Flooding and Stormwater Management

Guidelines
Version 1 – September 2020
 FOREWORD
THE FLOODING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES AIM TO
SUPPORT THE CODES AND POLICIES THE SUNSHINE COAST PLANNING SCHEME
2014 BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DETAIL AROUND HOW STORMWATER
QUALITY, QUANTITY AND DRAINAGE AND FLOODING ISSUES ARE TO BE
MANAGED.
Document Information
Revision Author Reviewer Approval Date
Draft 0 LPR CJS CJS 20 July 2017
Draft 1 LPR CJS CJS 27 July 2017
Draft 2 CJS 8 November
2017
Draft 3 LPR CJS CJS 12 January 2018
Draft 4 CJS NJC NJC 11 April 2018
Draft 5 CJS RB/NG NJC 6 July 2018
Draft 6 CJS CJS NJC 15 April 2019
Draft 7 CJS CJS NJC 4 July 2019
Final 1 CJS Digitally signed by Crispin Smythe
DN: cn=Crispin Smythe,
o=Sunshine Coast Council, ou,
NJC 1 September
email=crispin.smythe@sunshineco
ast.qld.gov.au, c=AU
Date: 2020.10.20 12:03:00 +10'00' 2020

© Sunshine Coast Regional Council 2009-

current.

Sunshine Coast Council™ is a registered

trademark of Sunshine Coast Regional This document was prepared in conjunction with the
Council. following organisation:
www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
[email protected]
T 07 5475 7272 F 07 5475 7277
Locked Bag 72 Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560

Disclaimer
Information contained in this document is based on
available information at the time of writing. All figures
and diagrams are indicative only and should be referred Acknowledgements
to as such. While the Sunshine Coast Regional Council Council wishes to thank all stakeholders involved in the
has exercised reasonable care in preparing this development of this document, with specific thanks to
document it does not warrant or represent that it is Tony Howard (Cardno Pty Ltd), Chris Walker (Covey
accurate or complete. Council or its officers accept no and Associates) and Andrew McPhail (Calibre
responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person Consulting)
acting or refraining from acting in reliance upon any
material contained in this document.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines i

Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose of the Guidelines ............................................................... 1
1.2 Future Climate Considerations........................................................ 1
2 Issues Addressed Through the Guidelines ...................................... 3
3 Stormwater Quality .......................................................................... 10
3.1 Guiding Documents ...................................................................... 10
3.2 Stormwater Quality Compliance Approaches ................................ 10
3.3 Open Space Integration ................................................................ 12
3.4 Requirements for Specific Technologies ....................................... 14
3.5 Emerging and Proprietary Technologies ....................................... 22
3.6 Designing for Maintenance ........................................................... 22
3.7 Construction-Phase Water Quality ................................................ 23
4 Stormwater Quantity and Drainage................................................. 24
4.1 Guiding Documents ...................................................................... 24
4.2 Stormwater Drainage System and Lawful Point of Discharge ....... 24
4.3 Requirements for On-Site Detention ............................................. 27
4.4 Waterway Stability ........................................................................ 33
4.5 Frequent Flow Hydrology .............................................................. 36
4.6 Drainage Design Requirements .................................................... 36
5 Flooding ............................................................................................ 41
5.1 Guiding Documents ...................................................................... 41
5.2 Flood Immunity ............................................................................. 41
5.3 Floodplain Storage........................................................................ 41
5.4 Acceptable and Tolerable Flood Risk............................................ 42
5.5 Acceptable and Tolerable Flood Impacts ...................................... 44
5.6 Flood Hazard Assessments .......................................................... 45
6 Glossary............................................................................................ 49
7 References ........................................................................................ 50
Appendix 1 – Reporting Template for Stormwater Management Plan 51
Appendix 2 – OSD Pit and Orifice Plate General Arrangement ........... 54
Appendix 3 – Reporting Template for Flood Hazard Assessment ...... 55
Appendix 4 – Biopod Standard Details and Layouts ........................... 66
Appendix 5 – Bioretention Standard Signage ...................................... 75
Appendix 6 – Maintenance Report Template ........................................ 77
Appendix 7 - Flood Emergency Management Plan Template .............. 80

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines ii

 management and is discussed within each
1 Introduction Section of these guidelines. The way in which
climate change is accounted for is therefore a
1.1 Purpose of the Guidelines key consideration.
One of the things that make the
Sunshine Coast great is the range of
high-quality aquatic receiving
environments in close proximity to the
towns and villages of the region. These
environments are valued by residents
and tourists alike, and contribute
significantly to the sustainability of the
local economy.
However, retaining this natural capital is not
without challenge. The Sunshine Coast is in a
sub-tropical climatic region and is subject to
significant rainfall events from time to time. As
can be seen in Figure 1, many of our
population centres and future growth areas
are close to water and are susceptible to In general, the assessments required by these
flooding from streams and rivers or the ocean guidelines are to be based on future climate
through storm tide. The growth of the region and are to incorporate climate change
creates prosperity but also puts increasing allowances at year 2100 (0.8m sea level rise
pressure on our waterways through increased and 20% increase in rainfall intensity 1). This is
runoff and pollution. specifically required for estimation of design
Through the Sunshine Coast Planning flood levels, assessment of flood risk, and
Scheme 2014, Sunshine Coast Council has infrastructure sizing/design including urban
articulated how sustainable development is to drainage design.
occur in the region and have put in place The exceptions to the need to account for
policies to preserve the natural quality of our future climate are as follows:
waters and protect residents from the
• Flood impact assessment is to be based
potentially damaging effects of flooding.
upon a current climate condition except
These guidelines support the codes and that an additional assessment of impacts
polices of the planning scheme by providing for the 1 in 100 AEP future climate event
additional detail around key issues. The aim of is also required;
the guideline is to assist applicants to make
better applications and through this achieve • Sizing of stormwater quality treatment
faster approvals and better on-ground trains is based on historical rainfall
outcomes for the community. records and hence is based on current
climate; and
1.2 Future Climate Considerations • Compliance against the Waterway
Rainfall estimation is a key input into all Stability objective is to be based on
aspects of flooding and stormwater current climate.

1 Increased rainfall intensity allowance is based on the emissions. SCC considers it prudent to adopt this
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Report scenario until such time as international efforts to reduce
(scenario RCP 8.5) based on current tends of CO2 CO2 emissions are effective

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 1

Figure 1 Catchments of the Sunshine Coast Local Government Region

2 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 6.2 - Flooding and stormwater assets are
2 Issues Addressed effective and responsive to a changing
environment:
Through the Guidelines
a) Infrastructure is designed to be effective
The purpose of this section is to clearly until the end of its design life
articulate Council’s policy position on b) Infrastructure that is a burden or liability
flooding and stormwater issues and for Council is avoided
provide a guide as to how each issue c) Accurate and current models, mapping
is documented in the Planning Scheme and other corporate datasets inform the
and Guidelines. understanding of flood risk and
stormwater network effectiveness
The long-term vision for flooding and
stormwater is set through Council’s d) Performance and condition of assets is
Environment and Liveability Strategy, which monitored to ensure effectiveness
sets the following outcome for 2041: e) Land for stormwater management
Flood risk is managed for community purposes is appropriately located and
wellbeing, facilitated by an integrated designated
stormwater network that contributes to 6.3 - Flooding and stormwater
waterway health. management protects the natural and built
This outcome or long-term vision is to be environment:
achieved through the following three key a) Flood plains are protected for their
policy positions: intrinsic environmental, social and
6.1 - Flood risk is managed for the economic values
wellbeing of our communities: b) Development in the flood storage
a) Development will be provided with preservation area only occurs where there
acceptable flood risk and will not burden is overriding community need with
emergency services acceptable associated impacts and
minimal alteration to the floodplain
b) Flood immunity (from rainfall induced
flooding) of existing communities is c) Development ensures that areas of
improved through the exploration of community isolation are not created
effective flood mitigation measures where d) Stormwater quality treatment is provided
practical to protect receiving waters and the health
c) Disaster management activities cater for of our community
our communities before, during and after e) Stormwater treatment is complementary
events and integrated within the public realm,
d) Flood risk information is made available in using natural processes to the greatest
a form that is easily understood extent possible
e) Insurance affordability is promoted f) Flood conveyance pathways are
through the provision of information to protected or enhanced
industry g) Natural waterways are not diverted

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 3

There is a range of documents which Council
relies on to deliver these policy positions
relating to flooding and stormwater
management. At the planning scheme level,
there are the codes and planning scheme
policies (PSP’s), which include:
• Stormwater Management Code
• Flood Hazard Overlay Code
• Planning Scheme Policy for Development
Works
• Planning Scheme Policy for the Flood
Hazard Overlay Code
Table 1 provides a summary of flooding and
stormwater issues and where in the Planning
scheme such issues are addressed along with
the linkages to the policy positions in the
Environment and Liveability Strategy. This
summary is provided using everyday
language and the specific planning scheme Source: Water Sensitive Designs (Healthy Waterways Ltd, 2014)

reference should be referred to for the exact

requirements.
In simple terms, the planning scheme
stipulates what outcomes development needs
to achieve. These guidelines assist and
support the planning scheme by providing
additional information on how to achieve these
outcomes.
Wherever possible, industry guidelines are
referred to within this document and form the
default position for design unless alternate or
additional requirements are specified. This
has been done to avoid duplication and
provide an approach consistent with other
local government areas.

4 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Table 1 Summary of Flooding and Stormwater Management Policy Positions and Planning Scheme References

Issue Environment Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 Requirements Flooding and Stormwater Management
and Guidelines Content
Liveability
Strategy

Stormwater Quality and Environmental Flows – Primary Code: Stormwater Management Code (SMC) and Planning Scheme Policy for Development Works (PSPDW)

Open space Policy Position PSPDW SC6.14.3.6 specify performance standards for stormwater in parks, including: Contains design advice on achieving good integration of
integration 6.2(e), 6.3(e) stormwater into open space
• Only areas above the 5%AEP inundation level from regional and local flooding
(including stormwater treatment and detention facilities) may be considered for
credit towards LGIP trunk open space network or minimum land required for
non-trunk open space (i.e. local recreation park)
• Infrastructure (BBQ, playground) above 1 in 100 AEP

Land Dedication – Policy Position PSPDW SC6.14.3.4 (6)-(15) define requirements for reserves and easements Nil
reserves, 6.2(e)
easements, freehold Default position is reserve. Easement accepted where:
• Rural land
• Rural Residential and drains <5Ha
• Urban and drains <1Ha of non-Council land
Inter-allotment drainage in easement vested in favour of upstream property owner

Performance of Policy Position PSPDW SC6.14.3.8 Documents the certification required for products which remain in Restates PSPDW position
proprietary products 6.3(d) private ownership and the testing required to verify the performance of proprietary
and emerging products (GPTs) and emerging technologies proposed as donated infrastructure
technologies

Tailwater levels (gw, Policy Position Stormwater Management Code (SMC) PO2 requires a drainage system to be provided Provides background to adopted climate change
tidal, drainage 6.2(a) for development which considers climate change parameters and links for IFD estimation
impacts, climate
change) PSPDW SC6.14.3.3 requires drainage design to include 20% increased rainfall intensity
and 0.8m increase in sea level

Environmental Flows Policy Position SMC PO6 requires channel erosion be controlled by limiting post-development changes Provides detailed guidance on how to demonstrate
and Waterway 6.3(d)(g)(e) in flows compliance with waterway stability objective
stability
PSPDW SC6.14.3.7 provides objectives and application for waterway stability,
consistent with the SPP.
SMC PO7 and PO8 require that low-flow/frequent flow hydrology be maintained to
protect in-stream ecology
PSPDW SC6.14.3.7 notes assessment of frequent-flow hydrology will not normally be
required except in specific circumstances where derivation of site-specific objectives will
be required

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 5

 Issue Environment Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 Requirements Flooding and Stormwater Management
and Guidelines Content
Liveability
Strategy

Stormwater Quality Policy Position SMC PO9 and AO9.1, AO9.2 requires development achieve pollutant load reduction A number of compliance approaches are documented on
Objectives and 6.3(d)(g)(e) targets and such targets are met prior to entering a waterway/wetland buffer or a how to demonstrate compliance with the stormwater
Compliance constructed waterbody quality design objective.
PSPDW SC6.14.3.8 Quantifies the stormwater quality design objectives and provides
criteria for when such objectives apply

Stormwater Quality Policy Position No specific design details on stormwater quality treatment devices are provided Detailed design guidance is provided for a range of
Treatment Devices 6.3(d)(g)(e) technologies, including standard drawings for streetscape
bioretention devices (biopods)

Stormwater SMC PO13-PO15 provide requirement for developments which choose to incorporate Nil
Harvesting stormwater harvesting. For systems donated to Council, AO15.1 requires an over-riding
community benefit to establish the scheme and AO15.2 requires a secure on-going
funding source.
PSPDW SC6.14.3.9 reflects and restates the above requirements

Construction and Policy Position SMC PO16 AO6.1 and AO6.2 requires construction methods in accordance with Nil
establishment 6.3(d)(g) PSPDW and timing of construction to minimise risks
SMC PO17 requires vegetated systems be established during the maintenance period
PSPDW SC6.14.11 contains specifications for construction tolerances, testing,
inspections and certifications which covers WSUD infrastructure

Constructed Policy Position SMC PO18-PO22 have specific requirements for constructed waterbodies, which Nil
waterbodies 6.2(b) include:
• That new waterbodies are avoided
• That waterbodies achieve EVs and WQOs
• That waterbodies have secure on-going funding sources
• That they are not used as stormwater treatment devices
• That they provide multiple benefits and do not pose healthy, safety or
aesthetic risks
PSPDW SC6.14.9 comprehensively addresses the requirements for constructed
waterbodies

Reporting Policy Position Nil Reporting template for stormwater management plans
requirements for 6.2(c) provided as Appendix 1
Stormwater
Management Plans

6 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Issue Environment Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 Requirements Flooding and Stormwater Management
and Guidelines Content
Liveability
Strategy

Off-site Solutions Policy Position Nil Off-site solutions are identified as a possible compliance
6.3(d) approach through infrastructure agreements, however
Council does not currently support Council delivered off-
site solutions.

Stormwater Quantity and Drainage – Primary Code: Stormwater Management Code (SMC) and Planning Scheme Policy for Development Works (PSPDW)

Vegetated channel Policy Position SMC PO3 and AO3.1-3.3 mandate use of natural channel design which supports Further discussion on the common problems of vegetated
design details 6.2(a)(b), landscape, passive rec and ecological functions channels plus design approaches and planting palettes
6.3(e)(f)(g) are provided
SMC PO4 requires stormwater infrastructure to be designed to minimise maintenance
costs
PSPDW SC6.14.3.3 contain requirements for open channels, which include:
• Must comply with BCC Natural Channel Design Guidelines
• Channel works/rehabilitation not to be included in stormwater quality load
reduction calculations
• Designed with min ‘n’ of 0.15 with sensitivity +/- 50% to check for freeboard
and scour effects
• Requirements for safety and maintenance berms

Lawful Point of Policy Position Stormwater Management Code (SMC) PO2 and AO2.1 require LPoD to be met. Contains a comprehensive discussion on the background
Discharge (LPoD) 6.1(b) of the 2-point test relating to Lawful Point of Discharge as
PSPDW SC6.14.3.4 defines requirements for LPoD. well as checklists and requirements for addressing each
point

Detention – when Policy Position PSPDW SC6.14.3.5 Table SC6.14.3B contains criteria for when peak flow management
required 6.1(b) objectives are triggered.

Detention – Policy Position PSPDW SC6.14.3.5 contains design requirements for detention basins Provides further advice on detention for in-fill situations
implementation 6.2(a)(b)(e) and preferred arrangements when open detention basins
(ownership, form, not feasible
integration with
WSUD)

Drainage Design Policy Position Stormwater Management Code (SMC) PO2 requires a drainage system to be provided Includes advice on determining design rainfall intensities
6.1(a)(b), for development which considers climate change and achieves LPOD and additional advice on design of vegetated channels
6.2(a)(b)(e)
PSPDW SC6.14.3.3 covers drainage design requirements in detail.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 7

 Issue Environment Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 Requirements Flooding and Stormwater Management
and Guidelines Content
Liveability
Strategy

Flooding – Primary Code: Flood Hazard Overlay Code (FHOC) and Planning Scheme Policy for Flood Hazard Overlay Code (PSP FHOC)

Loss of Flood Policy Position FHOC Table 8.2.7.3.1 PO4 and AO4.1 requires that any filling for accepted development Additional discussion is provided on the circumstances
Storage – 6.3(a)(b)(c) within the flood and inundation area does not result in net filling on the site when preservation of floodplain storage is or is not
specifically infill required. Requirements for how to calculate flood storage
FHOC Table 8.2.7.3.2 PO2 requires that physical alteration of land within the flood and are also provided.
inundation area does not occur except in specific circumstances.
PO9 and AO9.1 requires that any filling for assessable development within the flood and
inundation area is offset by providing compensatory flood storage within the site.

Acceptable or Policy Position SPP2017 Assessment benchmark (3) of the State Interest for Natural Hazards, Risk and Includes detailed guidance for determining whether risk to
Tolerable risk to 6.1(b) Resilience requires that development mitigates risk to people and property to an people and p[property should be deemed acceptable or
people or property acceptable or tolerable level. This State Interest is not currently fully reflected in the tolerable for a range of AEPs.
Planning Scheme so the SPP2017 becomes the assessment benchmark.

Acceptable or Policy Position FHOC PO9 and AO9 – require no offsite changes based on current climate and future Includes detailed guidance for determining whether
Tolerable levels of 6.1(b) climate at 2100 changes caused off-site are either acceptable or
impacts tolerable. Requirements include analysing impacts for a
range of AEP based on current climate and only the
1%AEP for future climate

Addressing Residual Policy Position SPP2017 Assessment benchmark (3) of the State Interest for Natural Hazards, Risk and Includes discussion on the practical implementation of
Flood Risk 6.1(a), 6.3(c) Resilience requires that development mitigates risk to people and property to an these requirements and the implications for development
acceptable or tolerable level. This State Interest is not currently fully reflected in the design.
Planning Scheme so the SPP2017 becomes the assessment benchmark.
In addition to the above, FHOC Table 8.2.7.3.2 PO4 requires residual flood risk (up to
the PMF or PMST) to be addressed. A range of requirements are provided through the
acceptable measures including provision of either feasible evacuation or refuge
strategies.

Flood Immunity Policy Position FHOC Table 8.2.7.3.1 PO1 and PO2 set flood immunity levels for floor levels and car Nil
Requirements 6.1(a) parking respectively for dual occupancy and dwelling house
FHOC Table 8.2.7.3.2 PO3, PO6, PO7 and PO8 specify flood immunity requirements for
assessable development for development, essential network infrastructure, essential
community infrastructure, and hazardous materials respectively

Levees Policy Position PSP FHOC prohibits use of levees for achievement of flood immunity standards Nil
6.1(a)

8 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Issue Environment Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 Requirements Flooding and Stormwater Management
and Guidelines Content
Liveability
Strategy

Climate Change Policy Position PSP FHOC – requires 0.8m sea level rise. Design rainfall intensities required to be These requirements are restated in the guidelines
6.2(a) increased by 20%

Technical modelling Policy Position Nil The guidelines contain requirements for:
requirements 6.2(c)
• Hydrology model: software, sub-catchment
delineation, assumptions
• Hydraulics model: software, steady/unsteady,
1D/2D, roughness
• Calibration/validation
• Temporal patterns
• Design loss rates
• Design rainfall
• Climate change parameters
• Boundary Conditions – joint probabilities
• Sensitivity analysis

Flood Impact Policy Position Nil The guideline contains a template for flood hazard
Reporting 6.2(c) assessment report and flood hazard mitigation report
Requirements

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 9

 and Wetland Technical Design Guidelines
3 Stormwater Quality (Healthy Land and Water, 2017);
Our beaches, estuaries and local • IPWEAQ Standard Drawings DS-070 to
streams underpin the lifestyle DS-080 and
aspirations of residents and is a key • Specific Council requirements detailed in
economic base of our tourism industry. this guideline.

