On the 1st December 2005, 115 mm of rain fell in 24 hr and caused residents despair, trauma and thousands of dollars of damage, this prior report of the 14th November 2005 was called another ‘Time Waster’ by the ‘Rubber Stamp Gang’.
Brief of Flood & Storm Reports and Correspondence Re- Gympie Securities Southside . 
To the CEO Cooloola Shire Council 14th Nov 2005.
Concerns
These reports were given to me in response to my concerns that at least Eight pipes of 600mm end up at after six of them join into a 1 metre pipe being reduced into one 600mm pipe at HW40 marked on the drawing, plus the overland flow which will be quite considerable as the water course or gully is being filled. The response by the Director of Engineering that the excess will go overland through a footpath and that it has all been signed off by external engineers is of great concern. The reports that I have been given either ignore the Decker’s Development all together or wash their hands of any responsibility to storm water that may enter the system from that source, (page 6 BJS report 21st June 2005 States “it is suggested if there is potential for flooding to these lots that would be as a direct result of works carried out within the upstream adjacent developed site). Ignoring the fact that Gympie Securities Stage 6 is above that adjacent development and that Gympie Securities water which should be contained and directed through their own development adds to the problem that he is delivering himself from. So these reports do not address my original concerns and only add more concerns to this development as the KBR report is based on premises which have not been carried through ie. Down Stream Detention Basin, Pipe from 1/4B through H to Mc Phail and D being removed from the calculations. LSA include Child Care Centre but not the development and Church .Both companies reports put the Depth and Velocity from 5 years and 50 year way over the QUDM limit, yet after agreeing on the figures KBR puts the responsibility back on to the Councils acceptance of undersized pipes and a system with pedestrian hazards..
I believe that Council is in an exposed legal and moral position due to the reports that have been shown to me by the Director of Engineering and my observations of the Gympie Securities development. If a Court Case arose from this development these reports would be discovered in evidence. The King & Co legal opinion places liability on councils shoulders, the authors of these engineering reports have so many prerequisites they will not negate Councils exposure. These are some of the quotes from the reports and correspondence.
Quotes
1. LSA Drainage Assessment And Relief Work ref 44U-035 supplied by BJS 6 thApril 05
a. “The existiing overland flowpaths have been found deficient for the major design storm”. Page 2.
b. “the current Castlereagh Ct profile can accommodate a maximum depth flow of approximately 190mm in the kerb and channel. this results in a roadway (full width) capacity of 1.3m3/s which is insufficient for Q50 overland flows. The predicted Q50 flow to Castlereagh Ct is 7.40 m3/s . Page 7.
c. “It is noted that the Depth x Velocity product is in excess of the QUDM limit, which indicates some hazard to pedestrians”………’This footpath area and road sag will provide an area where pedestrians which may be in difficulty, could regain footing and avoid the possibility of being swept into deeper drainage channels downstream.”. Page7.
d. “The drainlines between lots 147 and 148 has been found to be less than Q5 capacity”………..A previous assessment of the capacity of the 600 RCP drainline within the pathway indicated a capacity of 0.91m3/s. Since this time the development of Decker site has resulted in the modification of the entrance to the drainline. A manhole has replaced the previous headwall and three drainlines discharge to this new manhole. No further calculations have been carried out with respect to the capacity or the 600 RCP.”.
2. KBR Gympie Securities Residential Development, Design Flood Review 18th January 05
Supplied at the Request of Cooloola Shire Council, I am told at a cost of over $30,000. dollars to Council.
From the report I read that the Site Inspection was carried out on the 16th December 2002 that KBR recommend a second Detention basin designed into the plan, (Plan dated January 2005) which has now been filled and will be covered by houses on the Gympie Security H3 in page 3 figure 1. called D/S down stream detention basin. Of course the retaining wall which contains this fill is like a water fall for its full length it must have broken pipes behind it or has not been compacted.
Also the report does not seem to envisage the Decker development which includes the Child Care centre and the further subdivisions or the Wesleyan Church pipe and the Exhibition road pipe. Stage 6 and 5 of the Gympie Securities also seems to be missing and the report also assumes that H3 water from Gympie Securities will be channelled onto Mc Phail St. It must have been discovered at this time the pipes under Mc Phail are not large enough.
a.”As there are no available flood discharge data in the study area the calibration of the RAFTS XP model was carried out following regional techniques from other similar areas.” Page 4.
b. ” However, both the overland flow diversion over Mc Pail Street and the proposed detention basin would not be able to attenuate the flood peak which is being required at the HW40 Inlet capacity proposed by BJS.” P.7
c. “The diversion of overland stormwater flows will reduce the flood peak at HW40 Inlet from 2.33 m3/s to 2.19 m3/s for the 5 years flood event”. (A factor of .14) “However this is 140 % greater than the design capacities of the 600 RCP pipe at HW40 Inlet, which is 0.91 m3/s.”
