attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate scale.

READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY

Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines.

This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in you geotechnical engineering report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to you questions.

OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK

Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to discuss other techniques which can be employed to mitigate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of its publication directory.

For further information on this aspect reference should be made to “Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical Information in Construction Contracts” published by the Institution of engineers Australia, National Headquarters, Canberra, 1987.

Published by

THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS

PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES

8811 Colesville Road / Suite G106 / Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/13011 565 - 2733

Documents

RPS Ref: MRC Ref: DA-2016-103 - Mackay Council · RPS Ref: 134156-1 MRC Ref: DA-2016-103 Date: 23rd January, 2017 Attn: Kathryn Goodman Leah Harris The Chief Executive Officer Mackay