The land development industry is also a key 3.1.3 Construction, Establishment and
part of the Sunshine Coast economy and it is Handover
vital that land development occurs in ways
which are sustainable and which preserve the The construction, establishment and handover
quality of our waterways. of water sensitive urban design treatment
measures is to be undertaken in accordance
The following sections support the codes and with the latest version of the following:-
policies specified in the Sunshine Coast
Planning Scheme 2014, by providing • Construction and Establishment
additional guidance on key issues relating to Guidelines: Swales, Bioretention Systems
stormwater quality management. In addition, and Wetlands (Water by Design, 2010)
Appendix 1 contains a reporting template for • Maintaining Vegetated Stormwater Assets
the preparation of Stormwater Management (Water by Design, 2012)
plans (SWMP) to support development
• Transferring Ownership of Vegetated
applications.
Assets (Water by Design, 2012)

3.1 Guiding Documents

3.2 Stormwater Quality Compliance
The primary technical resources for designing Approaches
stormwater quality management systems are
noted below and are to be followed unless The stormwater quality design objectives and
superseding requirements are noted in this their application are detailed in the Planning
guideline or the Planning Scheme. Scheme Policy for Development Works, and
require the following pollutant load reductions
3.1.1 Concept Design relative to an unmitigated development case:
Conceptual design of water sensitive urban • Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 80%
design treatment measures is to be • Total Phosphorus (TP): 60%
undertaken in accordance with the Concept
Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban • Total Nitrogen (TN): 45%
Design (Water by Design, 2009). MUSIC • Gross Pollutants: 90%
modelling supporting concept development is
to be undertaken in accordance with the latest For development which falls outside the
version of the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines triggers identified in the Planning Scheme
(Water by Design, 2010) Policy for Development Works, there is no
requirement to demonstrate compliance with
3.1.2 Detailed Design these objectives provided that alternative
management measures are implemented.
Detailed design of water sensitive urban
design treatment measures is to be For development which is triggered, there are
undertaken in accordance with the latest a number of approaches promoted within the
version of the following:- industry to demonstrate compliance with the
stormwater quality design objectives. Not all
• Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical of these are accepted by Council; however,
Design Guidelines for South-East each compliance approach and its
Queensland (Water by Design, 2006), applicability is briefly described below:
including the Bioretention Technical
Design Guideline (Water by Design, 2014) • On-Site Stormwater Treatment - A
range of stormwater treatment measures

10 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 and technologies can be adopted within impact design that minimises stormwater
developments and streetscapes that will runoff, MCU developments with less than
fully achieve the stormwater quality design 25% effective imperviousness are
objectives on-site. Compliance is usually excluded from achieving the stormwater
demonstrated either through MUSIC quality design objectives
modelling or by implementing Complying Detailed guidance on the application of
Solutions alternative measures and each of the
• Living Waterways – is a flexible applicable compliance approaches is provided
environmental management approach that below.
assists practitioners and government to Although there is an apparent emphasis on
deliver water management systems which quantitatively meeting design objectives, of
are integrated with outdoor spaces that equal or greater importance is developing
are socially, economically and good concept designs which are low
environmentally sound. It does this maintenance and which deliver multiple
through a subjective scoring system which benefits such as high amenity. Concept
encompasses and incentivises the designs must be developed in conjunction
broader objectives of WSUD. The Living with each of the compliance approaches
Waterways approach is currently not discussed below, and should be based on the
accepted by Council. Concept Design Guidelines for Water
• Off-site stormwater solutions (off-site Sensitive Urban Design (Water by Design,
solutions) - is the consideration of locally 2009). The remaining Sections of Chapter 3
applied alternative solutions that achieve also provide guidance on design.
an equivalent or improved water quality
outcome to the stormwater management 3.2.1 Alternative management measures
design objectives of the State Planning for stormwater quality management
Policy. It is possible for this concept to be
applied between multiple developers (in Alternative management measures are
the same catchment) where it can be applicable only when the development is
demonstrated that the combined outcome exempt from complying with stormwater
is equivalent to the outcome required of quality design objectives, as defined by the
the individual sites (together) regardless triggers in the Planning Scheme Policy for
of whether a particular site has satisfied Development Works Table SC6.14.3E.
the objectives. This could be done as an Further, developments are only exempt from
infrastructure agreement and would be complying with stormwater quality design
considered by Council as part of the objectives if the alternative measures are
development application. The concept of complied with. If the alternative measures are
off-site solutions have also been not complied with then stormwater quality
presented a voluntary mechanism for local design objectives still apply to the
governments to collect a fee from development.
developers in lieu of managing stormwater
Alternative management measures are
on-site. This money is then used by the
defined in the Planning Scheme Policy for
local government to implement
Development Works Table SC6.14.3E. The
stormwater solutions off-site. This concept
stormwater harvesting tanks required by the
transfers developer responsibility to
alternative management measures (other than
Council and creates a significant
those required to provide full potable supply in
administrative burden for Council. At this
time, this off-site solutions concept is not
able to be supported and this compliance
approach is not applicable.
• Reducing imperviousness - may assist
in minimising stormwater runoff and
reducing stormwater management
requirements. In order to encourage low

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 11

non-reticulated area) are to be provided as objectives do not apply and compliance is
follows: achieved.
A reduction of impermeable area to less than
• Tank sized as 1kL per 25m2 of
25% of site area may be demonstrated either
communal landscaped area;
subjectively (for small sites <3000m2) by
• Minimum 50% of roof area connected applying BMP’s to all impermeable site
to tank; and surfaces, or quantitatively through water
balance modelling which shows that mean
• Installed in accordance with the QDC annual runoff volume (MARV) from the
MP4.2 or 4.3 as applicable developed site is less than that predicted from
an equivalent site with 25% imperviousness.
3.2.2 On-Site Stormwater Treatment
This is the traditional approach to achieving
3.3 Open Space Integration
compliance, whereby a stormwater treatment Stormwater treatment is to be complementary
train is implemented within the development to and integrated within the public realm, using
meet the stormwater quality design objectives. natural processes to the greatest extent
Compliance may be demonstrated through possible.
either: Land within parks or amenity reserves that is
• Deemed-to-Comply Solutions (or below the 5% AEP flood level and/or required
Complying Solutions) - The default for stormwater management devices such as
deemed-to-comply solution for all bioretention basins, wetlands, detention
Queensland regions is to provide a basins, GPT’s and pipes should be
bioretention device with filter area designated for a stormwater purpose.
equivalent to 1.5% of the development When land that is designated for a stormwater
site area. Minimum filter media depth is purpose is co-located with adjacent open
0.5m and minimum extended detention space areas including parks and riparian
depth 0.1m (at-source) or 0.3m (end-of- buffers, it must be thoughtfully integrated in
line); or order to maximise the overall benefits
• Numerical Modelling - The Model for including amenity and ecological
Urban Stormwater Improvement enhancement. Land designated for a
Conceptualisation (MUSIC) is widely stormwater purpose is to be located outside of
adopted for this purpose. Modelling the required riparian buffer areas and is
should be undertaken in accordance with separate from the minimum land required for
the latest version of the MUSIC Modelling open space.
Guidelines (Water by Design, 2010) using Key considerations for complementary co-
the split land use approach location of stormwater with open space is
avoiding fragmentation, minimising level
3.2.3 Reducing Imperviousness differences and reducing the hazard
The benefits of low-impact design are well associated with the stormwater function to
recognised, however traditional compliance eliminate the need for fencing or retaining
methodologies such as through MUSIC walls. Council’s Open Space Landscape
modelling have often disadvantaged such Infrastructure Manual (LIM) provides further
approaches due to requirements for infiltrated guidance on demonstrating effective and
flows to be accounted for in the pollutant complementary co-location of stormwater with
export from the site. open space.
Approaches to impervious area management Figures 2 and 3 show examples of poor and
such as the use of porous pavements, green good complementary co-location with open
roofs and stormwater harvesting and reuse space respectively. If the design would result
reduce the effective imperviousness of a site. in a deep stormwater device (relative to
If the effective imperviousness is reduced to adjacent open space levels) and would
below 25% then the stormwater quality design require either extensive batters or significant
retaining walls, then the development layout
and stormwater concept design should be

12 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

revised to either reduce flow path lengths or effort should first be made to avoid direct
incorporate treatment closer to the source. connection through the open space. In
Open space areas are to be protected from circumstances where this is unavoidable and
utility encroachment. In situations where new the open space use is compromised, the land
development is delivered adjacent to existing associated with the works shall be
open space, and has need to connect redesignated for a stormwater purpose and
stormwater discharging from the new Council shall be compensated for the loss to
development to a receiving waterway, every the Open Space Network.

Figure 2 Poorly integrated bioretention basin (source: Switchback 48 Consulting)

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 13

Figure 3 Complementary co-location of bioretention basin (source: Sunshine Coast Council)

The performance requirements which all

3.4 Requirements for Specific streetscape proposals must achieve are as
Technologies follows:
3.4.1 Swales • Maximum desirable density of one
bioretention device per 6 lots and
Swales are not to be used for urban minimum device area of 20m2. This
development where driveways are required to density may only be exceeded where
cross the swale. specific engineering constraints exist and
Swales are to be designed to ensure that the the remaining performance requirements
depth-velocity limit of 0.4m2/s is not exceeded are met
for all flows up to the major flow event (or in • Minimum filter media width of 1.5m
the case of inter-allotment drainage, the
design event). • No bioretention devices located between
driveways for lot frontages less than 10m
Alongside roadway pavements, the swales
and preferably no devices on any lot
must be sized so that the major/minor event
frontage (i.e. located only on secondary
criteria of QUDM (IPWEA, 2016) are
frontage of corner lots)
achieved.
• Filter media offset minimum of 1m from
3.4.2 Streetscape Bioretention back of kerb
Due to the flat topography of the coastal plain • 1m wide unvegetated strip behind back of
of the Sunshine Coast, streetscape (or at- kerb
source) bioretention devices have become an
• Maximum 1:2 vegetated batter from
increasingly common feature of subdivisions
footpath to top of filter media
since 2006. This section details Council’s
expectations for design of streetscape • Must not be reliant on fencing or other
systems and provides standard cross-section physical barriers to address safety risks
details and typical layouts for common
• Safe intersection sight distances and
applications.
pedestrian movement along the road
verge must not be impeded

14 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

A combination of both good engineering and The biopods are located at the intersection
good urban design are required in order to where an entry to the underground stormwater
achieve the above performance criteria. For system is required. The lots at the end of the
this reason, all proposals incorporating access street adjacent to the biopod are
streetscape bioretention (or biopods) must turned to access off the intersecting street so
include sufficient engineering detail with the the biopods are adjacent to the long-axis of
REC application to enable a lot layout to be the lots (i.e. do not interfere with lot access). A
approved. Urban design approaches which real-world example of this approach is shown
support achievement of good biopod designs in Figure 5.
are discussed below. A variation of this approach is to incorporate a
Standard drawings for biopods are provided in 1-way crossfall rather than a centrally
Appendix 4 and include 2 types of biopods. crowned access street. This allows for a
Biopod Type 1 is the preferred detail and is halving of the number of biopods and provides
based on the use of a side entry pit. Biopod one verge unconstrained for pedestrian
Type 2 is based on a field inlet and is only to access and services. A real-world example is
be accepted in constrained situations where shown in Figure 6 and typical details are
provision of a side entry pit is impractical provided in Appendix 4.
(such as where driveway conflicts occur).
Urban Design Approach 2 – Biopods with
Urban Design Approach 1 – Biopods clustered pedestrian links
at intersections An alternative approach to having biopods at
The basic planning approach for implementing intersections is to locate them adjacent to
biopods on flat sites is documented in pedestrian linkages. This achieves better
Concept Design Guidelines for Water outcomes to the above approaches as the
Sensitive Urban Design (Water by Design, verge and lots of the access streets are
2009) and is shown in Figure 4. The approach unencumbered, however opportunities to
is to grade access streets or places towards incorporate this approach are generally fewer.
the intersection and limit the leg length to the Real-world examples of this approach based
maximum available before a stormwater inlet on a crowned street and a 1-way crossfall
is required in order to meet the minor flow street are provided in Figures 7 and 8
criteria of QUDM (IPWEA, 2016). respectively.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 15

 Figure 4 Model Street Layout for Biopods on Flat Sites (source: Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban
Design (Water by Design, 2009))

Figure 5 Biopod Locations for Centrally Crowned Access Street

16 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Figure 6 Biopod Locations for Access Street with 1-Way Crossfall

Figure 7 Biopod Located with Pedestrian Link (Crowned Road)

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 17

Figure 8 Biopod Located with Pedestrian Link (1-Way Crossfall)
incorporating either a swale or coarse
3.4.3 Bioretention Systems (including
sediment forebay or GPT if high gross
streetscape) pollutant load;
All bioretention systems are required to
• bioretention devices treating catchments
achieve the following minimum performance
>5ha are provided with pre-treatment
requirements in addition to the requirements
incorporating either a sediment basin or
of the Bioretention Technical Design
GPT followed by sediment basin if high
Guidelines (Water by Design, 2014):
gross pollutant load;
• all bioretention systems are provided with
• do not conflict with other infrastructure
a subsurface drainage system irrespective
including minimum offsets to underground
of the hydraulic conductivity of the
services;
underlying soils;
• bioretention swales are required to
• subsoil pipes are to be minimum 100mm
achieve the same minimum design
diameter uPVC pipe and slotted pipe is to
objectives as conventional swales; and
be proprietary manufactured product not
slotted on site; • retaining walls are to occupy a maximum
of 50% of the device perimeter and the
• all bioretention devices with the exception
use of fencing to address safety is to be
of roadside at source devices are
avoided in preference to other means
provided with an overflow pit within the
device; Streetscape at-source bioretention is to meet
the performance requirements noted in
• bioretention devices treating catchments Section 3.4.2. Bioretention tree pits are
>0.5ha are provided with pre-treatment

18 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

required to achieve the following minimum Landscaping – Bioretention Filter Media/Base
performance requirements:
Experience of many systems on the Sunshine
• allow for unimpeded access for Coast has shown that Lomandra spp. are often
pedestrians along the road reserve; the only surviving macrophyte after several
growing seasons. For this reason, the
• only implemented in high density urban
and constrained environments where landscaping of the bioretention basin surface is
to include at least 1 Lomandra spp. per m2 The
required to achieve streetscape
requirements; following additional functional species may also
be provided, to achieve an overall minimum
• to not be reliant on safety fencing to planting density of 6 plants/m2
address safety risks; • Ficinia nodosa
• to have sufficient depth to prevent tree • Juncus usitatis
roots from entering the subsurface pipes,
with minimum filter media depth of 0.7m; • Lomandra longifolia

• to include measures to protect the road • Lomandra hystrix

pavement from tree roots and seepage • Ghania sieberiana
from the tree pits; and
• Ghania aspera
• maximum of 1 tree per 20m2 of filter media
• Juncus kraussii
and planted as tube stock.
Landscaping of bioretention devices which are • Melaleuca quinquinervia (max 1 plant per
proposed as public infrastructure are required 20m2)
to follow a standard palette in order to simplify Landscaping – Bioretention Batters
Council’s maintenance requirements and
maximise the opportunities for successful Landscaping for bioretention basin batters is
functioning of the device. to include a mixture of the following species at
a suitable density and ensuring the species
Filter Media that are taller and/ or have longer denser leaf
growth are planted towards the top of the
The specification for the filter media is to be in
batter:
accordance with FAWB (2009) as amended
by Water by Design (2014a). The complete • Carex appressa;
specification is provided below: • Ficinia nodosa;
• Hydraulic conductivity 100-300mm/hr • Juncus usitatis;
• Organic matter >3% • Lomandra longifolia;
• pH 5.5-7.5 • Ghania sieberiana;
• Electrical conductivity (1:5) <1.2dS/m • Banksia robur;
• Orthophosphate <80mg/kg • Dianella brevipendunculata;
• Total Nitrogen <1000mg/kg • Themada triandra;
• PSD • Cymbopogan refractus;
o Clay+silt 2-6%
• Melaleuca thymifolia;
o Very fine sand 5-30%
• Nandina domestica; and
o Fine sand 10-30%
• Acmena Allyn Magic.
o Medium to coarse sand 40-
60% For streetscape devices, taller species should
not be planted on the kerb-side batter and the
o Coarse sand 7-10% species selected should be considerate of soil
o Fine gravel <3% conditions, sight line visibility and CPTED
strategies.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 19

Mulch is to be provided in accordance with the 3.4.7 Sand filters
Water by Design Construction and
Sand filters operate in a similar way to
Establishment Guidelines Section 3.6.4
bioretention systems, with the exception that
Mulching.
stormwater passes through a filter media
Community Education (typically sand) that has no vegetation growing
on the surface. The absence of vegetation
Signage, consistent with the design standard and the associated biologically active soil
provided in Appendix 5, is to be provided with layer typically created around the root zone of
the delivery of bioretention systems. vegetation planted in bioretention systems
means sand filters have an increased
3.4.4 Wetlands maintenance requirement and reduced
All wetland systems are required to achieve stormwater treatment performance compared
the following performance requirements: to bioretention systems.
• due to wet summers experienced on the Sand filters have essentially been replaced by
Sunshine Coast, maximum notional proprietary media filtration systems and shall
detention time of 48 hours; only be considered for re-development
situations where the surrounding urban
• vegetation design must carefully consider
environment is already developed and site
the longevity of species and risks
conditions limit the use of bioretention
associated with bird populations such as
systems.
swamp hens and sacred ibis.
3.4.8 Gross Pollutant traps (GPT’s)
3.4.5 Sediment basins
GPTs are only required for types of
Sediment basins are to be used to pre-treat
development which create high gross pollutant
stormwater prior to entering wetlands or large
loads. GPTs are to be designed and
bioretention systems. Sediment basins shall
constructed so that:
not be either undersized or oversized for the
catchment area draining to the basin. • dry sump GPTs are preferred where
All sediment basins are required to achieve possible due to concerns for anaerobic
the following performance requirements: decomposition that can occur in wet sump
GPTs, particularly when then are no
• sized according to the 63% AEP design downstream treatment devices capable of
operation flow; effectively removing dissolved nutrients;
• sized to capture a target particle size of • the required maintenance methods must
0.125mm; be compatible with common practices
• sediment storage volume sized for 5 year amongst the industry and not rely on
clean out frequency; and specialised equipment;

• Provided with concrete base and concrete • the GPT is located in an accessible
maintenance access location (not in swampy areas, at the
bottom of embankments or other
3.4.6 Infiltration systems inaccessible locations);
Generally, infiltration systems are used where • the GPT is not located near electrical
stormwater discharge is to a natural system equipment or where a voltaic cell can
and groundwater recharge and maintaining occur;
pre-development runoff volume is required. • the GPT can be fitted with a suitably
Stormwater quality design objectives shall be designed lockable access cover approved
achieved prior to stormwater entering an by Council that prevent entry of
infiltration device. An exception to this are unauthorised persons;
source controls which replace impervious
areas (such as porous pavements). • re-suspension of captured pollutants
during flows in excess of the SQID design
event is prevented;

20 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

• a minimum of 90 percent of pollutants re- • sufficient overflow capacity is provided so
suspended by back flushing is recaptured; that the minor storm event enters the
minor stormwater system when the gully
• grills/mesh have a self-cleansing
pit GPT is fully blocked. In certain
mechanism to prevent blockage;
circumstances, this will mean that
• the GPT does not create surcharge at the additional gully pits will need to be
pit/manhole immediately upstream of the installed;
GPT, unless there is an acceptable
• any proprietary products are designed and
overland flowpath or high flow bypass;
installed in accordance with the
• the GPT can be suitably located in public manufacturer’s guidelines;
road, park or drainage reserve;
• the pollutant collection chamber is free
• where located in public open space the draining to prevent anaerobic
exposed concrete is embellished to better decomposition of collected matter.
integrate into the environment, without Anaerobic decomposition may be a
compromising access or performance; source of odour and polluted leachate;
• the GPT can be hydraulically isolated • the grates of the gully pit basket are to be
during cleanout; lockable such that a member of the public
• when located in areas where tidal cannot access the pollutant collection
backflow is present, the downstream drain chamber, but so that Council maintenance
includes provision of a tide gate of other crews can easily clean utilising a vacuum
means to prevent tidal inflow (subject to truck or a vacuum street cleaner; and
hydraulic analysis to ensure no • for work, health and safety reasons
unacceptable upstream surcharge); manual lifting or cleaning of gully pit
• any proprietary products are to be baskets can be minimised through
designed and installed in accordance with appropriate design and development.
the manufacturer’s guidelines; and
3.4.10 Media Filtration Devices
• it is preferred that GPTs are located
Media Filtration devices use engineered filter
adjacent to a sewer access point, so that
media to remove total suspended solids and
any water that collects in the GPT can be
nutrients amongst other pollutants. Refer to
pumped directly to the sewer as trade
Section 3.5 regarding accepted pollutant
waste (at clean-out).
removal efficiencies for media filtration
3.4.9 Gully Pit Baskets devices. The typical arrangement of these
systems is a number of cartridges containing
Gully pit baskets are used as part of the pre- the engineered filter media located in an
treatment (removal of gross pollutants and underground vault.
coarse sediment) within the overall treatment
system in areas of high gross pollutant load Pre-treatment of stormwater to remove gross
where enclosed minor stormwater systems pollutants and coarse sediment is required
(that is, piped drainage systems) are installed. prior to stormwater entering these devices.
Gully pit baskets can also be used in existing Council has a number of concerns relating to
enclosed minor stormwater systems, where the use of media filtration devices for
there is sufficient hydraulic capacity for the stormwater treatment. These include:
installation. • they may have considerably higher whole
The gully pit basket should not be used in of life cycle costs than other treatment
retrofit situations where the existing systems devices which use natural processes,
inlet capacity is insufficient. such as bioretention devices;
Gully pit baskets are to be designed and • they provide none of the amenity and
constructed so that: biodiversity benefits afforded by vegetated
• gross pollutants for the design event are devices which use natural processes; and
captured prior to entry to the minor • there are no guarantees that the
stormwater system; consumable components of these devices