“Similarly the review of the reported storm water pipe capacities from Inverary Court to Castlereagh Crt indicates that this pipe is undersized to convey the 5 year ARI Flood by about 38%”. Page 8.
d. ” Similarly the Table 7 shows that the 5year ARI flood peak would exceed the proposed pipe capacity at 1/4B Inlet from 0.72 m3/s to 2.32 m3/s, which means that this pipe will need to be upgraded.” Page 8
e. “If both U/S and D/S detention basin is adopted otherwise this will need to be increased by about 50% to accommodate 3.786m3/s. the 50 years ARI flood Peak is 6.49 m3/s assuming BJS detention basin with overland flow diversion from sub-catchment H1″. (I presume to Mc Phail St) Page 9.
f. “Similarly the review of the reported stormwater pipe capacity from Inverary Ct to Castlereagh Court indicates that this pipe is undersized to convey the 5 years ARI flood by about 20% (to accommodate 3.40 m3/s) if both U/S and D/S detention basins is adopted, other wise this will need to be increased by 62% to accommodate 4.37 m 3/s (5-year ARI flood in Table 5)” Page 10.
g. “Recommendations . The proposed detention basin and the overland flow diversion to Mc Phail do not sufficiently attenuate the 5 and 50 year ARI flood peak at the HW40 Inlet. The BJS proposal option also marginally worsen the flooding problems on the western side of the proposal development as discussed above. …”The 600 RCP at HW40 Inlet needs to be upgraded a capacity of 2.19 m3/s (Table 5), other wise it needs to be upgraded to a capacity of 2.32 m3/s (Table 5). If this pipe cannot be upgraded, additional detention storage capacity will be required… The mitigation options assume the overland storm water flow diversion form sub-catchment H1 to Mc Phail street for all cases.
It is recommended that both detention basins as discussed above be considered.”
This alleged $30,000 report also has a proviso on Page ii claiming that “KBR has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. No warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied is made with respect to the data reported or to the findings, observation and conclusions expressed in this report. Further, such data, findings, observations and conclusions are based solely upon site conditions in existence at the time of the investigation. KBR accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party”.
3. Letter from B J S 21st June 2005 to CSC.
(a) Page 3 (cc) “It was accepted by Council That they would “obtain drainage easement at rear of Lot 5 on MPH 24137 and undertake downstream drainage works” as per the fax from Council dated 23 August 2004 following meeting with Ross Chapman.”
(ee) “As stated above no works are proposed on adjoining land. If this becomes necessary for inlet works, permission will be obtained at that time. all efforts will be made to avoid this situation. the drainage inlet has been located in the location of the invert of the existing gully line.
(b) Page 5. first paragraph “The measures proposed would require acceptance from Council of an increased D x V above that stated in QUDM and acceptance that the ‘in pipe’ flow downstream of Hw40 would not be for Q5 flow but more likely Q 2.”
Page 6 first paragraph. “As Constructed surveyed levels verifying Lots having freeboard from this flowpath it is suggested if there is potential for flooding to these lots, then that would be as a direct result of works carried out within the upstream adjacent developed site.
4. Letter from LSA to BJS 23 June 2005. Page 1″
(OO) Developed Flows at HW40 are now reduced because of a diversion of flows is now occurring at 1/4 B to Mc Phail Street (BJS: capacity of diversion path = 0744 m3/s piped plus 1.423 m 3/s overland)
(PP) The hazard to pedestrians has been identified in our assessment and it is understood that negotiations with Council are being undertaken in this matter. We note that an overland flow of velocity of 2 m/s alone does not constitute a pedestrian hazard, a combination of velocity and depth is the criteria used in the assessment of such.
Page 2 (QQ)
(i) Max depth in kerb and channel = 350mm
Flow Velocity = 3.18 m/s
(as this is more than the experts quote why does Council Allow it?)
(RR) As mentioned in (OO) above the flowrate calculated in Hw40 does not include “Catchment D” as shown on KBR figure 3. (Why not rain falls on D)
(SS)”Albeit with flow path characteristics which are in excess of QUDM recommendations. (Why approve it)
Page 4. “It was noted in our assessment that opportunity for pedestrians to avoid deep water hazards exist, and further devices could be provided (e.g. safety fencing) to further improve safety aspects at critical points identified by Council.”