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 21

 will be available, or affordable, for the life 3.5 Emerging and Proprietary
of the asset. Technologies
Performance Outcome PO10 of the Sunshine Coast Council encourages
Stormwater management code requires that innovations in stormwater management which
treatment systems that use natural processes will deliver better overall outcomes to the
and materials are integrated into the community, including improved water quality
development whenever practicable, taking into outcomes, reduced maintenance needs and
account the whole of life cycle cost to improved amenity. However, these
enhance biodiversity and landscape benefits. innovations need to be measured against fair
Media filtration devices are therefore suitable and consistent performance requirements and
for use only where they will remain as private remain consistent with the intent of
assets and only if all of the following criteria Environment and Liveability Strategy policy for
are met: stormwater treatment to use natural
• use is within the high density residential processes to the greatest extent possible.
zone, centre zone, or industrial zone The Planning Scheme Policy for Development
development; and Works specifies the circumstances where
• constrained site where at source or end of Council will consider proprietary and/or
line bioretention is not practicable and emerging technologies either for use in private
bioretention unfeasible based on the developments or as contributed public assets.
Concept Design Guidelines for Water The Stormwater Quality Improvement Device
Sensitive Urban Design (Water by Design, Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP) of Stormwater
2009). Australia is the basis for demonstrating
Within these limited zones with respect to performance claims of treatment devices that
determining whether a bioretention system is are to remain in private ownership, whereas
practicable or not the following sites are for treatment devices that are proposed to be
considered to have a more limited ability to contributed public assets a three stage
integrate bioretention devices and use of process has been outlined in Council’s
bioretention may not be practicable; Planning Scheme Policy for Development
Works. These stages include laboratory
• sites being re-developed (brownfield); or testing, field testing within the Sunshine Coast
• smaller sites (<2,500m2); or Council Local Government Area and an
independent expert peer review. The
• sites with an allowable site cover of
information collected from these stages of
buildings greater than 70%; or
testing are intended to provide greater
• sites which are required to achieve an confidence to Council of the asset’s
activated street frontage; or maintenance needs and costs in a local
• sites with limited available fall (<1m) to the context, minimising council’s risk to an
invert of the existing trunk stormwater unexpected burden or liability.
network.
Where media filtration devices are approved, 3.6 Designing for Maintenance
certainty must be given that the devices will
be maintained so that they continue to The design of stormwater assets, including
achieve the claimed pollutant removal stormwater treatment devices and vegetated
performance for the life of the development. channels need to carefully consider future
This will be achieved through reasonable and maintenance requirements and minimise the
relevant conditions of approval and prior to the future maintenance burden on Council.
commencement of use of any development There are two key aspects to consider in
which incorporates media filtration devices the designing for maintenance:
site operator or body corporate must enter into
1. Providing adequate access so the
a supply agreement for the maintenance and
replacement of the media filtration device for a intended maintenance activities can be
safely carried out; and
minimum period of 10 years.

22 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 2. Ensuring the design and materials submitted and prepared in accordance with
specified does not result in the template provided in Appendix 6.
unnecessarily intensive, onerous or Maintenance Reports are required to identify
risky maintenance the following, including provisions of plans:
3.6.1 Access • Proposed maintenance activities required
for each component of the system
Suitable access tracks need to be provided
from the road to the location of high- • Access locations for each maintenance
maintenance areas which include GPTs, activity
sediment basins and coarse sediment forebay
• For each activity:
and inlet ponds to end-of-line bioretention and
wetland devices. o Machinery/equipment required
Access tracks for GPT’s (where not serviced o Personnel required
directly from the roadway) and sediment o Frequency and duration of activity
basins or forebays associated with end-of-line
bioretention basins should have the following Designs should minimise the need for
characteristics: herbicide sprays. This is because application
of herbicides can often result in the
• Minimum width of 2.5m deterioration of non-weed species and
• Constructed of concrete in accordance compromise the function of vegetated
with standard drawing SEQ R-051 stormwater assets.
• Include provision for turning and A common example of poor maintenance
stockpiling of material as required considerations is excessive use of rock
armouring. Dumped rock can accumulate
• Provide a lockable gate to restrict public sediment and weeds and lead to frequent
access maintenance for weed removal to meet
For longer access tracks which are on flatter community expectations. Less maintenance-
grades, gravel or reinforced turf may be intensive design alternatives should be
suitable for part or all of the access track. considered such as use of dense plantings.
Reference should be made to Figure 34 of the Proposed stormwater assets that include an
Bioretention Technical Design Guidelines onerous requirement to have specialised
(Water by Design, 2014). equipment unique to a device may be
Access to the permitter of devices should also rejected.
be provided to facilitate less intensive
maintenance activities. The Bioretention
Technical Design Guidelines (Water by 3.7 Construction-Phase Water
Design, 2014) provides further requirements Quality
on permitter access including advice on
retaining walls. SCC requirements for the management of
water quality impacts during development
Access to constructed wetlands requires construction through Erosion and Sediment
special considerations and should be provided Control (ESC) is documented in the Planning
in accordance with Section 3.6 of the Wetland Scheme Policy for Development Works
Technical Design Guidelines (Water by (PSPDW).
Design, 2017).
The State Planning Policy 2017 (SPP 2017)
3.6.2 Materials and Planning introduced new design objectives for the
construction-phase which are reflected in the
When designing stormwater systems, careful PSPDW. SCC have also provided guidance to
consideration should be made of the industry on how to address these
maintenance activities likely to be required. requirements through the document titled
For all vegetated stormwater assets, which Stormwater Management Requirements for
are proposed to be dedicated to Council, a Construction Sites – Changes resulting from
Maintenance Report is required to be the commencement of the SPP 2017 (SCC,
2017a).

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 23

 1. Objective (1): That the development
site is provided with appropriate and
reliable stormwater infrastructure to
4 Stormwater Quantity and ensure the site is adequately drained
Drainage in order to provide convenience and
safety;
Stormwater quantity management is
2. Objective (2): Where the development
essential for the protection of people site relies on infrastructure or
and property as well as enhancing waterways which traverse downstream
convenience and amenity during land to achieve Objective (1), that an
rainfall events. appropriate on-going right to discharge
is in place over the downstream land;
The following sections support the codes and and
policies specified in the Sunshine Coast
3. Objective (3): That development does
Planning Scheme 2014, by providing
not cause unacceptable impacts to
additional guidance on key issues relating to
infrastructure or property external to
stormwater quantity management. In addition,
the development site
Appendix 1 contains a reporting template for
the preparation of Stormwater Management Each of the above objectives are separate
Plans (SWMP) to support development tests which Council will apply in order to
applications. determine whether PO2 of the Stormwater
Management Code has been achieved.
Together, Objective (2) and Objective (3) can
4.1 Guiding Documents be considered to cover the range of issues
known traditionally as ‘lawful point of
The primary technical resources for design of
discharge’ as used in the Acceptable
stormwater drainage systems are noted below
Outcomes of the Stormwater Management
in order of precedence and are to be followed
Code. The term ‘lawful point of discharge’ has
unless superseding requirements are noted in
limited further use in this document and
this guideline or the Planning Scheme:
instead consideration is given for each of the
• A Review of Simple Peak Flow Estimation Objectives stated above.
Methods for use on the Sunshine Coast
The guidance provided in this Section is
following the release of ARR 2016 (SCC,
considered to be consistent with the intent of
2018a)
QUDM V4 (IPWEAQ, 2016) in relation to
• Application of Design Temporal Patterns Lawful Point of Discharge but expands the
on the Sunshine Coast (SCC. 2018b). tests of that document, which do not
• Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, adequately consider the consequences of
Fourth Edition (QUDM) (IPWEAQ, 2016) downstream blockage.

• Australian Rainfall and Runoff (Engineers 4.2.2 Objective 1 – Drainage System

Australia, 2019) Design
The design of the street drainage system and
roof and allotment drainage is to be
4.2 Stormwater Drainage System undertaken in accordance with the
and Lawful Point of Discharge requirements of the Planning Scheme Policy
for Development Works, the specific guidance
Issues surrounding lawful point of discharge
provided in this document and QUDM V4
are often cited as amongst the most confusing
(IPWEAQ, 2016).
and frustrating for applicants and engineers
alike. This section seeks to clarify Council’s The following specific levels of roof and
expectations regarding this issue. allotment drainage are required for
assessable development:
Council’s overall objectives for a stormwater
drainage system within a development site
can be summarised as follows:

24 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 • Level 0 and Level 1 – Not accepted for discharge) which can significantly affect the
use on the Sunshine Coast in any amenity and enjoyment of downstream
circumstance owners and are therefore not accepted.
• Level 2 – Not generally accepted. May
be considered based on specific site
circumstances for low density 4.2.3 Objective 2 – Discharge Rights
residential land uses The purpose of this objective is to ensure
• Level 3 – Minimum level for low and that the development has an on-going right
medium density residential land uses to discharge stormwater so that the
• Level 4 or 5 (scale dependent) – development is certain to be able to be
Minimum level for high density adequately drained in perpetuity.
residential, central business, In the absence of Riparian Rights, there is no
commercial and industrial land uses common law obligation on a downstream
landowner to accept stormwater from an
In addition to the above, the use of pumped upstream property and they are within their
drainage systems will not be accepted due to common law rights to take reasonable
the risk and consequences of failure and the measures to restrict the flow of stormwater
on-going maintenance required for the system (either overland or within a pipe/channel) onto
to function. their land – even where this causes ponding
The implications of the above requirements on the upstream property. The implication of
are that where the development involves land not ensuring that this Objective is met may be
which falls away from the road or other that Council is forced in the future to
Council-controlled land (eg. drainage reserve), compulsorily acquire an easement or drainage
there will be a need for an inter-allotment reserve over a downstream property in order
drainage system which directly connects to to re-establish a flowpath if the downstream
the public trunk drainage network in order landowner decides to block it. Or the
to achieve the requirements for Level 3, 4 or 5 development may not be able to undertake
systems. maintenance on a piece of downstream
infrastructure required for the development
In many cases this connection will need to site drainage.
traverse downstream private land. Where this
occurs, in accordance with the Planning Act Where infrastructure (new or existing) is
2016 (Qld) the downstream land is ordinarily identified as being required through
required to form part of the development downstream private land in order to meet
application and owners permission included Objective (1), then either an easement or
with the application. drainage reserve through this land is required
in all circumstances. The easement
As a minimum, the connection through dimensions are to be in accordance with
downstream private land from a development QUDM V4. The vast majority of MCU and RAL
site to the trunk public drainage network is applications within the urban footprint that fall
required to be an underground pipe no smaller away from the public roadway will require both
than 300mm in diameter. Larger pipe sizes a pipe connection and easement through
and possibly overland flow channels may also adjoining downstream land and this should be
be required subject to the requirements of the considered as the default position.
PSPDW and QUDM V4.
In rare instances, neither a pipe connection
It is important that direct underground nor an easement may be required over
connections are provided in order to achieve a downstream land. The applicant in these
properly implemented drainage system rather instances will need to demonstrate how
than adopting other approaches such as level- Objectives (1) and (2) are achieved. The
spreaders or infiltration systems which are not instances where this is able to be
recognised as components of Level III – V demonstrated will be rare. Specific situations
systems. Such approaches are unable to where this may be appropriate are:
mitigate the many effects of altered hydrology
(such as increased frequency and duration of 1. Where the development internal
drainage system discharges directly to

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 25

 a waterway defined under the Water • A site discharges through private
Act 2000; or property and results in an
2. Where the development internal unreasonable loss of enjoyment to the
drainage system discharges directly to property that can be substantiated (i.e.
a tidal waterway defined under the actionable nuisance).
Coastal Protection and Management The following checklist is provided to assist in
Act 1995 2; or determining the risk of an unacceptable
3. Where the development discharges to impact occurring:
a defined gully which the Planning 1. Determine if/what physical changes in
Scheme shows mapped as being discharge will result from the development
subject to protected vegetation; and compared to the “natural” case, e.g.:
4. Where the applicant demonstrates that I. More concentrated discharge or
there are no lawful works a change in discharge locations
downstream owner could undertake to
II. More/less frequent discharge
block the gully/waterway or that the
consequences of a lawful blockage are III. Change in duration of discharge
negligible. IV. Changed discharge volume
Although they may seem innocuous, V. Change in peak discharges
situations of development discharging onto VI. Change in velocity
low-relief rural land have been some of the
most problematic and litigious for Council. The 2. For each physical change in discharge,
downstream land use does not change the will the change result in a
need to comply with the above principles. measurable/noticeable impact (effect) on
public infrastructure or on downstream
4.2.4 Objective 3 - Worsening or private property given the specific
Nuisance physical characteristics of the
downstream land and drainage system?
Achieving this Objective does not negate the E.g.:
need to comply with Objective (1) and
Objective (2). Each objective is a discrete I. Erosion, scour or damage
requirement, though the solution to one II. Greater frequency of inundation of
objective may also contribute to the land
achievement of the others.
III. Increased duration of inundation of
As “no change” is not an achievable outcome land
in most circumstances, it is necessary to
IV. Increased extent of inundation of
determine if each change is likely to result in
land
an unacceptable impact.
V. Increased depth/level of inundation
An impact will be deemed unacceptable
of land
where:
VI. Lower standard of service of
• A site discharges to public infrastructure
infrastructure and the discharge will
reduce the standard of service of that
infrastructure; or The answers to the above questions then feed
into the following decision process:

2
Tidal waters under this exemption are to have minimum
dimensions of more that 1m depth and cross sectional area
2.5m2

26 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

• If there is no physical change then the ultimate drainage system will successfully
there can be no impact and no mitigate impacts but interim nuisance may
actionable nuisance. Development occur during construction.
which does not alter the physical form of Examples include when lots fall away from an
the land from “natural” conditions will not internal road and towards existing residences.
give rise to an actionable nuisance. The road and inter-allotment drainage system
• If there is a physical change but no will protect the downstream residences once
impact, then there can be no actionable all operational and building works are
nuisance. Example – an industrial site is complete, however there may be phases of
developed and discharges into a piped construction when runoff is increased to the
underground inter-allotment drainage existing residences. This issue is often
system which has adequate capacity for compounded by poor erosion and sediment
the developed site flows. No actionable control which results in the transport of
nuisance will occur and no mitigation sediment as well as increased flow to
measures necessary. However, in such a downstream lots.
situation consideration needs to be given For these reasons it is critical that both the
to the entire downstream network and the ultimate developed site plus interim
potential for any impacts at all construction phases are considered and
downstream locations not just immediately accounted for when developing a solution
downstream of the site. which achieves lawful point of discharge.
In situations where flow is increased and
is accepted by Council, but later flows into
a system controlled by another statutory 4.3 Requirements for On-Site
authority, then Council will require Detention
evidence of permission from that statutory
authority. Provision of on-site detention (OSD) storage
within a development site will often be a
• If there is a physical change which will component of the development demonstrating
cause an impact with a significant cost that it will not cause unacceptable impacts to
to the downstream landowner (either in infrastructure or property external to the
terms of damage to their land or cost development site.
to mitigate or rectify) then it is likely
that an actionable nuisance will occur. For on-site detention storage proposed as
This presents an unacceptable level of donated infrastructure, these basins should be
impact and options to mitigate the provided as open, dry basins. WSUD
impact are required to be implemented. infrastructure such as bioretention or wetlands
Example – A pre-development drainage may be incorporated within the floor of the
system through downstream land has detention basin to minimise the overall
adequate capacity to accept the natural footprint required for stormwater
site flows. Following development, the management, provided that the extended
peak discharges will increase to beyond detention of such devices are not included in
the capacity of the downstream system, any detention calculations.
causing additional extent, duration and In some situations, such as small in-fill
depth of inundation. Implementation of subdivisions, it may not be practical to provide
mitigation measures such as a detention detention storage as an open, dry basin. In
basin to reduce flows to below the system these situations, the following approaches
capacity would be required, or the should be followed, in order of preference:
downstream drainage system capacity
may need to be increased. 1) Investigate capacity of downstream
drainage network and options to upgrade
4.2.5 A Word About Construction capacity to avoid the need for on-site
detention;
An additional aspect of nuisance which is
often overlooked is the construction phase of 2) Provide distributed detention storage
a development. There are situations where below ground within each lot and

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 27

 connected to the inter-allotment drainage Sunshine Coast following the release of ARR
system; or 2016.
3) Provide a combined detention storage
4.3.1 Deemed-to-Comply Approach
below ground near the outlet of the site.
The storage is to be located in private A simplified deemed-to-comply approach may
land and maintained by body corporate. be adopted for sites which are:
Options 2 and 3 are restricted in their • less than 2Ha in area; and
permissible applications because of concerns • fall to the street frontage; and
for the bypass of the storage by flows
exceeding the capacity of the piped drainage • which discharge directly to piped trunk
system. The drainage upstream of the stormwater infrastructure, and
underground storage should therefore be • are not located within a master
designed to ensure the 1 in 100 AEP flows are drainage study area; and
captured.
• show no evidence of the trunk network
In no circumstances will above-ground having capacity issues.
detention storage within lots, such as modified
rainwater tanks, be approved for subdivisions The design recommendations in Section
for the purpose of on-site detention (noting BN5.5.2(p) of QUDM (IPWEA, 2016b) should
approval of rainwater tanks is however be referred to.
encouraged for water quality and water supply 1) Size the on-site detention outlet based on
benefits). This is due to the difficulty of the pre-development peak flow (Qo) at the
ensuring the storage is correctly provided and boundary of the site using SCC (2017a)
installed with later building works and the risk document: A Review of Simple Peak Flow
of future interference with the storage such as Estimation Methods for use on the
to create permanent storage for water reuse. Sunshine Coast following the release of
Greater flexibility is available for MCU ARR 2016. A sheet flow method is to be
developments, though the detention storage used for pre-development conditions that
will need to be installed and fully operational are rural or grassed, channel flow for pre
prior to the commencement of the use. This development conditions that have a higher
flexibility is available as the conditions on the percentage of urbanisation. The outlet
MCU approval persist after the use has arrangement shall be designed for the
commenced so provide on-going certainty. following design event:
The compliance process also requires Council a. Pipe: Future climate 10% AEP storm
inspections prior to commencement of use. event.
The design of detention systems is required to b. Orifice Plate: Current climate 10% AEP
consider events between the 63% AEP (1yr storm event.
ARI) and the 1 in 100 AEP current climate,
Details of the OSD pit and orifice general
however impact assessment will also seek to
arrangement are provided in Appendix 2 and
ensure that impacts remain acceptable under
in the Fact Sheet: OSD Tank Orifice Plate
future climate conditions.
Sizing (SCC, 2018).
Detention sizing using hydrological models
2) Determine required detention storage
requires that those models appropriately
volume based on the pre and post-
reflect the changes associated with
development conditions identified in Table 2
urbanisation. The consideration of
urbanisation should not be limited to loss Table 2 Deemed-to-comply detention storage volumes
(m3/Ha)
based methods. Urbanisation should also
affect the timing of runoff and manifest as a Pre- Post-development condition
development
change in peak flow. Modelled estimates that condition
Low Density Medium density
incorporate urbanisation should be compared (fi<60%) (fi>60%)
with SCC (2018a) A Review of Simple Peak Rural/grassed 330 420
Flow Estimation Methods for use on the Urban NA 90

28 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

The above procedures are intended to simplify Table BN 5.2.1 of the QUDM (IPWEA, 2016b)
calculations for small low-risk developments edition background notes lists a number of
and should not be used where there is any problems that can result from the use of
risk of impacts to private property or in detention basins.
locations where existing flood storage occurs, As such, detention basins should only be used
such as in locations that are subject to a where there is a specific issue required to be
downstream hydraulic constraint. addressed, and not just as a matter of course
In addition, OSD considerations are to ensure on all development sites. Detention basins
that adequate overland flow paths are may be necessary to prevent an actionable
provided to account for potential blockage of nuisance from occurring where the analysis
pipe networks and surcharge of the required by Section 4.2.4 indicates that
underground detention storage. increased peak flows may impact downstream
land or infrastructure. In such circumstances,
detention basins are to be sized to ensure that
4.3.2 Ensemble Storms Approach peak flows are not increased over a wide
range of design storm durations. This concept
In situations where the deemed-to-comply is shown for a given event probability in Figure
approach is not applicable then an ensemble 9.
storms analysis is required.

Figure 9 Detention Basin Storm Duration Consideration

Detention basins must therefore be sized in the following manner:

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 29

Sizing Methodology

1) Determine pre and post-development peak 1 in 100 AEP inflows for model validation as per A Review of
Simple Peak Flow Estimation Methods for use on the Sunshine Coast following the release of ARR 2016
(SCC, 2018a)
2) Develop a hydrologic model with appropriate sensitivities to urbanisation, as informed by estimates from
Step 1.
3) Determine pre-development inflows from the hydrologic model, using ensemble temporal patterns with
pre-burst rainfall and ARR Datahub Initial Loss and Continuing Losses. This is to be done for the range of
a. Durations: 0.167, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,1,1.5.2,3,4.5,6,9,12,18,24
b. AEPs: 63%, 39%, 18%, 10%, 5%, 2, 1%.
For each AEP and duration combination calculate the average (or rank 6) peak flow across all 10
ensembles. Prepare a critical duration analysis table of AEP vs duration.

Table 3 Example of Pre-Development Peak Inflows Critical Duration Analysis Results

Duration
ARI 0.167 0.25 0.5 0.8 1 1.5 2 3 4.5 6 9 12 18 24
1 0 0 0.5 0.77 0.91 1.15 1.2 1.38 1.48 1.07 1.03 0.8 0.64 0.77
2 0 0.41 1.03 1.26 1.41 1.54 1.58 1.76 1.94 1.49 1.38 1.11 1.07 1.07
5 0.9 1.45 2.03 2.07 2.3 2.27 2.28 2.39 2.74 2.13 1.97 1.62 1.56 1.58
10 1.74 2.15 2.93 2.98 2.72 2.75 2.85 3.26 3.15 2.84 2.27 2.05 1.38 1.71
20 2.44 2.87 3.62 3.66 3.25 3.32 3.38 3.87 3.76 3.4 2.77 2.49 1.68 2.1
50 2.76 3.17 4.25 4.15 3.73 3.95 3.83 5.14 3.78 3.97 3.35 3.17 2.36 2.11
100 3.02 3.47 4.71 4.66 4.22 4.52 4.38 5.94 4.36 4.59 3.85 3.67 2.73 2.46

4) Create a Post Development version of the hydrologic model and repeat the ensemble analysis returning
peak discharges but limiting the maximum duration to twice the critical duration of pre-development
inflows, or 3hrs (whichever is the greater). Prepare a critical duration analysis table, similar to Step 3, from
the average of the ensemble peak discharge results for each AEP/duration combination.
In the example shown in Table 3 the critical duration of pre-development inflows is 4.5hrs, thus the post
development situation is limited to 9hrs (as shown in Table 4).
Table 4 Example of Post-Development Peak Inflows Critical Duration Analysis Results
Duration
ARI 0.167 0.25 0.5 0.8 1 1.5 2 3 4.5 6 9
1 0 0 1.22 1.45 1.72 2.25 1.71 2.12 2.04 1.61 1.53
2 0 1.19 2.46 2.13 2.38 2.86 2.26 2.8 2.94 2.12 2.06
5 2.59 3.53 4.31 3.66 3.82 3.85 3.22 3.71 3.98 2.97 2.92
10 4.73 4.67 4.96 4.53 4.2 3.82 4.32 4.42 5.03 3.92 3.72
20 6.06 5.75 6.16 5.34 5.03 4.7 5.11 5.25 5.95 4.69 4.48
50 6.98 7.02 7.14 6.63 5.6 5.56 5.21 8.28 5.77 5.83 4.93
100 7.7 7.71 7.95 7.45 6.3 6.32 5.94 9.5 6.64 6.73 5.69

5) Add the detention basin to the hydrologic model.

Set up a Storage Curve that has a 1 in 100 AEP detention storage initially sized using Figure 10. The 1 in
100 AEP detention storage is defined as the storage volume (m3) between the invert level of the lowest
outlet and the level that produces a discharge equivalent to the 1 in 100 AEP pre development inflow. Qi
in Figure 10 is the 1 in 100 AEP post development peak flow from Step 1.

30 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 For Qi < 50m3/s; Vol (m3/Ha) = 0.0014Qi3 – 0.4116Qi2 + 32.834Qi +197.43

Figure 10 Initial Detention Volume Sizing (1 in 100 AEP)

6) Set up outlets.
It is suggested that outlets be sized to convey all flows up to and including the 1 in 100 AEP, and that the
spillway is designed for larger events.

The hydrologic model must adopt hydraulic formulas that appropriately consider whether small or large
orifice equations apply. In addition the modeller must consider the likelihood of the orifice being outlet
controlled by an elevated downstream water level.

It is suggested that the level between the invert of the lowest outlet and the spillway be divided equally
into three and that stage outlets are initially sized for the first stage to take the 63% (1yr ARI) pre
development peak flow, the second stage to take the 10% AEP pre development peak flow and the third
stage to take the 1 in 100 AEP pre development peak flow.
This should serve to create a Storage vs Discharge rating that approximates a linear relationship, as seen
in the example of Figure 11.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 31

 Figure 11 Example Storage-Discharge relationship

7) Rerun the hydrologic model ensemble analysis for the post-development scenario, returning peak
discharges from the detention basin, for the same durations and AEPs as Step 3.
Prepare a critical duration analysis table, similar to Step 3 from the average of the ensemble peak

discharge results for each AEP/duration combination.

Table 5 Example of Post-Development Peak Discharges Critical Duration Analysis Results

Duration
ARI 0.167 0.25 0.5 0.8 1 1.5 2 3 4.5 6 9
1 0 0 0 0.3 0.64 0.95 1 1.18 1.1 0.91 1.03
2 0 0 0.57 0.89 1.04 1.16 1.21 1.58 1.35 1.13 1.29
5 0.1 0.67 1.23 1.53 1.86 1.84 1.98 2.19 2.27 1.73 1.99
10 0.7 1.05 2.05 2.32 2.31 2.33 2.45 2.62 2.62 2.48 2.19
20 1.05 1.42 2.56 2.8 2.66 2.73 2.77 2.98 2.99 2.84 2.56
50 1.13 1.78 2.85 3.21 3.1 3.15 3.22 3.79 3.23 2.96 3.09
100 1.2 2.07 3.2 3.94 3.75 3.84 3.98 4.34 3.97 3.72 3.73

8) Subtract the table of results from step 6 from the table of results from step 3.
9) Check to ensure that differences are acceptable.
Acceptable differences are:
a. <= than 2% of the pre-development flow for the same duration-AEP event, OR
b. <= or 0.5% of the 1 in 100 AEP pre-development peak inflow, OR
c. <= 0.01 m3/s.

32 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Table 6 Example of Final Critical Duration Analysis Pre and Post Development Differences (m3/s)
Duration
ARI 0.167 0.25 0.5 0.8 1 1.5 2 3 4.5 6 9
1 NA NA -100.0% -61.0% -29.7% -17.4% -16.7% -14.5% -25.7% -15.0% 0.0%
2 NA -100.0% -44.7% -29.4% -26.2% -24.7% -23.4% -10.2% -30.4% -24.2% -6.5%
5 -88.9% -53.8% -39.4% -26.1% -19.1% -18.9% -13.2% -8.4% -17.2% -18.8% 1.0%
10 -59.8% -51.2% -30.0% -22.1% -15.1% -15.3% -14.0% -19.6% -16.8% -12.7% -3.5%
20 -57.0% -50.5% -29.3% -23.5% -18.2% -17.8% -18.0% -23.0% -20.5% -16.5% -7.6%
50 -59.1% -43.8% -32.9% -22.7% -16.9% -20.3% -15.9% -26.3% -14.6% -25.4% -7.8%
100 -60.3% -40.3% -32.1% -15.5% -11.1% -15.0% -9.1% -26.9% -8.9% -19.0% -3.1%

10) Repeat steps 8 and 9 to optimise the orifice settings and storage size.

Failure Impact Assessment 2100) drainage flood level. In addition the floor
level must be above flood levels from the
As detention basins are effectively dams. The following sensitivity analyses:
Statutory requirements of the Water Supply
(Safety and Reliability Act) 2008 apply. Where • A Severe Storm that is the defined flood
it is considered that the failure of a detention event with 100% structure blockages.
basin may have a population at risk of 2 or • A Severe Storm that is the 1 in 2000 AEP
more persons, a failure impact assessment of event.
the detention basin is required to determine
the downstream impact of a failure of the • The defined flood event with roughness
asset that releases the full volume over a values reflective of unmaintained
period of 30 minutes. The requirement for the channels/site areas.
failure impact assessment is purely based on
population at risk and not height or volume of
4.4 Waterway Stability
the detention basin. The waterway stability objective is defined in
the Planning Scheme Policy for Development
Where a failure impact assessment confirms a
Works as limiting the post-development peak
PAR of 2 or more persons the design will not
63% AEP event discharge within the receiving
be accepted by Council. The applicant will be
waterway to the pre-development peak 63%
able to resubmit once they have consulted
AEP discharge, and is only applicable when
with the regulator of the Water Supply (Safety
runoff from the site passes through or drains
and Reliability Act) 2008 and the construction
to natural channels, non-tidal waterways or
standard for failure immunity has been
wetlands
determined.
As it is the flow within the receiving waterway
Advice from the regulator indicates that the
that is the critical consideration, this objective
minimum design standard required for failure
should not be applied when the development
immunity is a 1 in 2000 AEP, but the specifics
site is only a small portion (<5%) of the
of a given situation may require a higher
catchment and there is limited potential for
standard.
further development within the catchment.
For basins with a population at risk of less
Compliance with the objective is
than 2 the design failure immunity shall be
demonstrated through hydrologic calculations,
based upon the severe storm.
with the level of complexity appropriate to the
4.3.3 Freeboard Requirements catchment context and scale of development.
The following compliance methodology has
The floor levels of buildings or lots adjacent to been adapted from the Gold Coast City
detention storages should be set at least Council Planning Scheme (2016) and Healthy
300mm above the calculated 1 in 100 AEP (at Waterways (2006).

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 33

The compliance method is selected based on represent simplified approaches. An analysis
the available options listed in Table 7. The using an EPI threshold of <10% change may
application of each compliance method is be used in lieu the methods described below,
documented in Table 8. however significantly greater data and
These methods are derived from case studies computation would be required.
using Erosion Potential Index (EPI) and

Table 7 Selection of Waterway Stability Compliance Methods

Development Scenario Method

A B1 B2

Small development (≤1.25Ha)   

Larger development (>1.25Ha)   

Development with a natural waterway within the site.   

Table 8 Waterway Stability Compliance Methods

Method A – A simple method which can be used when runoff-routing modelling is not
required for the development for any other purpose
Deemed to Comply
Calculation of 1) Calculate the desired peak outflow (Qo) for the 1 year ARI (63%AEP)
detention storage to storm event at the boundary of the site using the Sunshine Coast
manage peak 1yr ARI Rational Method calculated as per A Review of Simple Peak Flow
flow at boundary of Estimation Methods for use on the Sunshine Coast following the
site release of ARR 2016 (SCC, 2018a). For this calculation the
predevelopment form of the equation is to be use a sheet flow method
with a surface type of Densely Grassed (unless otherwise agreed).
This ensures the storage is sized to restore 1 year flows to rural or
forested conditions.
2) Determine required detention storage volume from the following
equation (derived from Healthy Waterways, 2006)
Storage Volume (m3/ha) = 152 + 0.83 x fi
Where fi = fraction impervious (%)
3) Size detention storage outlet to restrict discharge from the detention
basin to the desired peak outflow (Qo) using the small orifice equation.
Otherwise other standard calculations for outlet may be used.
Qo = C.A (2.g.h)0.5
C = 0.6 (orifice discharge coefficient)
A = orifice area (m2)
g = 9.81m2/s (gravity)
h = hydraulic head above centroid of orifice (m), or the downstream tail
water level, whichever is greater.

Note: For the small orifice equation to be accurate the ratio of h (m) to orifice
diameter (m) should be greater than 2 otherwise hydraulic equations relevant to
flow through a large orifice should be used.

34 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Method B1 – This method involves hydrologic modelling calibrated to peak flows determined
Hydrologic modelling in accordance with A Review of Simple Peak Flow Estimation Methods for use
to manage peak on the Sunshine Coast following the release of ARR 2016 (SCC, 2018a) and
1year ARI flow at QUDM (IPWEA, 2016) to ensure the peak 1 year pre development ARI
boundary of site (63%AEP) storm event flow does not increase at the boundary of the site. The
modelling must:
1) Use SCC (2018a) with a surface type of ‘densely grassed’ for pre-
development (unless otherwise agreed) to determine the 1year ARI
(63%AEP) peak flows that represents rural or forested conditions.
2) Develop a predevelopment hydrological model that uses channel
routing and not a channel time lag methodology. The hydrological
model must undertake a critical duration methodology that uses a
number of durations from 0.25hrs to 3hrs. The hydrologic model should
adopt ensemble temporal pattern methodology (refer Section 4.6.3)
and the critical duration of ensemble averages or the ensemble rank 6
event should be identified.
3) Losses should be applied to the design rainfall such the critical
duration peak flow matches the 1 year ARI (63% AEP) pre
development peak flow from Step 1.
4) Modify the hydrological model to represent the developed condition
with a detention basin and an outlet designed to match the 1 year ARI
(63% AEP) peak flow from Step 1 when the basin full, ie at spillway
level.
5) Repeat the critical duration analysis with the model representing the
developed condition (all durations, do not only adopt the pre-
development critical duration), iterating an increasing size of the
detention basin until such time that the discharge does not exceed the
predevelopment inflow for any duration (duration limited to twice the
duration of predevelopment inflows).
Method B2 – This method applies in situations where the development contains an existing
Hydrologic modelling waterway within the development. The same methodology applies as Method
to manage 1 year ARI B1, except that the focal location is the receiving water way within the
flows within the Development Site.
receiving waterway
In some cases it is not practically possible to achieve an outcome where the
predevelopment 1 year ARI (63%AEP) peak flow is preserved within the
waterway. In these cases an assessment of the changes in flow velocity and
bed shear stress needs to be undertaken to determine the required
management strategy for any erosion potential.
The analysis then reverts to Method B1 where the focal location is the
boundary of the development site.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 35

4.5 Frequent Flow Hydrology The Bureau of Meteorology currently provides
two estimates of IFD data: the older ARR1987
Preventing changes in frequent flows may be and new ARR2019 estimates.
critically important for high value waterways
with little existing catchment imperviousness. The Bureau of Meteorology cautions against
This is best achieved by not developing in the use of ARR2019 IFD data with the rational
such catchments and will be a key method. However, SCC (2018a) has
consideration for Council when designating concluded that they are suitable for use with
land for urban purposes. the rational method on the Sunshine Coast.
For this reason, only ARR2019 IFD data
Frequent flow objectives will not be routinely should be used in both drainage design and
or broadly applied to development flood estimation.
applications due to the difficulty of achieving
the objectives and the limited benefits derived In order to account for the effects of climate
for catchments which already have significant change, adopted current climate rainfall
imperviousness. intensities should be increased by 20%.
However, proposals which seek to increase 4.6.2 Rational Method
imperviousness in the catchment of high value
waterways with low existing imperviousness, Council supports the continued use of the
will be subject to considerable scrutiny. Such Rational Method in appropriate situations such
proposals will be required to derive site- as urban drainage design. SCC have
specific objectives which relate to the developed a specific methodology for the
individual characteristics of the receiving Sunshine Coast (the Sunshine Coast Rational
environment. Method) which addresses many of the
concerns raised in ARR2019.
For example, proposals which discharge to a
high value wetland which is sensitive to The Sunshine Coast Rational Method is
changes in runoff volume would need to documented in A Review of Simple Peak Flow
demonstrate no change in mean annual runoff Estimation Methods for use on the Sunshine
volume. Other parameters such as number of Coast following the release of ARR 2016
surface flow days and baseflow proportion (SCC, 2018a) and is to be used in place of the
and rate may also be critical depending on the QUDM rational method.
receiving environment. It is desirable that Sunshine Coast Rational
Method is used to calibrate flood models. It is
recommended that calibration be based on
4.6 Drainage Design Requirements natural catchment conditions as the Sunshine
Coast Rational Method has the highest
The design of urban drainage systems is to be confidence in deriving estimates for this
undertaken in accordance with QUDM condition based on the data used to develop
(IPWEA, 2016) as modified by the Planning the method.
Scheme Policy for Development Works.
Issues covered by the planning scheme policy 4.6.3 Rainfall Temporal Patterns
requiring further explanation are discussed
below. Sunshine Coast Council has undertaken a
review of the ARR2019 ensemble temporal
4.6.1 Rainfall Intensity patterns. This is documented in Application of
Design Temporal Patterns on the Sunshine
Design rainfall intensities are to be obtained at Coast (SCC, 2018b).
the specific location being analysed and are to
be in accordance with BoM and ARR In simple terms this document recommends
recommendations. Intensity-frequency- ARR ensemble patterns for investigations that
duration (IFD) data can be generated for only require hydrological modelling, but
specific locations at the following address: investigations that require hydraulic modelling
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/i single representative temporal patterns are
fd/ considered appropriate.
Two single representative temporal patterns
are considered acceptable for drainage design

36 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

involving hydraulic analysis. The Median Tailwater levels for the design of stormwater
Intensity Storm (MIS) which is a temporal quality treatment devices such as bioretention
pattern derived from the median intensity of basins and constructed wetlands are to be in
the 10 ARR2019 ensemble temporal patterns, accordance with Table 7 of the Bioretention
and the Median Intensity Duration Technical Design Guidelines (Water by
Independent Storm (MIDIS). Both patterns Design, 2014). These levels are intended to
should provide similar peak flows/levels. ensure the treatment devices are free-draining
Details on the derivation of MIS and MIDIS during normal operational conditions.
temporal patterns are provided in SCC
4.6.5 Lot Table Information
(2018b).
Council requires that a table is provided in
When assessing duration of inundation to
conjunction with each survey plan submitted
ensure that a minor road does not have more
for endorsement, which lists the design flood
than 6hrs of inundation, the practitioner should
levels and minimum lot fill levels based on
either;
both waterway flooding and also the major
a) If using the MIS temporal pattern. event associated with the urban drainage
Determine the duration of inundation network. Appendix 3: Reporting Template for
from the 1 in 100 AEP event for the Flood Hazard Assessments has further details
critical duration event and the event on the requirements of this table.
that has a duration 50% longer than
A version of this table is also to be provided
the critical duration.
with each Operational Works application
b) If using the MIDIS temporal pattern, involving drainage works, in order to verify
the hydrograph at the location of that the lot levels have been set at a sufficient
interest should be filtered to remove elevation to ensure the final building floor
excess volume in the base of the levels will achieve the required freeboard.
hydrograph prior to assessing duration
The lot table information needs to account for
of inundation. A filtering method is
any additional freeboard required as a result
provided in Application of Design
of the Severe Storm Assessment (refer
Temporal Patterns on the Sunshine
Section 4.6.7).
Coast (SCC, 2018b).
The information provided in the table is used
In situations where the drainage model adopts
by Council to respond to flood search
boundary conditions extracted from Council’s
requests. Flood information searches are
regional flood model, it will be necessary to
used by Building Certifiers and provide the
adopt the same temporal pattern as that which
information required to satisfy the Queensland
has been applied in the regional model.
Development Code Mandatory Part 3.5,
For analyses that only require hydrological namely minimum floor levels for dwellings.
modelling, ensemble temporal patterns should Drainage levels are also relevant to ensure
be adopted in accordance with the method compliant driveway outcomes on blocks that
prescribed in ARR. slope downward from the road. It is therefore
It should be noted when using ARR ensemble critical that the RPEQ certifying the table is
or the MIS temporal patterns the critical satisfied that the information has been derived
duration may be different for pre-development using suitable modelling techniques and is fit
and post-development scenarios, and should for purpose.
be calculated separately for each situation.
4.6.6 Modelling Methodology
4.6.4 Tailwater Levels Two-dimensional (2D) modelling capabilities
Tailwater levels for HGL calculations for in conjunction with unsteady flow hydrology
design of the Minor/Major drainage system are incorporated into some modern software
are to be based on the requirements of QUDM packages and should be considered as the
(IPWEA, 2016) except as tidal boundary default approach to modelling the surface
conditions are to be increased by 0.8m to flows component of the major event. This
account for future sea level rise due to climate approach is particularly important in the
change. following circumstances:

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 37

• Flat terrain layout. Such instances include developments
which place an over-reliance on the
• Complex flowpaths
underground drainage network.
• Significant storage effects
Where a 2D approach is coupled with a One-
dimensional (1D) approach for the channel 4.6.8 Constructed Channels
and pipe flow, care should be taken to ensure Traditional hard-lined constructed channels
that the interface between the 2D domain and have been shown to lead to a range of issues
the 1D elements accurately represents the such as exacerbation of downstream flooding,
capture of flow. increased erosion of downstream soft-lined or
Areas of the 2D grid available for conveyance natural waterways and water quality impacts
and storage should exclude private lots as the such as increased temperatures. Such
conveyance and storage of these areas may channels also fail to deliver ecological benefits
be compromised in the future by lawful works for aquatic or terrestrial fauna and have little
such as solid fencing and landscaping. aesthetic appeal. For these reasons,
vegetated channels are the outcome sought
Simpler modelling approaches may be
by the planning scheme for new development.
appropriate and may be accepted by Council
in specific situations. Prior approval from However, constructed vegetated channels on
Council is to be sought when differing from the the Sunshine Coast have often suffered a
above approach and is to be justified based range of issues as follows:
on the specific flow characteristics and • Odours and algal growth in formalised
topography of the situation being modelled pools or poorly drained sections;
4.6.7 Severe Storm Assessment • Excessive weed growth over rock;
A severe storm impact assessment is to be • Inappropriate vegetation (such as turf on
undertaken and is to seek to ensure that the flat grades) leading to impractical
design does not introduce any new hazardous maintenance requirements;
conditions for:
• Inadequate or absent maintenance
• the 1 in 100 AEP future climate design access; and
event with 100% blockages applied to
• Erosion and failure of the channel due to
structures, and
inadequate armouring for the flow
• the 1 in 2000 AEP design event with conditions
design blockages. Extensive guidance on the design of open
Hazardous conditions to be avoided for the channels is provided in both the Natural
above events include the following: Channel Design Guidelines (BCC, 1999) and
QUDM (IPWEA, 2016), however the issues
• Flood levels remain below finished
identified above have arisen due to either
floor levels
inappropriate or inconsistent application of the
• Flood levels are no more than 200mm principles adopted in these guidelines and due
above lot building pad levels to gaps in these guidelines.
• No unintended overland flowpaths The Planning Scheme Policy for Development
• No flood hazard category greater than Works therefore provides specific advice on
H3 within roadways (refer Table 9) the types of channels considered appropriate
for the Sunshine Coast and the specific
The severe storm assessment will usually be features which must be incorporated in
submitted with the Operational Works design.
Application for drainage works, however a
preliminary version may be requested by Essentially open channels should be provided
Council as part of a reconfiguration of a lot or as densely vegetated channels which avoid
material change of use application where it is use of concrete or bare rock and should
determined that the outcome of the severe include frequent tree planting in order to
storm assessment may significantly alter achieve a canopy to shade weeds and reduce

38 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

water temperatures. Examples of poor open • Gahnia sp.
channels and better open channels on the
• Lomandra hystix (batter)
Sunshine Coast are provided in Figures 11
and 12 respectively. • Melaleuca sp. (Tree – within channel)
Specific advice on landscape species • Casurina sp. (Tree – batter)
considered suitable for use in constructed
channels include:
• Schoenoplectus mucronatus
• Elocharis dulcis
• Schoenoplectus litoralis
• Shoenoplectus validis
• Bulboshoenus fluviatalis
• Ficinia nodosa
• Baumea rubiginiosa

Figure 12 Poor Open Channel –Ponding, odour, weed incursion, unable to be maintained (source: Switchback
Consulting)

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 39

Figure 13 Better Open Channel –Free draining, densely planted, coir mat stabilisation during establishment, shading
(source: Switchback Consulting)

40 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

5 Flooding • The defined flood event with roughness
values reflective of unmaintained
5.1 Guiding Documents channels/site areas.

The primary technical resources for the 5.2.2 Safe Refuge from Flooding
hydrologic and hydraulic aspects of flood
A safe refuge from flooding is to have a floor
investigations and flood hazard assessments
level immunity from the Probable Maximum
are noted below and are to be followed unless
Flood or the Probable Maximum Precipitation
superseding requirements are noted in this
Design Flood. It must also be designed to
guideline or the Planning Scheme:
withstand the hydrostatic forces of the flood
• Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to adopted for the specification of floor level
Flood Estimation (Commonwealth of immunity.
Australia, 2019)
In addition, a building that is to be designed
• Application of Design Temporal Patterns for the purposes of a safe refuge in a flood
on the Sunshine Coast (SCC, 2018b). event, where the duration of refuge is 18
Where the assessment involves an urban hours or greater is to satisfy Council’s
drainage system the above resource may be requirements for a tier 1 evacuation centre.
supplemented by the following: Preferred Sheltering Practises for Emergency
Sheltering in Australia (Red Cross, 2015)
• Queensland Urban Drainage Manual V4 provides details of the standards for such a
(IPWEAQ, 2019) facility.

5.2 Flood Immunity 5.3 Floodplain Storage

Minimum flood immunity level for different The protection of floodplain storage is an
categories of development are specified in the important principle of floodplain management.
Flood Hazard Overlay Code. This is achieved This is because a single development in
by specifying a Defined Flood Event (DFE) isolation may not cause off-site impacts, but
and freeboard for each development category. cumulatively a number of developments in
Flood immunity requirements are also combination which result in reductions in
specified for different classes of roads. In floodplain storage may have an unacceptable
addition to flood immunity, changes in time of impact.
inundation may be a relevant consideration The Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014
when assessing impacts to roads. Section includes PO1 and PO2 of the Flood Hazard
5.6.2 provides specific guidance on temporal Overlay Code which provide strict protections
pattern requirements when assessing duration of the landform within the floodplain except in
of inundation. certain specific situation.
5.2.1 Freeboard Requirements Development within the floodplain which meet
the above exception requirements must
The floor levels of buildings or lots adjacent to demonstrate that flood storage is preserved
detention storages and flood flowpaths should within the development site. This will usually
be set at least 500mm above the calculated 1 be achieved by undertaking compensatory cut
in 100 AEP (at 2100) flood level. In addition, earthworks to offset the effect of filling to
the floor level must be above flood levels from achieve flood immunity.
the following sensitivity analyses reflective of
severe storm or severe blockage conditions: The exception to the above is redevelopment
or infill development within the urban footprint
• The 1 in 500 AEP event (regional of existing coastal communities where it will
flooding) or the 1 in 2000 AEP event (local be necessary to allow these communities to fill
flooding). in response to climate change. This is likely to
• The defined flood event with 100% be important to a future Council Coastal
structure blockages. Hazard Adaptation Strategy. In these areas it
is accepted that flood storage will not be
preserved, however strategies to minimise

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 41

loss of floodplain storage should still be with avoidance of the flood hazard always
pursued to the extent practicable. given priority over mitigation of the flood
In all situations the actual flood impacts of a hazard.
development must be mitigated to acceptable ‘Tolerable’ risk is a concept which can only be
or tolerable levels regardless of whether or not meaningfully applied to existing communities
loss of floodplain storage is permitted. so design of new development must focus on
In order to demonstrate that floodplain storage achievement of acceptable risk.
has been preserved, the following is required: An ‘acceptable’ risk goes beyond that which is
merely tolerable and is the risk which is
• Areas of cut intended as compensatory
appropriate when designing new
storage must be free draining (i.e. must be
development.
available to store flood waters at the start
of an event). For example, the water The following methodology is provided to
volume in a dam is not effective flood demonstrate compliance with Assessment
storage; and Benchmark (3) of the Natural Hazards, risks
and resilience State Interest of the SPP2017
• Cut and fill volumes are to be calculated
and is based upon the qualitative risk matrix
at regular depth increments for each of
approach of Managing the Floodplain: A
the nominated AEPs up to the DFE. It
Guide to Best Practise in Flood Risk
must be shown that the equivalent or
Management (AIDR, 2017b):
greater storage is available at each depth
increment up to the design flood level for 1. Calculate the hydraulic hazard based on
each AEP when compared to the existing the categories in Table 9 which are
case. derived from Guideline 7-3 Flood Hazard
(AIDR, 2017c), future climate flood events
• Compensatory earthworks are to achieve for the 10%AEP, 1 in 100 AEP, 1 in 2000
a balance of the active storage above AEP and the PMF.
1.5mAHD. Elevations below this level are
assumed to be dead storage lost to future 2. The Hydraulic Risk should then be
permanent inundation (as defined by a determined as acceptable or
mean high water springs tide level of unacceptable from Table 10, the
0.7mAHD with 0.8m sea level rise). Hydraulic Risk Matrix. The overall
hydraulic risk is the worst risk rating for
In flat floodplain areas with low existing any of the flood likelihoods investigated
immunity these requirements may be difficult
to achieve. In such circumstances the Acceptable Hydraulic Risk is therefore the
appropriateness of developing in this location avoidance of Unacceptable Hydraulic Risk.
should be considered and the proposal may Interpreting the Hydraulic Risk Matrix for new
need to be significantly reduced in scale. development, this means:
• locating development such that H5 and
5.4 Acceptable and Tolerable Flood H6 flood hazards are avoided for all flood
Risk likelihoods
The State Planning Policy (DILGP, 2017) • ensuring that a 1 in 100 AEP flood
requires that the risks from natural hazards immunity is achieved as a minimum for all
are either avoided or mitigated to acceptable development, and
or tolerable levels (Assessment Benchmark
(3) of the Natural Hazards, risks and resilience • ensuring that depths of inundation greater
State Interest). than 0.5m are avoided for the 1 in 2000
flood likelihood.
When the flood hazard can be avoided such
as in the case of a rural property which is For developments which fall into the
partially inundated during a flood any building unacceptable risk category and involves
must be located on the flood free portion of permanent residency or is subject to flash
the site rather than filling the area subject to flooding from a riverine or creek source (i.e.
flooding to mitigate the flood hazard. This inundation of the site within 6 hours of the
principle must be applied to all development commencement of an event), additional
mitigation measures are required to be

42 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

implemented until an acceptable level of risk For all other development, an alternative
is achieved. solution may be proposed which
Such measures may have implications for off- demonstrates an acceptable risk level. This
site flood impacts and therefore determination may be achieved by providing a Flood
of risk and impacts will be an iterative process Emergency Management Plan, prepared in
until both issues are satisfactorily addressed. accordance with the template in Appendix 7
that achieves an evacuated site prior to the
realisation of the threat.

Table 9 Flood Hazard Classifications

Flood Depth-
Hazard Velocity Depth Velocity
Category Description Limit Limit Limit
H1 Generally safe for vehicles, people and buildings ≤ 0.3 m2/s ≤ 0.3 m ≤ 2.0 m/s
H2 Unsafe for small vehicles. ≤ 0.6 m /s2
≤ 0.5 m ≤ 2.0 m/s
H3 Unsafe for vehicles, children and the elderly ≤ 0.6 m2/s ≤ 1.2 m ≤ 2.0 m/s
H4 Unsafe for vehicles and people. ≤ 1.0 m /s2
≤ 2.0 m ≤ 2.0 m/s
Unsafe for vehicles and people. All building types
H5 vulnerable to structural damage ≤ 4.0 m2/s ≤ 4.0 m ≤ 4.0 m/s
Unsafe for vehicles and people. All building types
H6 considered vulnerable to failure > 4.0 m2/s > 4.0 m > 4.0 m/s

Table 10 Hydraulic Risk Matrix for New Development

Flood Hazard Category
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
PMF
Likelihood

1 in 2000 AEP
1 in 100 AEP
10% AEP

Acceptable Risk
Unacceptable Risk

In addition to the above quantitative risk residual flood risk) through either refuge
assessment approach, the Flood Hazard or evacuation strategies.
Overlay Code provides a number of These requirements can often be achieved
prescriptive outcomes to manage risk by: through filling and/or built-form design, with
• Specifying minimum lot, floor and the Council publication titled Guidelines for
infrastructure levels for different Improving Flood Resilience for New
development categories based on a Development (SCC, 2016) providing
nominated DFE; and examples of how flood risk can be addressed
for common categories of development.
• Requiring that safety is addressed for
events which exceed the DFE (the

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 43

It is however acknowledged that not all the case of peak WSL this is +/-10mm;
development fits neatly into the above or
methodology and developments which do not 2. The change is entirely confined within
incorporate either a residential component or
an area which has no potential to
any permanent buildings may wish to propose
alternative measures. Such proposals should worsen the use or enjoyment of the
address the code performance outcomes land. An example would be an impact
based on the specific characteristics of the which causes peak levels in a
flood risk. downstream drainage channel to
increase, however the flow is still
entirely contained in the channel and
5.5 Acceptable and Tolerable Flood freeboard is maintained
Impacts
Hydrology Tolerances
Development may cause off-site impacts to
In situations where the use (current or future)
flooding characteristics due to either changes
on properties external to the proposed
in flood storage or changes in flood
development is sensitive to changes in flow
conveyance within the development site.
characteristics, pre and post development
Regardless of whether reductions in flood
hydrographs are to be considered, both in
storage are permitted, the actual flood impacts
visually as a hydrograph comparison and
due to both changes in storage and changes
statistically.
in conveyance must be assessed and
mitigated to acceptable levels. Acceptable impact tolerances for changes in
hydrology are:
Traditionally impact assessments have
1. Absolute and % change in timing,
focused solely on changes in peak water
surface levels (WSL); however consideration (Threshold for acceptance: no
of all flooding characteristics which have reduction in timing of when the
potential to cause an actionable nuisance to hydrograph rising limb exceeds a
external land is required. As per Section 4.2.4, consequential flood level is acceptable.
the characteristics to be assessed include: In simple terms this could be
• Changes to peak water surface levels presented as timing of the peak OR it
• Changes to times and durations of could be presented as timing to when
inundation the threshold for inundation occurs, i.e.
of a private land or roads). Note: it is
• Changes in extent or location of
inundation assumed that any increase in timing of
the peak is either beneficial or is a
• Changes to velocities which could cause
factor in coincident flooding that will be
scour or erosion
an issue for peaks.
• Changes to water quality 2. Absolute and % change of duration of
Council considers that the following default inundation (DoI) above an exceedance
tolerances are an appropriate demonstration threshold (private land flooding, road
of no actionable nuisance (or non-worsening) inundation), (Threshold for
and therefore constitute Acceptable Impact.
acceptance: < 10min OR 10%,
These tolerances are largely defined by the
numerical accuracy of the tools used to whichever is less)
assess impact: 3. Absolute and % change of lot
Afflux Tolerances coverage by the flood extent,
(Threshold for acceptance: 1% for land
1. The change predicted is of a
that is sensitive to loss of enjoyment)
magnitude which is within the limits of
4. Absolute and % change in velocity (for
accuracy of the modelling software. In
velocities that have the potential for

44 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 scour), (Threshold for acceptance: 5.6.2 Rainfall Temporal Patterns
0.1m/s) Sunshine Coast Council has undertaken a
review of the ARR2019 ensemble temporal
Impacts which do not meet the above criteria patterns. This is documented in Application of
must be further mitigated. This mitigation Design Temporal Patterns on the Sunshine
could be in the form of additional engineered Coast (SCC, 2018b).
solutions until the default tolerances for In simple terms this document recommends
acceptable impact are achieved. Another ARR ensemble patterns for investigations that
approach, limited to public infrastructure only require hydrological modelling, but for
projects that do not have a development investigations that require hydraulic modelling
footprint that can accommodate impacts single representative temporal patterns are
onsite, is to negotiate alternative tolerance considered appropriate.
criteria that are acceptable to the affected
landowner. Two single representative temporal patterns
are considered acceptable for hydraulic
5.6 Flood Hazard Assessments estimation of peak level and hazard as part of
a flood hazard assessment. The Median
The design flood levels and impacts Intensity Storm (MIS) which is a temporal
associated with a development proposal are pattern derived from the median intensity of
to be determined and assessed by preparing the 10 ARR2019 ensemble temporal patterns,
a Flood Hazard Assessment Report which and the Median Intensity Duration
is conducted in accordance with this guideline Independent Storm (MIDIS). Both patterns
and follows the reporting template provided in should provide similar peak flows/levels.
Appendix 3. The hydrologic and hydraulic
procedures used in the assessment are to be Details on the derivation of MIS and MIDIS
in accordance with the noted Guiding temporal patterns are provided in SCC
Documents, except as varied below. (2018b).
When assessing changes in duration of
5.6.1 Rainfall Intensity inundation, the practitioner should either;
Events up to the 1 in 2000 AEP c) If using the MIS temporal pattern.
Design rainfall intensities are to be obtained at Determine the duration of inundation
the specific location being analysed and are to from the 1 in 100 AEP event for the
be in accordance with BoM and ARR critical duration event and the event
recommendations. Currently IFD data can be that has a duration 50% longer than
generated for specific locations at the the critical duration.
following address: d) If using the MIDIS temporal pattern,
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/i the hydrograph at the location of
fd/ interest should be filtered to remove
In order to account for the effects of climate excess volume in the base of the
change, adopted current climate rainfall hydrograph prior to assessing duration
intensities should be increased by 20%. of inundation. A filtering method is
provided in Application of Design
For larger catchment, spatial variability in the Temporal Patterns on the Sunshine
design rainfall across the catchment should be Coast (SCC, 2018b).
considered.
For impact assessment of changes in peak
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) level, it is necessary to adopt a single
The Bureau of Meteorology provides two temporal pattern. Depending on the size of the
methods of PMP estimation relevant to the study area, and the importance of considering
SEQ region. Generalised Short Duration multiple focal locations, the critical location
Method (GSDM) and the revised Generalised may vary, making it impractical to adopt
Tropical Storm Method for longer durations. critical duration approach for impact
Both methods require determination for use assessment. In such circumstances a MIDIS
with duration independent temporal pattern (duration independent) temporal pattern is
methods (refer to Section 5.6.2). appropriate.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 45

In situations where the impact of changes in Coast (Smythe, 2018a) and calibrate
flow characteristics is required to be design losses for a version of the flood
assessed, it is desirable to consider temporal model that also represents the natural
patterns derived from ARR ensemble events catchment condition. This method is
in addition to the MIDIS or MIS. A limited not suitable for all locations. The
selection temporal patterns taken from the 10 restrictions on this method are outlined
ensemble patterns is recommended. The in the aforementioned document.
selection should include short, moderate and c) Apply ARR Data Hub loss values
longer duration events, with the longest (noting Burst Loss = Storm Loss –
duration preferably being double peak. The Preburst)
three ensemble temporal patterns should be
selected from a hydrological analysis that Where DIS temporal patterns have been used
provides the closest match to the MIDIS/MIS a proportional loss approach should be always
estimated peak flow (at AEP of interest). The adopted. Loss values should be reduced log-
focal location for this analysis should be at the linearly between the adopted value at the 1 in
downstream boundary of the development site 100 AEP to 0 at the AEP of the probable
maximum precipitation (PMP).
In situations where the flood model adopts
boundary conditions extracted from Council’s 5.6.4 Direct Rainfall Modelling
regional flood model, it will be necessary to
adopt the same temporal pattern as that which Direct rainfall onto 2D hydraulic model
has been applied in the regional model. domains may be used as an alternative to
hydrologic modelling, if validation of the
For analyses that only require hydrological approach is provided by means of calibration
modelling, ensemble temporal patterns should to a range of historical events over a number
be adopted in accordance with the method of locations upstream and downstream of the
prescribed in ARR. subject location. If no calibration data exists,
When using ARR ensemble or the MIS comparison must be undertaken against an
temporal patterns for impact assessment of industry standard hydrologic model of the
peak levels, the critical duration may be same or similar catchment. The validation
different for pre-development and post- must demonstrate adequate performance at a
development scenarios, and should be range of locations throughout the catchment in
calculated separately for each situation. terms of peak flows, travel times and
hydrograph shape.
5.6.3 Design Loss Rates Results of direct rainfall 2D hydraulic
Where gauged site flood frequency analysis is modelling must be filtered in accordance with
available, it should be used to determine the Fact Sheet for Rainfall on Grid Output
design loss parameters by calibrating the Filtering (SCC, 2018c)
design continuing or proportional loss such
that the modelled flows reasonably agree with 5.6.5 Boundary Conditions
the flood frequency information. This may be Design boundary conditions should be sought
limited by the length of record or concern for from Council in the first instance to ensure
the accuracy of the rating curve at the gauged integration with the wider regional model,
location. where appropriate.
In circumstances where gauged data does not Where Council is unable to provide boundary
exist; the following approaches can be conditions, it is the responsibility of the
adopted (in order of preference): applicant to determine appropriate boundary
a) Contact Council Customer Service conditions for the hydraulic model. These will
Centre to ascertain whether design depend upon the configuration and extent of
loss values are available from a the model. Typically, the downstream
relevant regional model. boundary condition is based on:
b) Estimate a natural catchment flood • normal flow depth;
frequency curve using Simple Peak
Flood Estimation on the Sunshine

46 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

• an analytically-derived rating curve for a Table 11 Event Combinations for Local and Regional
Flooding
downstream hydraulic structure, such as a
culvert crossing, or Ratio of Local to Event Combinations to
• a tailwater level from the receiving water, Regional Catchment Define 1 in 100 AEP
such as a tide level or design flood level in Area (AL/AR) Flood Level
a downstream waterway.
< 0.001 39% AEP (Q2) + 1 in 100
In calculating normal flow depth, an
appropriate bed slope should be determined AEP
from a longitudinal profile over a sufficient
0.001 – 0.01 18% AEP (Q5) + 1 in 100
channel length to be representative of the
reach of interest. The calculated bed slope AEP
should be checked against values obtained
from topographic maps to ensure that the 0.01 – 0.1 5% AEP + 1 in 100 AEP
results are consistent.
0.1 – 0.2 2% AEP + 1 in 100 AEP
It may be necessary to consider coincident
flooding. This occurs when the location of > 0.2 1 in 100 AEP + 1 in 100
interest is potentially affected by local and AEP
regional waterways with significantly different
hydrologic response times (such as a small
creek discharging into a major river) one
The 1 in 100 AEP flood level is the highest
rainfall pattern will produce floods of different
level resulting from:
recurrence interval in each system.
• the smaller magnitude flood in the local
These differences are automatically taken into
system combined with the larger
account by simulating the hydrologic response
magnitude flood in the regional system;
of the entire catchment and estimating flood
and
levels using an unsteady hydraulic model.
In the absence of more detailed information, • the larger magnitude flood in the local
suitable event combinations, based on the system combined with the smaller
ratio of the local to regional catchment area, magnitude flood in the regional system.
may be obtained from Table 11. 3 Peak levels and hydraulic impacts of
development should be considered for both
cases. Hydraulic impact analysis should also
consider the situation where there is no
coincident regional flooding.