5. Letter from KBR to Cooloola Shire Council 6th July 2005, Page 1
“Subject to council’s approval on flood hazard management. However, the design flood peak estimates is still an issue, and this needs to be addressed accordingly.”… Table
HW40 5 year BX 1 2.01 50 year 3.16
Castlereagh Street 5 year BX 1 5.38 50 year 8.47
Page 2. (OO) Catchment D -”…. due to limited capacity of the existing culverts the overflow will end up at HW40.”
6. Letter from KBR 15th July 2005 to Director of Engineering. Dear Bob
“In this report LSA has re-calculated the design flow peaks over the development using BX1. As a result of this the design flood peaks have increased as shown in the table below.
Mc Phail St/Inverary Ct 5 year 5.05 50 year 7.97
Castlereagh Ct 5 year 5.38 50 year 8.47
“outcomes of the LSA offer to alleviate the storm water drainage concerning the trunk drainage path addressed in the LSA response are reasonable, subject to Cooloola Shire Council approval on flood hazard management and the acceptance of undersized stormwater drainage pipeline to cope with 5 year flood event.
Questions.
Could Council these answer these following questions so I can relay them to a resident of this estate who have complained to me.
If you believe that any of the answers could put Council “In Harm” as in Section 250 of the Local Government Act could you put these answers os a separate sheet of paper with that indication on them and I will not pass those answers on to the Complainant.
1. As CSC Development Manual, page 27 requires Collector Street from 76 lots to 300 and this development has over 76 Lots, and the width of a Collector Street should be 7.5 m and Council designed and built the beginning of Mc Phail street at 9m wide. Who and Why was this next section of Mc Phail approved on to maintenance from Gympie Securities of Roads with a road of 5.5 m or just under in places. Ref. Queensland Street. Table 241.
Comments
The pits are broken because the roads are not wide enough for this development Cooloola Construction trucks have to drive over them and break them before the people move in.. Where a trucks meet a car on a corner or intersection the truck has to cut the corner go over the pit and it breaks. Also if the Roads were wider it would allow a greater area for water and reduce Depth and Velocity. Drawing supplied by KBR shows Mc Phail Street same width all the way.
2. Why would KBR (in report commissioned by Council) mistakenly believe that the land belonging to the Wesleyan Church would be used as a Down Stream Detention Dam as pictured in KBR page 3 figure 1 for the benefit of Gympie Securities?
3. When the KBR report (commissioned by Council) states on page 9 that if both Detentions basins are not adopted that Storm water Pipe capacity between Inverary Court to Castlereagh will need to be increased by 62% just to accommodate the 5years flood. The Footpath overflow had already been constructed prior to this report and no increase in Pipe has been made why do Council Staff recommend that Council approve this developments storm water solution?
4. Who approved the contacting of KBR or recommended the allocation, of I am told $30,000 (by the Director of Engineering) to Council?
5. It appears that Councils Engineers did not want the responsibility of making a decision on Gympie Securities design plan so recommend that Council seek more professional advice. the professionals refer to pre prepared Tables which are used by the Civil Engineering profession, they qualify their report with “subject to Cooloola Shire Council approval on flood hazard management and the acceptance of undersized stormwater drainage pipeline to cope with 5 year flood event”. Council then has to bare the $30,000 fee and is no further advanced from the KBR conclusion. Council still holds the liability if it approves of the development.
a. Do we have staff that are qualified to give a decision on Storm water drainage designs?
b. If not, why do we employ professional engineering staff, as clerks could out source decisions?
c. If we do not have Qualified professional engineering staff to make a decision on this work how could we check that our external engineering opinions are correct?
d. If we do have qualified professional staff, why are we seeking other opinions which are based on the same information that is held by our engineering staff. ie BJS design drawings, regulations and the Engineering tables?
e. Don’t we trust Council Engineers? In fact local engineers have the advantage of knowing the area.
6. LSA Report states”the current Castlereagh Ct profile can accommodate a maximum depth flow of approximately 190mm in the kerb and channel. this results in a roadway (full width) capacity of 1.3m3/s which is insufficient for Q50 overland flows. The predicted Q50 flow to Castlereagh Ct is 7.40 m3/s . Page 7.
a. The footpath /open drain from Mc Phail enter Castlereagh Ct and run down the roadway .If the roadway at Castlereagh Ct is full width at 1.3m3/s the underground pipes would be full as well, where is the other 6.10 m3/s going to go through the peoples houses?
b. The above figure is on LSA figures of 7.40 m3/s KBR figures put it at 8.46 m/s, when the development is halted due to the in capacity to handle storm water why approve it when we are told by our consultant engineers the problem has only increased?
c. Is the Council planing to put handrails along Castlereagh Ct so that people fleeing there flooded houses can avoid being washed away into Mac Dower Park and through the culverts under the road?