5.6.6 Hydraulic roughness

It must be assumed that waterways will not
achieve optimal maintenance. Similarly, it is
reasonable to assume that flooding can occur
towards the end of a maintenance cycle, or in
periods of the years when regrowth is
particularly aggressive. For these reasons, the
design flood level for estimation of floor levels
should be set using a conservative (high)
Manning’s n value, typically 0.12 for all
riparian areas.

3Alternative event combinations may be acceptable with

appropriate justification.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 47

For inundated areas beyond the riparian SCC (2018a) has also concluded that the
buffer widths, lower Manning’s n values of ARR2019 RFFE does not perform well on the
less than 0.12 must be supported by a Sunshine Coast. The Sunshine Coast
landscape plan which confirms plant species, Rational Method approach can also be used
positions and densities and maintenance in lieu of a hydrologic model where steady-
requirements. state flow analysis is deemed appropriate,
For assessment of the impact of a however SCC (2018a) does provide some
development on flood levels and velocities, a limitations on use that must be observed.
representative Manning’s n value should be
5.6.8 Sensitivity Testing
selected based on accepted industry
standards, such as Brisbane City Council’s Sensitivity for design peak WSL
Natural Channel Design Guidelines, or taken
from a Council calibrated flood study with a Conservative assumptions regarding hydraulic
similar land use. A sensitivity analysis should roughness, tailwater boundary and structure
be undertaken across the range of likely blockages are generally adopted for
Manning’s n values to assess the effect of determining peak WSL and setting
channel roughness on flow velocity and flood development levels, as discussed earlier in
level impacts. this guideline.
Sensitivity testing should be undertaken to
5.6.7 Calibration determine whether the development freeboard
Where suitable data exists, the hydrologic is exceeded based on:
model should be calibrated to match recorded • The peak water surface levels of the
flood events, or discharges from an existing defined flood event with 100% structure
Council flood study. Flows should also be blockages.
entered to the hydraulic model to ensure that
levels also match those determined by a • The flood levels of the 1 in 500 AEP event
Council flood study. (regional flooding) or the 1 in 2000 AEP
event (local flooding).
Where a model is calibrated to recorded data
at another location substantially downstream • Roughness values reflective of
of the area of interest, a check should be unmaintained channels/site areas.
made that the model produces reasonable
Sensitivity for impacts
discharge estimates at the location of interest.
Adoption of conservative assumptions for
Where a Council flood study is not available
hydraulic roughness, tailwater boundary and
for the area of interest Council should be
structure blockages is appropriate for
contacted to determine the availability of
estimation of peak WSL but may mask the
historic flood levels or flow data to enable
extent of flood impacts. For this reason,
calibration to historic events.
impact assessments should be run for a range
If neither a Council study nor historic levels of model assumptions relating to these
are available, then the methods of A Review parameters representing the full range of likely
of Simple Peak Flow Estimation Methods for conditions. The combination of parameters
use on the Sunshine Coast following the yielding the greatest impact should be used
release of ARR 2019 (SCC, 2018a) should be for testing of mitigation measures and impact
applied to determine a peak flow estimate for reporting.
validation of the design flows derived from
modelling. It should also be noted that SCC 5.6.9 Development Staging
(2018a) provides regional peak flow estimates Where a development is delivered in stages or
from two methods; namely a SCC Regional
where significant earthworks are proposed
Flood Frequency Estimate (RFFE) tool (for below the 1 in 100 AEP inundation level, the
catchments >15km2) and an adjusted Rational impact of any intermediate development stage
Method (The Sunshine Coast Rational or earthworks phasing must be assessed. The
Method) in combination with SCC time of same requirements apply as for assessments
concentration (ToC) estimates. undertaken for the ultimate landform.

48 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 Model for Urban Stormwater
6 Glossary Conceptualisation (MUSIC)
Modelling software used to aid in the concept
Acceptable Risk design of stormwater treatment trains and to
Risk deemed appropriate for new development demonstrate compliance with design objectives
through a quantitative risk assessment process
involving the calculation of hydraulic hazard Off-Site Stormwater Solutions
Approach to achieving compliance with the
Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) stormwater design objectives, where-by a
Probability that an event of that magnitude will be monetary payment is made by the developer to
exceeded in a given year Council in lieu of achieving full compliance on-site

Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR) Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)

Publication which has existed for many years and The largest flood that could conceivably occur at a
which documents the procedures for hydrologic particular location. This flood defines the floodplain
and hydraulic analysis of flooding and drainage by the maximum extent of land liable to flooding.
Best Management Practice (BMP) Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)
Range of structural and non-structural measures The largest rainfall that could conceivably occur at
aimed at improving the quality of urban stormwater a particular location.
runoff
Queensland Urban Drainage Manual
Biopod (QUDM)
Bioretention device located within the streetscape
Publication which has existed for many years and
and small in scale with stormwater typically
which documents the design procedures for urban
delivered at surface (i.e. not via a pipe)
drainage systems in Queensland (see also
References)
Defined Flood Event (DFE)
The flood event selected for ensuring lot and/or Reconfiguration of a Lot (REC)
floor level immunity for new development
Type of development application which seeks to
subdivide land into additional parcels and which
Duration Independent Storm (DIS) usually results in donated infrastructure to Council
Rainfall temporal pattern which includes all storm
durations within the one pattern for a given AEP Severe Storm
The Severe Storm considers two design
conditions. a) The 1 in 100 AEP design event at
Gross Pollutant Trap (GPT) 2100 with 100% structure blockages, and b) The 1
Structural stormwater pollution control device in 2000 AEP design event with design blockage
which targets large-particle sized pollutants such assumptions.
as litter and coarse sediment
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Intensity-Frequency-Duration Plot (IFD) Report that documents strategies for managing
Method of documenting the probability of rainfall stormwater quality and quantity issues associated
magnitudes occurring over various durations at a with development and usually submitted in support
given location of a development application

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

Material Change of Use (MCU)
Holistic approach to development planning which
Type of development application which seeks to considers all aspects of the water cycle
change the use of land from one type to another
Water Surface Level (WSL)
Mean Annual Runoff Volume (MARV) The calculated elevation of the flood or drainage
Annual rainfall multiplied by catchment area and a water surface for a specific event AEP or scenario
coefficient of runoff which varies by landuse
(fraction impervious)

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 49

7 References Sunshine Coast Council. (2018a). A Review of
Simple Peak Flow Estimation Methods for use on
Australian Institute of Disaster Resilience. (2017a) the Sunshine Coast following the release of ARR
Evacuation Planning. Australian Disaster 2016
Resilience Handbook Collection. Handbook 4
Sunshine Coast Council. (2018b). Application of
Australian Institute of Disaster Resilience. (2017b) Design Temporal Patterns on the Sunshine Coast.
Managing the Floodplain: A Guide to Best
Practice in Flood Risk Management in Sunshine Coast Council (2018c) Fact Sheet: OSD
Australia. Australian Disaster Resilience Tank Orifice Plate Sizing.
Handbook Collection. Handbook 7.
Sunshine Coast Council (2018d) Fact Sheet:
Australian Institute of Disaster Resilience. (2017c) Rainfall on Grid Output Filtering.
Flood Hazard. Australian Disaster Resilience
Handbook Collection. Guideline 7-3 Sunshine Coast Council. (Online). LIM – Open
Space Landscape Infrastructure Manual
Brisbane City Council. (1999). Natural Channel
Design Guidelines Water by Design. (2006a). Water Sensitive Urban
Design Technical Design Guidelines for South-
Department of Infrastructure Local Government East Queensland
and Planning. (2017). State Planning Policy
Water by Design. (2006b). Water Sensitive Urban
Ball J, Babister M, Nathan R, Weeks W, Design –Developing design objectives for water
Weinmann E, Retallick M, Testoni I, (Editors), sensitive urban development in South East
Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) Queensland
(2019) Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to
Flood Estimation Water by Design. (2009). Concept Design
Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban Design
Gold Coast City Council. (2016). Planning Scheme
Policy 6.9 – Land Development Guidelines Water by Design. (2010a). MUSIC Modelling
Guidelines
Healthy Waterways Ltd. (2014c). Living Waterways
Water by Design. (2010b). Construction and
Department of Energy and Water Supply (DEWS). Establishment Guidelines: Swales, Bioretention
(2013). Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, Third Systems and Wetlands
Edition - Provisional
Water by Design. (2012c). Maintaining Vegetated
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia. Stormwater Assets
(2016a). Queensland Urban Drainage Manual,
Fourth Edition Water by Design. (2012d). Transferring Ownership
of Vegetated
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia.
(2016b). Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, Water by Design. (2014a). Bioretention
Background Notes Technical Design Guideline

Red Cross Australia. (2015) Preferred Sheltering Water by Design. (2014b). Water Sensitive
Practises for Emergency Sheltering in Australia Designs

Stormwater Australia (2018) Stormwater Quality Water by Design. (2017) Wetland Technical
Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol, Field Design Guidelines
Monitoring (v1.3)

Sunshine Coast Council. (2016). Guidelines for

Improving Flood Resilience for New Development

Sunshine Coast Council. (2017a). Stormwater

Management Requirements for Construction Sites
– Changes resulting from the commencement of
the SPP 2017.

50 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Appendix 1 – Reporting Template for Stormwater Management
Plan
Stormwater Management Plans (SWMP) will usually be submitted in support of a planning
application (REC or MCU) and are required to include sufficient level of detail to show that the
proposed development layout is viable and can physically accommodate the proposed stormwater
management measures. The SWMP must also provide sufficient detail that the engineering design
and OPW application can progress.
The required structure and content of a SWMP is summarised in the below reporting template.
Additional sub-headings to those nominated may be used.
This reporting template should be considered in conjunction with this guideline as well as the
Stormwater Management Code and Planning Scheme Policy for Development Works.

Document details and certification

Details of the authorship of the Stormwater Management Plan should be provided. The report must
be certified by an RPEQ with experience in drainage design and stormwater management. An
appropriate way to present this information may be in tabular form.
Example:
Report Title: Stormwater Management Plan for Proposed Maroochy
Woods Development, Maroochy Road, Maroochydore
Affected Properties:
Street Address 15-35 Maroochy Rd, Maroochydore
RP Description Lots 1,2 & 7 on RP 123456
Prepared For: Maroochy Development Company Pty Ltd
Date: 7 Sept 2013
Revision No. 3
Report Status: Draft/Final
Prepared By:
Name Bob Jones
Qualifications BE
Company Water Consultants Pty Ltd
Phone No. 5555 1234
Certified By:
Name John Smith
Qualifications BE, Msci
Company Water Consultants Pty Ltd
Phone No. 5555 1234
Industry Accreditation RPEQ No. 1234
Signature

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 51

Executive summary
The summary provides a brief (1-2 page) overview of the development proposal, the findings and
the associated recommendations and conclusions.

1 Introduction
Include the sites address, real property description, type of application and a description of the
proposed development including a figure. Any previous reports, approvals or strategies and their
relevance should be noted and discussed.

2 Existing Conditions
A description and accompanying figure is to be provided illustrating the existing site topography,
drainage patterns and discharge points from the site, external catchments, and vegetation.
The broader context of the catchment including downstream receiving environments and extent of
current and future development should also be discussed, as should whether lawful point of
discharge currently exists.

3 Design Objectives
A review of the Planning Scheme Design Objectives as well as a review of any State or National
requirements is to be undertaken. A summary of the objectives and the point at which they are to
be achieved is to be provided. Objectives to be discussed include:
• Stormwater quality design objectives
• Waterway stability design objectives
• Stormwater quantity objectives for lawful point of discharge (eg. Peak flow management)
• Whether frequent flow objectives are required and their derivation

4 Stormwater Strategy
Describe the opportunities and constraints and the selected strategies for achieving compliance
with each of the design objectives. This is to include a plan or series of plans which shows that the
spatial and level constraints/requirements associated with each strategy element has been catered
for in the development layout and clearly identifying proposed site catchments and release points.

5. Stormwater Quality
The compliance methodology selected (i.e. on-site (MUSIC modelling or Complying Solutions),
reduced imperviousness) is to be noted and supporting assumptions and calculations
demonstrating compliance provided.
The concept design parameters adopted are to be summarised and additional plans may be
necessary to show how the devices fit spatially within the development layout. This is particularly
relevant for streetscape solutions where a level of detail commensurate with preliminary
engineering/OPW design will be required.

6. Stormwater Quantity
This section includes both flow mitigation required to meet the waterway stability objective and any
mitigation required to achieve no actionable nuisance downstream of the site.

52 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

All hydrologic modelling assumptions are to be clearly noted and justified. Both parts of the QUDM
(DEWS, 2013) 2-point test for Lawful Point of Discharge are to be discussed and requirements for
easements or other external works detailed. Details of proposed storages (stage-volume) and
outlet structures (RLs and sizes) are to be listed.

7. Detailed Design and Staging

Specific issues relating to the detailed design of measures or the timing of delivery of strategy
components (where a development is staged) should be discussed. How construction will be
managed to prevent interim stormwater quantity or quality impacts and the conversion of
construction-phase ESC controls to operational-phase controls should be detailed.

8. Conclusion
Summarise strategy and any key issues for detailed design

References
Include all references used in the report

Appendices
Include supporting calculations or figures include preliminary engineering plans or earthworks
designs

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 53

Appendix 2 – OSD Pit and Orifice Plate General Arrangement

54 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Appendix 3 – Reporting Template for Flood Hazard
Assessment
This reporting template should be considered in conjunction with this guideline as well as the
Flood Hazard Overlay Code and associated planning scheme policy.

Document details and certification

Details of the authorship of the Flood Hazard Assessment Report should be provided. The report
must be certified by an RPEQ with experience in Flood Modelling and Management. An
appropriate way to present this information may be in tabular form.
Note: It is a requirement of the Act that professional engineering services in Queensland are
carried out by a RPEQ, or alternatively by a person who carries out the services under the direct
supervision of a RPEQ who is ultimately responsible.
Example:
Report Title: Flood Hazard Assessment and Mitigation Report for
Proposed Maroochy Woods Development, Maroochy
Road, Maroochydore
Street Address 15-35 Maroochy Rd, Maroochydore
RP Description Lots 1,2 & 7 on RP 123456
Prepared For: Maroochy Development Company Pty Ltd
Date: 7 Sept 2016
Revision No. 3
Report Status: Draft/Final
Prepared By:
Name Bob Jones
Qualifications BE
Company Water Consultants Pty Ltd
Phone No. 5555 1234
Certified By:
Name John Smith
Qualifications BE, Msci
Company Water Consultants Pty Ltd
Phone No. 5555 1234
Industry Accreditation RPEQ No. 1234
Signature

RPEQ Certification
The certifying RPEQ must sign a statement of certification, which is to be included inside the front
cover of the report.
The statement of certification must take the following form, with details for any statements
answered ‘No’ to be provided on a separate sheet at the end of the certification:

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 55

I [Name of RPEQ,] certify that this flood hazard assessment has been undertaken in accordance
with Council requirements and that the following statements are true:

Mechanisms of Flooding Y N
This flood assessment has considered whether the following mechanisms of flooding
are relevant to the site.
• Flooding from a regional catchment
• Flooding from a local area catchment  
• Flooding from a storm tide event
Flood mapping and impact mapping has been included in this report for all relevant
flood mechanisms.

The flood assessment has specifically included boundary conditions that represent
backflow flooding of the local stormwater network from a regional event.  

Methodology

This flood assessment has incorporated hydrology and hydraulic methodology in

accordance with the Sunshine Coast Council Flooding and Stormwater Management  
Guidelines (2020)

Flood Analyses

Flood modelling has been completed for a base case and developed case, for the
63%AEP (Q1), 39% AEP (Q2), 10% AEP, 1 in 100 AEP, 1 in 2000 AEP and the PMF
current climate and 1 in 100 AEP future climate (at 2100) flood events.
Flood mapping has been produced and included in this report for the following
parameters, water surface level, depth, velocity and hazard.
Flood level hydrographs are produced at relevant locations to demonstrate that  
nuisance changes to inundation times are not created and that maximum inundation
times for roads are not exceeded.
This information has been used to demonstrate that this development design
produces acceptable flood impacts in accordance with default tolerances prescribed
in the SCC Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines (2020)

Afflux mapping has been produced for the 63%AEP (Q1), 39% AEP (Q2), 10% AEP
and 1 in 100 AEP current climate flood events and the 1%AEP future climate (2100)
event. This information has been used to demonstrate that this development design  
produces acceptable flood impacts in accordance with default tolerances prescribed
in the SCC Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines (2020)

Where the use (current or future) on properties external to the development is

sensitive to changes in the flow characteristics (timing, duration of inundation,
frequency, location, extent, scour velocity and water quality) from the development
 
site, then the relevant characteristics (for which there is a sensitivity) have been

56 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

assessed. This may be done through the use of continuous simulation modelling
(where a hydrologic model can be used) or through the use of ARR ensemble
temporal patterns in a manner that provides an appropriate consideration of temporal
variability. Consideration has been given to the relevance of events more frequent
than 1EY and analysed as necessary.

Provision of specification to manage flood consequence and protect property

Pad levels for essential network infrastructure within a site (e.g. electricity, water
supply, sewerage and telecommunications) have been specified in this report, in
accordance with the flood immunity requirements of Table 8.2.7.3.3 of the Sunshine  
Coast Planning Scheme Flood Overlay Code.

Where the development design has a need for materials with high water resistance to
improve the flood resilience of infrastructure, details of the specific requirements  
have been provided in this report.

Where the development design incorporates essential community infrastructure, floor

levels for this infrastructure have been specified in this report, in accordance with the
flood immunity requirements of Table 8.2.7.3.3 of the Sunshine Coast Planning
Scheme Flood Hazard Overlay Code. To demonstrate that the essential community
infrastructure will be able to function effectively during and immediately after flood  
events, it has been demonstrated that access to this infrastructure is in accordance
with the requirements for evacuation routes as prescribed in the planning scheme
policy for the Flood Overlay Code.

The development design provides flood immunity to the DFE for the protection of
property. Pad levels and Floor levels have been specified for each lot as part of the
lot table information, with consideration of the freeboard requirements that vary  
depending on the mechanism of flooding.

Where the development design has a need for unenclosed car parks, the level of the
carpark has been specified such that it provides:
• flood immunity for the 10% AEP,
• a flood depth no greater than 250mm in the 1 in 100 AEP to 250mm, and  
• a velocity no greater than 2.0m/s, and
• a depth x velocity ratio no greater than 0.4m2/s;

Where basements form part of the development design, the report has specified the
provision of waterproofed perimeter walls, air vents and has specified the level of
entry/exit ramps on the basis that are at least above the 1%AEP flood level plus  
freeboard (at 2100);

Where the development design incorporates lots requiring driveways with a downhill
slope; For each relevant lot, the need for a raised entry ramp from the roadway (to
satisfy the requirements of QUDM (IPWEA, 2016) for containment of flood flows) has  
been noted in the comments field (Column 14) of the lot table information.

It has been demonstrated, using the methodology prescribed in the Sunshine Coast
Council Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines, that the development  
design provides acceptable flood risk.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 57

 Protection of Life

The development design has provided for residual flood risk beyond the DFE, for the
protection of life.  
For events other than storm tide, the development design does not rely on
evacuation routes to offsite locations that are shown to be flood affected in DFE
mapping. This requirement is for the purpose of managing the residual flood risk  
beyond the DFE for the protection of life.

The development design has provided a direct route to enable progressive

evacuation to safe refuge above the level of the PMF  
The development design does not rely on the assistance of emergency services
personnel, to manage residual risk beyond the DFE for the protection of life (i.e.  
development does not place additional demands on emergency services)

The development design ensures that public safety and the environment are not
adversely affected by the detrimental impacts of floodwater on hazardous materials  
manufactured or stored in bulk during the DFE or DSTE;

Where the development design included a detention basin, the population at risk
downstream has been determined and documented. A failure impact assessment  
has been completed when the population at risk is 2 persons or more.

Floodplain Storage and Waterway Conveyance Protection  

Floodplain storage and waterway conveyance have been considered in accordance
with the requirements of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme  

Queensland Development Code requirements  

Lot table information has been provided to satisfy the requirements of the
Queensland Development Code (MP3.5)  

Signature as evidence of Certification: _______________________________

Name of RPEQ (Printed in Full): _______________________________
RPEQ Licence Number: _______________________________
Date: _______________________________

58 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Executive summary
The summary provides a brief (1-2 page) overview of the development proposal, the findings and
the associated recommendations and conclusions.

1 Introduction
The introduction should give an overview of the proposed development application and any
relevant background information. The scope of studies presented in the report should also be
outlined. It may be appropriate to include a locality plan showing the location of the proposed
development site.

2 Available data
Provide a summary of the sources of data used for the investigation. An appropriate way to
present this information may be in tabular form, an example of which is shown below.
At the commencement of any hydrologic investigation, applicants are encouraged to contact
Council’s Customer Service Centre to determine whether Council holds existing information that
may be of relevance. Applicants should be aware of Council’s “Hydrologic Data Policy” which
applies to any hydrologic information provided by Council. This includes extractions from regional
flood models. Please note that fees apply.
The applicant should also contact Council’s Customer Service Centre to determine whether
historical flood levels are available in the area of interest. Council records such levels along
waterways after major flood events and has a regional network of maximum height gauges. This
data may be useful in the calibration of hydraulic models.

Example:
Table 1 Source data

Data Source Comments

Catchment boundaries Determined from ALS

Topographic Information 2014 ALS

Hydraulic structure details MSC hydraulic structure

reference sheets:
• Maroochy Rd Culvert
crossing
• Smith Rd culvert
crossing
Land use SCRC Planning Scheme

Historical flood levels SCRC Advanced Flood Peak flood levels for 1989
Search Certificate No:12345 flood event

Existing SCRC Flood Smith Creek Flood Study,

Studies June 2003

Historic Rainfall data BoM Daily rainfall, Station No.

040282

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 59

 Pluviometer data, Station
No. 040111

Streamflow data DNRM Water Monitoring Daily volumes, Station

Portal No. 141003

Design Rainfall Data BoM 2016 IFD at 4 locations

within model extent

Site photographs Taken by Water Consultants Site photographs for pre-

Pty Ltd, 7 July 2018 development conditions

3 Catchment drainage characteristics

This section provides a general description of the catchment, including how existing catchment
naturally drains. The proposal for the developed catchment should be described, clearly
articulating how the drainage and overland flow paths within the catchment are intended to change.
This section of the report should include a plan showing flow paths and the boundaries of relevant
catchment areas under existing and developed site conditions. For ease of checking, plans should
be prepared to an appropriate engineering scale (e.g. 1:1000 or 1:5000).

4 Previous studies
A number of flood investigations have been undertaken of waterways draining the Region. The
applicant should contact Council’s Customer Service Centre to determine if previous flood
investigations have been undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed development. Applicants
should be aware of Council’s “Hydrologic Data Policy” which applies to any hydrologic information
provided by Council. This policy requires applicants to make their own assessment of the
applicability of existing studies.

5 Model setup
Hydrology
Applicants should undertake hydrologic modelling using industry-accepted software. Council is
unable to recommend any particular software, however, checking of results will be expedited if
applicants use software currently employed by Council. Details of Council’s current hydrologic
modelling software may be obtained through the Customer Service Centre.
The following should be documented:
• Model software - Details of the adopted model software should be documented in this section,
including software version number.
• Model setup - Describes detail of the model setup undertaken for the existing and post-
development catchment conditions
• Subcatchment delineation - Provide a plan showing the configuration of the model, in particular
the extent of sub-catchments and the location of the proposed development. Discharges at
locations of interest should not be obtained from the output at a single sub-catchment. Where
distinct areas of different land use occur within a catchment, the catchment sub-division should
reflect land use boundaries wherever possible.
• Summary details of the model, such as sub-catchment areas, fraction imperviousness,
catchment lag and routing parameters, should be presented in tabular form, in sufficient detail
that a model could be developed from the supplied data.

60 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

• Rainfall design intensities and temporal patterns – Provide details of the adopted design
rainfall intensities and temporal patterns and details of any historic rainfall events used for
either calibration or validation. DIS temporal patterns are to be used for peak WSL estimation
however use of alternate temporal patterns (available from Council) may be required in
addition if the impact assessment needs to consider the timing of hydrographs
Hydraulics
Applicants should undertake hydraulic modelling using industry-accepted software. Council is
unable to recommend any particular software, however, checking of results will be expedited if
applicants use software currently employed by Council. Details of Council’s current hydraulic
modelling software may be obtained through the Customer Service Centre.
The following should be documented:
• Model software - Details of the adopted model software should be documented in this section,
including software version number.
• Model setup - Provide an overview of the method of analysis used to estimate design flood
levels and justification for selection of steady or unsteady flow and whether a one or two-
dimensional model
• Note that Council has two-dimensional regional models of the Maroochy and Mooloolah rivers
and Pumicestone creeks catchment. Extractions from these models may, at Council’s
discretion, be made available to consultants, where appropriate noting that fee’s will apply.
Contact Councils Customer Service Centre for more details.
• Inflow points - Provides detail on how the inflows from the hydrological model are integrated
into the hydraulic model.
• Topography - Provide a plan showing the location and extent of cross-sections, or the
arrangement and extent of the two-dimensional grid used in the model. Data used in deriving
model cross-sections or the two-dimensional grid should be specified in the source data table
(See Table 1. (Source data)). Where two-dimensional grid data (ALS – aerial laser survey) is
used, then a plan must be provided of the difference between pre and post development
ground levels.
• Structures - Provide a plan showing the location of structures that are included in the hydraulic
model setup. State blockage assumptions based on ARR2019 guidance and document
sensitivity testing
• Hydraulic roughness – Provide a plan showing how hydraulic roughness has been applied
spatially in the model. Include details of any sensitivity testing of roughness parameters
• Boundaries - Provides details on the Boundary Conditions that were adopted in preparation for
model calibration.
• Floodplain storage – Provide earthworks plans and tables of storage volume calculations at
each RL demonstrating whether flood storage has been preserved or lost at the site. Where
compensatory earthworks are proposed to preserve flood storage such earthworks must
maintain their storage function in all circumstances. That is, they cannot fill with water, or any
other material, and lose their flood storage capacity.

6 Calibration
This section is to detail the calibration of the hydrologic and hydraulic models. The method of
calibration is to be stated and justified based on the availability of existing Council model results,
recorded historic flows and/or levels or use of flood frequency analysis.
Commentary should be provided on the quality of the calibration and the confidence in the
calibrated model for design flood estimation. The quality of the calibration should be informed by
some form of goodness of fit qualification, between modelled and observed flood data.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 61

The parameters derived from the calibration of the hydrologic and hydraulic models should be
clearly tabulated in this section of the report.

7 Design Flood Events

Mechanism of Flooding
The investigation should consider whether Storm Tide, Regional Catchment and Local Area
Catchment flooding are relevant to the site. This assessment must also consider the climate
change. Analysis is required for all flood mechanisms that affect the site.

Existing catchment
Provide mapping for the pre-development catchment condition of WSL, depth, velocity and hazard
(using the methodology of the Floodplain Management Guidelines of Australia). This mapping
should be provided for the following events: 63%AEP (Q1), 39% AEP (Q2), 10% AEP, 1 in 100
AEP, 1 in 2000 AEP and the PMF for current climate and 1%AEP future climate (2100).

Comparison of design event results with historic observation

Where historic observations are available within the catchment of interest, the probability of the
historic event should be notionally considered in relation to the design flood levels. Where the
historic information indicates a degree of confidence in the design flood levels, this should be
documented. Similarly, where the historic information does not indicate agreement, documentation
should be provided to explain why the difference is accepted.

Developed catchment
Provide mapping for the developed catchment condition of WSL, depth, velocity and hazard (using
the methodology of the Floodplain Management Guidelines of Australia). This mapping should be
provided for the following events: 63%AEP (Q1), 39% AEP (Q2), 10% AEP, 1 in 100 AEP, 1in
2000 AEP and the PMF for current climate and 1 in 100 AEP future climate (2100).

Impacts of development (afflux and hydrology)

Provide afflux mapping (water level difference between the pre-development and post-
development) for the following events: 63%AEP (Q1), 39% AEP (Q2), 10% AEP, 1 in 100 AEP, 1
in 2000 AEP and the PMF for current climate and the 1 in 100 AEP for future climate.
Where there are potential changes to velocities or times of inundation then impact plots showing
differences between pre and post-development velocities may be required. It may also be
necessary to extract level hydrographs at specific locations to assess changes in duration of
inundation.
Demonstrate acceptable impacts have been achieved for the development, in accordance with
section 5.5 of the Sunshine Coast Council Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines
(2020)

Demonstrate the risk to people and property is Acceptable

Demonstrate that the development design provides an acceptable flood risk in accordance with the
methodology identified in the Sunshine Coast Council Flooding and Stormwater Management
Guidelines, Section 5.4 (Acceptable Flood Risk)

62 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Climate Change
The Defined Flood Event is based on a future planning horizon (2100). Therefore, all design flood
levels and infrastructure sizing are required to incorporate climate change allowances. (0.8m sea
level rise and 20% increase in rainfall). Flood impact assessment is based upon a current climate
condition expect that an additional assessment of the impact for the 1%AEP future climate event is
also required.

8 Consideration of flood consequence

Discuss how flood consequences are managed by the design of the development. In particular,
consider whether:-
(a) essential network infrastructure within a site (e.g. electricity, water supply, sewerage and
telecommunications) maintains effective function during and immediately after flood and
storm tide inundation events;
(b) building materials used have high water resistance and will improve the resilience of a
building during and after a flood or storm tide event. (Council can provide further guidance
materials: Flood Resilience Implementation Guideline for New Development);
(c) community infrastructure is able to function effectively during and immediately after flood
events;
(d) development does not compromise the safety of people resulting from flooding, including the
residual flood or storm tide inundation risk associated with events exceeding the DFE or
DSTE. Is a direct route to enable progressive evacuation to safe refuge above the level of
the PMF available? Is there enough time required for evacuation between the DFE being
exceeded and the peak of the PMF?;
(e) development ensures that public safety and the environment are not adversely affected by
the detrimental impacts of floodwater on hazardous materials manufactured or stored in bulk
during the DFE or DSTE;
(f) car parks achieve flood immunity for the 10% AEP and limit the extent of flooding at the 1 in
100 AEP to 250mm, velocity to 2.0m/s and depth x velocity ratio to 0.4m2/s;
(g) basements are provided waterproofed perimeter walls, air vents and entry/exit ramps that are
at least 500mm above the 1%AEP flood level (at 2100) or alternate solutions delivering the
same level of protection are provided;
(h) driveways that with a downhill slope have a raised entry ramp from the roadway, as per the
requirements of QUDM (IPWEA, 2016) to contain flood flows; and
(i) backflow flooding of the local stormwater network from a regional event will be problematic
under current or future climatic conditions.

9 Sensitivity Testing
Document the results of all sensitivity testing relating to both design WSL and impact assessments
At a minimum, sensitivity analyses that inform floor levels shall consider
Regional Catchment Flooding
• 1 in 500 AEP Design Flood Event (Severe Storm)

Local Area Flooding

• 1 in 2000 AEP Design Flood Event (Severe Storm)

Regional and Local Area Flooding

• Blockages: No Blockages and 100% Blockages
• Boundary Conditions: Backwater flooding and free draining conditions.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 63

 • Manning’s Roughness: Channel roughness 50% higher to check for inundation of
properties associated with unmaintained channels and 50% lower to check for scour of the
channel due to higher velocities.

10 Conclusions and recommendations

This section should summarise the main findings of the report and make any recommendations
arising from these findings. These recommendations should include specific details of floor or pad
levels relevant to key infrastructure, as per the requirements of the certification statement, to be
provided at the front of the report.

11 Qualifications and limitations

Detail any specific qualification and limitations that are relevant to the methodology, conclusions or
recommendations of the report.

12 References
Provide a list of documents referred to in the study. Where a reference document is not widely
available a copy of the document or the relevant section should be included as an Appendix.

Appendix A: Lot table information

In areas that are within the declared Flood Hazard Area, Council is required by the Queensland
Development Code (QDC MP3.5) to provide level and velocity information to building certifiers for
the purpose of ensuring compliant construction. This information needs to consider flood
mechanisms from both Riverine (water rising from Rivers and Creeks) and Drainage (water
travelling overland enroute to a River or Creek).
PMF information is also sought to ensure that safe refuge and building stability can be considered
in the construction of the dwelling.
This flood level information is provided by Council on a Flood Information Search.
Flood modelling that is undertaken for the purposes of Development Assessment will be the best
information available representing the developed catchment configuration.
It is therefore necessary that a lot table be provided to Council at Plan Seal so that it can inform the
construction of dwellings on lots as per the requirements of the Queensland Development Code.
The lot table is to summarise the level and velocity information discussed above as well as the
required minimum lot and floor levels. This should be provided based on the template provided
below. The minimum lot and habitable floor level requirements of the Planning Scheme differ with
the type of development. Table 8.2.7.3.3 (Flood levels and flood immunity requirements for
development and infrastructure) of the Flood hazard overlay code provides the specific
requirements for setting minimum floor level based on the type of development.
As this information is also required in a tabulated electronic format for upload in to Council
systems, an Excel template can be obtained from Council. Please contact Council’s Customer
Services Centre. This information will be provided on Council Flood Information Searches until
such time as Council is able to revise and re-run the regional and local area flood model with ALS
that represents the developed catchment.

General Notes and Assumptions

Column 1: Lot number

64 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Column 2: Y/N box to identify whether the building floor level will be below the road level
Column 3: Developed DFE level (Regional)
Column 4: Developed DFE level (Local Area)
Column 5: Developed 1 in 2000 AEP Design Event level (Local Area, with design structure
blockages)
Column 6: Developed 1 in 100 AEP 2100 Design Event level (Local Area with 100% structure
blockages)
Column 7: Developed Severe Storm (Local Area) – greater of Column 5 and 6
Column 8: Developed Severe Storm 1 in 500 AEP Event (Regional)
Column 9: Largest Sensitivity Analysis Flood Level
Column 10: Note indicating which of the Sensitivity Analysis produces the Largest Flood Level.
Column 11: Developed PMF level (Regional)
Column 12: Developed PMF velocity (Regional)
Column 13: Minimum floor level
Column 14: Minimum building pad level
Column 15: Stage number
Column 16: Survey plan number
Column 17: Comments specific to lot.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 65

Appendix 4 – Biopod Standard Details and Layouts

66 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 Batter stabilised with dense planting
using species suitable for planting next
A to road pavement

Flow B
Side entry pit
Kerb & Channel Kerb & Channel
Hand formed inlet chute

0
20

0
0
Planted Batter

10
500

R
Planted Batter
Non-slotted uPVC drain
500x500 Forebay with
50mm slots (one per side)
Turf
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

Slotted UPVC subsoil drain

200
Concrete
mowing edge
C C
Slotted UPVC subsoil drain B
Planted batter 1 in 3
slope (sized to suit
location)

Planted Batter increases in width away

from inlet to maintain 1 in 2 slope

RP Boundary / Footpath
A

PLAN
N.T.S.

Clean out point. Clean outs at head of subsoil drain.

C.I. Cap extended 50mm above basin surface with Inlet Chute Filter media set down
locking provision and with concrete surround Energy Dissipator 150mm below kerb at
turn-out
Kerb alignment
1 in 3
3 150mm 1 in
Concrete mowing edge
Non-slotted Ø100 PVC

Non-slotted Ø100 PVC

Outlet to pit

Bio-pod basin 5m minimum length

Slotted Ø100 PVC pipe placed along length of

bio-pod for drainage. Minimum grade 0.5%, 50mm
SECTION C-C screenings cover over. All joints to be solvent welded

N.T.S.

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD TYPE 1 (SIDE ENTRY PIT)
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-001 A
 Batter stabilised with dense
Flow planting using species suitable for Flow
Kerb & Channel planting next to road pavement Kerb & Channel
Hand formed inlet chute
Notes:
1. 2m minimum offset required from outer projection
of field inlet grate to edge of any adjacent path.
1000 2. Biopod Type 2 not preferred. Only to be used in
constrained situations where use of Biopod 1

0
R1

0
precluded.

10
000

R
Planted Batter
Side drains under kerb and
channel to connect to inlet
pit separately to bioretention
1000x500 underdrainage
Forebay with Turf
50mm slots
Slotted UPVC subsoil drain
200 Concrete
mowing edge
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

C C
Slotted UPVC subsoil drain

Planted batter 1:3 slope

(sized to suit location)
Field inlet 1 without
concrete apron as per
Planted Batter increases in width away IPWEA Std Dwg DS-050
from inlet to maintain 1 in 2 slope

RP Boundary/Footpath

PLAN
N.T.S.

Clean out point. Clean outs at head of subsoil Inlet Chute Filter media surface Pit crest set 50mm
drain, max. spacing 30m. C.I. Cap extended set 200mm below kerb below kerb invert at
Energy Dissipator invert at turn-out turn-out
50mm above basin surface with locking provision

1 in 3
3 1 in

200
Standard
Non-slotted 900x900
Ø100 PVC Field Inlet.
Non-woven geotextile glued to
Provide End Cap at Refer perimeter of pit. Extends 100mm
head of subsoil drain IPWEA Std above filter media, 100mm below
Dwg media and laterally 300mm min
DS-050

Storm water culvert

Slotted Ø100 PVC pipe placed along
length of bio-pod for drainage. Minimum Bio-pod basin 5m minimum length
grade 0.5%, 50mm screenings cover
over. All joints to be solvent welded Slotted PVC drain

SECTION C-C
N.T.S.

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD TYPE 2 (FIELD INLET)
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-002 A
 ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

1000mm min
(usually larger to
2000mm min (larger at inlet but may
achieve max 1 in 2
reduce to 2000mm min at upstream
batter)
Batter stabilised with dense planting 1000mm extent of device) RP/Footpath
using species suitable for planting next Coarse sediment
to road pavement forebay, base min
Batter stabilised with 50mm proud of filter
dense planting media

Kerb alignment
50mm x 50mm lip with Kerb and channel
2 50mm drainage gap
Gra 1 in (1 per side)
de v
arie
s Non-woven Geotextile filter Pavement
cloth keyed into batter and
Compacted pinned 300mm min
fill
Filter media 700mm depth to allow tree 150 thick concrete, SL62 reinforcing, 50 top
planting unless depth constrained cover. 1:4 max. Geotechnical engineer to
150mm mass
concrete base confirm compaction requirements
100mm Transition layer
course sand size 0.5-2.0mm
Lay filter cloth and/or impermeable
200mm Drainage layer. liner over insitu soil 300 min. Pin
Fine aggregate 2-5mm filter cloth to insitu soil and lay
concrete onto cloth
Slotted uPVC subsoil drains
Ø100mm (min) 50mm cover of
drainage layer

SECTION A-A SECTION B-B

N.T.S. N.T.S.

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD TYPE 1 (SIDE ENTRY PIT)
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-003 A
 S
E

W
Legend

Stormwater

S
E

W
Pavement fall

S
E

W
Major flow direction

Gully pit

S
E

W
Water W W

S
E
Sewer S S

W
Electrical E E

S
E

W
Landscape Batter
Type 1 biopod 4m 6m 5m
3m width desirable
2m min

S
E

Biopod

W
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

S
E

W
Note:
Additional verge widening

S
E

W
may be required to
maintain maximum 1 in 2 Biopod ~60m² -
max catchment

S
E

W
batter to RP boundary.
~0.6Ha

0 to 0.9m
1m min.
S
E

W
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
S
E

W
S
E

5m typ
S
E

W
S
E

1m maintenance strip
as per standard detail

6m
S
E

(1m from top of kerb)

S
E

W
S
E

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

4m
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
S
E

W
S
E

M5 kerb on high side

S
E

Lots orientated with

S
E

long-axis to biopod to
avoid need for electrical
S
E

conduit crossing of
biopod to service lots
S
E

W
S
E

W
S
E

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD EXAMPLE LAYOUT 1 -
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C ONE-WAY CROSSFALL ACCESS STREET
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-004 A
 S
E

W
Legend

S
E

W
Stormwater

Pavement fall

S
E

W
Major flow direction

S
E

W
Gully pit

Water W W

S
E

W
Sewer S S

Electrical E E

S
E

W
4.30m 6.00m 5.00m
Landscape Batter

S
E

W
Biopod

S
E

W
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

Type 1 biopod
3m width desirable

S
E

W
Note:
2m min
Additional verge widening may be
required to maintain maximum 1 in 2

S
E

W
batter to RP boundary.
Biopod ~60m² -

S
E

W
max catchment
~0.6Ha

1mmin.
1m
S
E

3m

0 to 900mm
S
E

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W E E E E E E

E E E E E E
S
E

4.25m
S
E

W
S
E

1m maintenance strip
W

as per standard detail

15.3m
(1m from top of kerb)
S
E

5.50m
S
E

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S
E

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

4.25m
S
E

W
S
E

M5 kerb on high side

S
E

W
S
E

W
S
E

Lots orientated with

long-axis to biopod to
S
E

avoid need for electrical

conduit crossing of
S
E

biopod to service lots

W

SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD EXAMPLE LAYOUT 2 -
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C ONE-WAY CROSSFALL ACCESS PLACE
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-005 A
 S

W
E
Legend

Stormwater

W
E
Pavement fall

W
E
Major flow direction

W
Gully pit

E
Water W W

W
E
Sewer S S 4.00m 6.00m 5.30m
Electrical E E

W
E
Landscape Batter
Type 1 biopod S E

W
Biopod 3m width desirable
S E
2m min

W
Local widening of road
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

reserve to accommodate

W
min biopod width of 1.5m
1m maintenance strip
Additional widening may
E

per standard detail

be necessary subject to

W
treatment requirements
E

or to maintain max.

W
batter 1:2 to RP

0.50m
E

boundary

W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
E

W W W W W W W W

5400
E

4.00m
W
E

W
Type 2 biopod
E

6.00m
E

18.60m
W

2m
E

W
E

5.30m
S S S S S S S S
E

7.20m
S
E E E E E E E E Field inlet dome grate
W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2m min. offset to path

E
E

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
W

1.00m
E

1m maintenance strip from

W

1.80m
back of kerb
E

1.00m
W

S E

Lower path locally

E
W

adjacent to the biopod

S

to reduce batter slope

E

W
S

Offset from batter

E

required if shared
W
S

path

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD EXAMPLE LAYOUT 3 -
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C CENTRALLY CROWNED ACCESS STREET
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-006 A
 E
Legend

W
E
Stormwater

W
Pavement fall

E
Major flow direction

W
E
Gully pit

W
Water W W

E
4.00m 6.00m 5.30m
Sewer S S

W
Electrical E E E

Landscape Batter S E

W
Local widening of
road reserve to S E
Biopod
accommodate min

W
biopod width of 1.5m
E

S
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

Additional widening

W
may be necessary 1m maintenance strip
E

subject to treatment per standard detail

W
requirements or to
maintain max. batter
E

1:2 to RP boundary

0.50m
E

W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
E

W W W W W W

5.40m
E

4.25m
W
E

W Type 2 biopod
E

5.50m
E

17.50m
S

2m
E

W
E

S S S S S S

4.25m
S
W

E E E E E E

6.35m
S
E
E

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
E
Field inlet dome grate
W

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 2m min. offset to path

E

W
E

1.20m
1m maintenance strip
W

1.00m
E

S
W

Lower path locally S E

adjacent to the biopod

E
W

to reduce batter slope

S
E

W
S
E

W
S
E

W
S

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D BIOPOD EXAMPLE LAYOUT 4 -
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C CENTRALLY CROWNED ACCESS PLACE
B CHECKED R. Booker 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. Transport & Infrastructure Planning COUNCIL BIO-007 A
 Legend

Concrete

Road Surface

Sand & Screening

Bedding Material

Landscape Batter

Stormwater System
ALL DRAWINGS TO BE PRINTED IN COLOUR!

Solid Pipe in Root Zone

to limit Ingress. Bedding
should Convey Moisture Turf / Landscape Finish
from Slotted Section to
Landscape Zones
Approved Metal Kerb
Reinstate Concrete Path Adaptor to be Full Height
where required of Kerb and to Conform

Property Boundary
With M5 Kerb and
Channel Profile. Inverts
of the Kerb Adapter and
Channel are to Match

Sand or Screenings
Surround

100NB uPVC Slotted Pipe Section between Property and

Roofwater/Stormwater Drain in Path Generally. Manually Slotted with 3mm
Accordance with AS1260 min wide Transverse Slots @ 100mm Intervals
Class SN10 with a Grade no over 1m Length. Slots are to be 41
Flatter than 1 in 200 (5 in 1) Circumference to Ensure they are located in
the Invert during Installation. 5mm
Screenings to be used as Pipe Bedding in
this Section. No Sock

E SURVEYED --- --- Project Number.

D ROOFWATER CONNECTION
DRAWN D. Barlow 11/08/2020
C TYPICAL SECTION
B CHECKED L. Rowlands 11/08/2020
Sunshine Coast Sheet No. - Revision No.
A 11/08/20 Biopod design redrawn as per industry feedback
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR.
Transport & Infrastructure Policy COUNCIL BIO-008 A
Appendix 5 – Bioretention Standard Signage

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 75

 150 150

270
270

BIORETENTION BASIN SIGN RAINGARDEN SIGN

NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
E HORIZ. GRID Project Number.
D FLOODING & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TEAM
HEIGHT ORIGIN TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY BRANCH
C RAINGARDEN & BIORETENTION SIGNS
B SURVEY NAMBOUR OFFICE @ Cnr Currie & Bury St, Nambour. Sunshine CoastGENERAL ARRANGEMENT Sheet No. - Revision No.
A DRAWN DWB Mail: Locked Bag 72, Sunshine Coast Mail Centre, Nambour, QLD 4560
A1 PRELIMINARY Phone: (07) 54757272 email:[email protected] COUNCIL
Rv DATE REVISIONS REC. APPR. DESIGNED A
Appendix 6 – Maintenance Report Template
This reporting template is to be used for preparing a maintenance report for vegetated stormwater
assets such as vegetated channels, swales, bioretention basins and wetlands. The report is
intended to be read by Council maintenance staff after the asset has been handed over to Council
(i.e. the asset is off-maintenance) so is to focus on long-term maintenance tasks rather than
establishment.
The report should avoid large sections of text and should utilise drawings and tabular information
to allow quick access to information by maintenance staff.
Detailed guidance on maintenance for different vegetated stormwater assets can be found in the
Healthy Waterways (2012) publication titled Maintaining Vegetated Stormwater Assets and should
be referred to when completing sections of the below template.

1. Site Location
A plan should be provided showing the location of the asset, including the nearest street
intersection and the name of any park or reserve in which the asset is located

2. Functional Description
This section should include a brief description of the purpose and key design features of the asset
and may include a schematic drawing showing the functional components. The full design
drawings should be referenced and provided as an appendix to the report.

3. Maintenance Access
A plan is to be provided of the asset showing access to the asset from the nearest road and
around/within the device. The Planning Scheme Policy for Development Works identifies minimum
maintenance access requirements for different types of vegetated stormwater assets.
The plan is to identify the width and surface type (e.g. concrete, gravel, turf, etc.) of each access
as well as the location of any access restrictions such as gates or removable bollards.

4. Surface and Horticultural Maintenance

A plan is to be provided of the asset showing each of the different functional surfaces of the asset,
such as turf, filter media or batter. Surfaces should be categorised logically based on the function
and the expected maintenance regime. The maintenance regime required for each surface type is
to be summarised into Table 1, which is provided below along with information on Council’s
preferred methods, maintenance intervals and indicative rates for common activities.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 77

Table 1 – Horticultural Maintenance Schedule (example)
Surface Activities Preferred Maintenance Area (m2) Rate Cost
Type Methods Interval ($/m2, ($/yr)
$/Lm)
Turf Mowing Flat-deck Fortnightly Dec TBC $0.0403/m2 TBC
- April
3 weekly May
to November
Filter Media Weeding hand 3 weekly TBC $0.30/m2 TBC
or planted pulling
channel
invert
Vegetated Weeding Herbicide – 3 weekly TBC $0.18 /m2 TBC
Batter foliar spray
or rope-
wick
Loose Rock Weeding Herbicide – 6 weekly TBC 0.093/m2 TBC
(unplanted) foliar spray
or rope-
wick
Loose Rock Weeding hand 6 weekly TBC 0.36/m2 TBC
(with pocket pulling
planting)

Open water Weeding Mechanical 6 months TBC Mechanical TBC

or hand $188/hr
removal of
Hand
floating
$100/hr
aquatic
weeds
macrophyte Weeding Hand 6 months TBC Mechanical TBC
plantings pulling $188/hr
(wetland,
Cut-stump Hand
edges of
$100/hr
open water)

5. Drainage and Pollutant Maintenance

Non-horticultural maintenance activities will not all be undertaken at scheduled maintenance
intervals. Some activities will be scheduled while others will be undertaken on a reactive basis
when issues are observed. This balance between scheduling and monitoring has been consciously
adopted to achieve the most cost-effective outcome for Council.
The activities which Council will undertake on a regular scheduled basis and those which will only
be undertaken on a reactive basis are summarised below.
Scheduled maintenance activities:
o Sediment removal
o Litter removal
Monitoring and reactive maintenance activities:
o Unblocking inlets and outlets
o Managing mosquitos
o Managing birds
o Managing high or low water levels in a wetland

78 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

 o Responding to spills of paint, fuel or concrete
o Replanting
o Managing excessive algal blooms in wetland or sediment basins
o Managing algae or moss on bioretention surfaces
o Storm damage assessments following events
o Green waste removal & notification of any dumping
o infrastructure repairs - caps , pipes, pits, fencing
o Council also undertakes quarterly scheduled condition assessments in addition to the
above reactive monitoring
The maintenance activities which are to be scheduled (i.e. sediment removal, litter removal) are to
be fully documented in the report and are to include a plan showing the location where the
activities are to be carried out (eg location of sediment forebay, GPT etc) and the maintenance
regime required for each activity is to be summarised into Table 2. The example provided for
Table 2 below includes Council’s required maximum maintenance intervals and indicative rates for
each method of undertaking the activities.

Table 2 – Non-Horticultural Maintenance Schedule (example)

Activity Location/Type Maintenance Storage Rate ($/m3, Cost ($/yr)
Interval Volume or $/m2)
Area (m3 or
m2)
Sediment Forebay (at-source) 3 weekly TBC TBC TBC
Removal
Forebay (end-of-line) 12 months
Sediment basin (wet) 12 months
GPT 12 months

Litter Removal Within vegetation As per Table 1 TBC TBC TBC

(hand removal)
In-pit basket
3 months
Floating boom
12 months
GPT
12 months

6. Benchmark and Budget Allocation

The resulting overall maintenance cost should be compared against benchmark costing data
(where available) such as the “Guide to the Cost of Maintaining Bioretention Systems” (Water by
Design, 2015).
Where calculated maintenance costs exceed benchmark figures, the design should be revised
based on utilising lower-cost surfaces or justification for the higher costs should be provided.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 79

Appendix 7 - Flood Emergency Management Plan Template

This reporting template should be considered in conjunction with this guideline as well as the
Flood hazard overlay code and associated planning scheme policy.
Provision of a Flood Emergency Management Plan may be an alternative solution for
demonstrating that an acceptable level of flood risk is achieved to ensure the safety of people in
all flood events as required by the Flood Hazard Overlay Code. It will not be acceptable to Council
as an alternative to achieving the minimum levels for property and infrastructure specified by the
Code and will only be considered as an alternative solution for safety where:
• The use does not involve permanent residential aspects; and
• The flooding characteristics are not flash flooding (defined as having a time to peak of less
than 6 hours)
The completed Flood Emergency Management Plan is required to be registered with Council’s
Disaster Management Team.
Further guidance on developing evacuation plans can be obtained from Evacuation Planning
(AIDR, 2017a).
Document details and certification
Details of the authorship of the Flood Emergency Management Plan should be provided and must
be prepared by someone having not less than 5 years’ experience in disaster management.
All flood modelling used to inform the plan must be undertaken and certified by an RPEQ with
experience in Flood Modelling and Management.
Note: It is a requirement of the Act that professional engineering services in Queensland are
carried out by a RPEQ, or alternatively by a person who carries out the services under the direct
supervision of a RPEQ who is ultimately responsible.
Example:
Report Title: Flood Emergency Management Plan for Proposed
Maroochy Woods Development, Maroochy Road,
Maroochydore
Street Address 15-35 Maroochy Rd, Maroochydore
RP Description Lots 1,2 & 7 on RP 123456
Prepared For: Maroochy Development Company Pty Ltd
Date: 7 Sept 2016
Revision No. 3
Report Status: Draft/Final
Prepared By:
Name Bob Jones
Qualifications BE
Company Water Consultants Pty Ltd
Phone No. 5555 1234

80 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

Where flood modelling is documented in the report the additional certification is to be provided
Flood Modelling
Certified By:
Name John Smith
Qualifications BE, MSci
Company Water Consultants Pty Ltd
Phone No. 5555 1234
Industry Accreditation RPEQ No. 1234
Signature

Executive summary
The summary provides a brief (1-2 page) overview of the development proposal, the findings and
the associated recommendations and conclusions.

1 Introduction
The introduction should give an overview of the development and any relevant background
information. It may be appropriate to include a locality plan showing the location of the proposed
development site.
Any technical terms used in the document such as “DFE”, “AEP” or “PMF” should be defined and
explained for non-technical readers. As the document must be able to be read and followed by
non-technical readers it may be appropriate to define terms such as “Minor”, “Major” and “Extreme”
flood events and then use these terms throughout the document.

2 Flooding Characteristics and Flood Information

a. Nature of Flood Threat

This section should qualitatively identify the sources of flooding and the risk this poses to the use.
Considerations which should be discussed include:
• Sensitivities of the proposed use to flooding
• Degree of inundation of the use
• Inundation of the access routes between the use and flood-free refuge
• Sources of flooding: riverine, creek, stormwater drainage network or storm tide
Where there is more than one source of flooding, the plan should speak to each separately.

b. Flooding Constraints and Flood Risks

A quantitative description of the flooding constrains and risks is to be provided. The level of detail
will depend on the nature of the use, site characteristics and proposed flood risk management
strategies. As a minimum, the information provided should include:
• Flood level inundation maps for the DFE, 1 in 2000 AEP and PMF of the site and access
routes linking the site to flood-free refuge
• An assessment of the flood warning time for the catchment response at the site and at any
points in the access route liable to flood inundation

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 81

 • Assessment of flood depths and time to/of inundation at specific reporting points such as
roadway crossings of watercourses where access is most likely to be compromised during
an event. Evacuation strategies are considered inappropriate where time to peak is less
than 6 hrs and are subject to site and use-specific assessment where longer time to peak is
involved
The flood warning time may be estimated using the SCC TTPP (Travel Time from Peak rainfall to
Peak flow) equation provided in SCC (2018a).

c. Sources of Flood Intelligence

This section should list all available sources of flood information which can inform the management
response during an event and identify any supplementary information needs for which monitoring
systems need to be developed as part of the development proposal.
Available government data which should be listed in this section includes:

• Identify relevant water level and rainfall alert gauges operated by BoM
• Sunshine Coast Council Disaster Hub for consolidated listing of local and State roads
closed plus BoM and Council current weather warnings
http://disaster.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/
In developing the plan there are a range of technical industry guidelines which can be used
including the Sunshine Coast Council (2016) publication titled Guidelines for Improving Flood
Resilience for New Development

3. Flood Risk Management Strategy

a. Flood Risk Management Approach

This section is to document the proposed strategy components based on the understanding of the
nature of the flood risk and flooding characteristics developed in the preceding sections. The
strategies could include any combination of the following strategies depending on the feasibility
and appropriateness for the site and use:
• Shelter in place (flood refuge)
• Evacuation
• Procedures specific to use

b. Triggers for Plan Activation

A staged approach to plan implementation is to be documented in order to minimise disruption
during minor events whilst still ensuring safety during significant events. The plan implementation
should move sequentially from monitoring through to preparation and implementation. Each stage
in the plan activation process is to be clearly documented along with the quantifiable trigger
initiating each stage and the data this trigger is to be based on.
The actions required during each stage of the plan should include any actions needed to make the
site safe such as isolating power prior to leaving the site.
In developing each stage of the plan, the plan preparer should work backwards from the required
outcome (e.g. residents fully evacuated from site to designated shelter location) and using
realistic/conservative timeframes establish a corresponding trigger point to commence the action.
The timeframes required will be dependent on considerations such as the landuse, site
features/topography, training and skills of staff and any special needs of the resident population.

82 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines

If the resulting trigger is impractical/unrealistic and would result in frequent disruption to the use of
the site, then the plan should be revised or the proposed landuse may be inappropriate for the
location.

c. Roles and Responsibilities

The responsibilities of each party during each part of the plan implementation is to be clearly
documented along with performance measures to enable quantification of the success of these
responsibilities having been fulfilled.
This information is to be provided in tabular form with names and phone numbers. The table is to
be updated when there is any change in staff as well as being reviewed annually.

d. Assisted Mobility Requirements

For uses which may involve people with restricted mobility or special needs, this section is to
document the measures which will be put in place to cater for those needs.

e. Medical Emergency Response

For strategies, which include a component of shelter-in-place, consideration is required for how to
respond to a medical emergency during the period of isolation. The degree of response will depend
on the nature of the use and the characteristics of the population which is isolated as well as the
length of the period of isolation. The plan should assume a minimum period of isolation of 3 days.

f. Emergency Contacts
Emergency contacts during a flood emergency are to be listed and should include as a minimum
the following public organisations:

• Emergency Services (Police/Fire/Ambulance): 000

• State Emergency Services (SES): 132 500
• Energex (For fallen power lines and electrical hazards): 13 19 62
• Unity Water (Sewer Overflows): 1300 086 489
• Sunshine Coast Council (Local Disaster Coordination Group) 5475 7272

g. Recovery
Flood recovery may be a significant undertaking depending on the use and nature of the flood risk.
While the Plan primarily focuses on safety during an event, planning for Flood Recovery can
significantly reduce the overall economic and social consequences of a flood event by allowing
normal operations to recommence as soon as possible.
Specific strategies, procedures and responsibilities for dealing with the immediate aftermath of an
event should be documented here with the aim on return the use to normal operation as soon as
possible.
Advice for improving the resilience of development to flooding can be found in the Sunshine Coast
Council (2016) publication titled Guidelines for Improving Flood Resilience for New Development.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines 83

4. Flood Risk Preparedness and Training
a. Education of Workers and Residents
This section is to document the education and training requirements for all people on the site, in
order for the Plan to be able to be effectively implemented. The requirements will vary depending
on the role each person or grouping of people is expected to fulfil during an event and also the
strategies which have been adopted.
The potential scope of education and training includes:
• General flood safety and awareness training covering general principles such as not
traversing flooded roadways, not touching fallen powerlines and providing emergency
contact details
• Training on the specific responsibilities of their role under the Plan
• Specific training for those responsible for actively monitoring triggers for the Plan
implementation. This may involve access to specific electronic systems or databases
• Evacuation drills (where evacuation forms part of the strategy)

b. Resource Requirements
The resources required will vary greatly with the strategy adopted. For strategies relying on shelter-
in-place for able-bodied people and for brief periods of isolation then resources may be limited to
simple first-aid kits and supplies for making isolation more comfortable such as water, torches and
radios.
For uses with more sensitive populations and/or that involve evacuation procedures then resource
requirements (both in terms of equipment and personnel) are likely to be far more intensive.

c. Management and Maintenance of Equipment and Buildings

Requirements for the servicing and maintenance of buildings and equipment required as part of the
Plan strategies should be documented. The party responsible for maintenance and the expected
frequency of maintenance intervals is also to be documented.
Buildings that are designed to be a safe refuge from flooding are to comply with the requirements
of Section 5.2.2 of Council’s Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines.

5. Documentation and Auditing

This section should document the required record-keeping, auditing and review required for the
plan. The aim is to ensure that the plan remains relevant, accurate and is continuously improved
based on experience.
Key requirements which should be included are:
• For the plan to be updated when staff change so names and phone numbers are current
• For the plan to be updated to reflect any changes to the physical or organisation features of
the use
• For records to be kept of all training and maintenance undertaken to comply with the plan
• For records to be kept of actions taken during an event to comply with the plan and the
effectiveness of such actions
An annual audit and review of the plan should be undertaken to ensure that the above
requirements are being implemented. The annual review should also examine the frequency of
activation of the plan and whether the triggers and actions are practical and effective.

84 Flooding and Stormwater Management Guidelines