7. When our Director of Engineering informs me that this catchment fills the huge culverts under Glastonbury Road and goes over that road we realise that the two 800 RCP under Castlereagh Street cannot cope with the water before this development began, how can our Engineers be agreeable to the KBR letter 15th July 2005 which states “outcomes of the LSA offer to alleviate the storm water drainage concerning the trunk drainage path addressed in the LSA response are reasonable,” after the concentration of that water due to the sub-division of the whole catchment?
8. The Director of Engineering told Council in the Works and Services meeting of the 1st November 2005 that he had recommended to BJS that Storm water from H2 and H3 and H1 be piped to Mc Phail Street and not to Decker’s sub-division but the pipes were not big enough under Mc Phail Street to accommodate the extra capacity. At that time Mc Phail was only 50 metres long.
a. Why was the Stages that included H3 H2 B1 and above not halted at this time until the Pipes in Mc Phail were dug up and replaced with one that can cope?
b. Who authorised this capacity to be diverted into the Wesleyan Church and the Decker sub-division before Council decided to pay for the Pipe taking the discharging water from Gympie Securities through the Wesleyan Church to Decker’s subdivision? Not forgetting that Gympie Securities had already designed and built their pipes to meet up with the Council pipe, months before Council had made the decision.
9. I have been informed by the Director of Engineering that this development up to Stage 6 was approved prior to 1996 and that Council is unable to prevent or stop the development. Yet in Planning Meeting developers regularly have to re-apply as they are only allowed two years if they have not began their development they have to re-apply.
a. As these latter Stages of Gympie Securities were not began until this year why was this provision not used to control the stormwater and Road problems.
b. Why does Council ‘stamp the titles’ which allows the developer to sell the lots off allowing the building of residential homes before the development has had its roads and Storm water Drains completed?
10. “It is noted that the Depth x Velocity product is in excess of the QUDM limit, which indicates some hazard to pedestrians”………’This footpath area and road sag will provide an area where pedestrians which may be in difficulty, could regain footing and avoid the possibility of being swept into deeper drainage channels downstream.”. Page7.
When we are told by consultants that pedestrians are at risk, the design does not comply with QUDM and we are to seek comfort that there are areas where the sag assists pedestrians to regain there footing. Then we are told that the LSA calculations are taken on BX 1. 6 and that they should be taken on BX 1 which increases Depth and Velocity to 8.47 m3/s level on the KBR report. With the same solution of channelling this water which exceeds the regulations over footpaths .
a. Why is Council jeopardising itself and the lives of pedestrians by allowing this excess?
b. Do we owe Gympie Securities a big favour?
c. Is it some Councillors or one of the Senior Staff who are assisting BJS or Gympie Securities or both?
11. We are also told in the LSA report that, “A previous assessment of the capacity of the 600 RCP drainline within the pathway indicated a capacity of 0.91m3/s. Since this time the development of Decker site has resulted in the modification of the entrance to the drainline. A manhole has replaced the previous headwall and three drainlines discharge to this new manhole. No further calculations have been carried out with respect to the capacity or the 600 RCP.” Notes on page 3 of the LSA report saying “Inclusion of Child Care Centre to HW40″……..”It is noted that the catchment for HW40 includes an impervious fraction consistent with the recent developments by Decker. and in 2.2 on the same page it says ..”This results in an increase of flows to HW40 from 2.14 to 2.46 m3/s in a Q 50 event”.
a. Why has this not been qualified addressed or mentioned in the Report from KBR that Council paid for?
b. Why has the KBR report not addressed or mentioned the storm Drain Pipes coming from the Gympie Securities H3 H,H1, H2, B, C and D through the Church ground into the Decker development?
c. They only mention as a proposal the Down Stream Detention Basin and the transfer of Pipe storm water from I/4 B to Mc Phail both have not occurred and no alternative has been noted or addressed by KBR. Is KBR unaware that there proposals have not been acted on and presume that they have?
d . KBR states, “If this pipe cannot be upgraded, additional detention storage capacity will be required… The mitigation options assume the overland storm water flow diversion from sub-catchment H1 to Mc Phail street for all cases”. We know that neither option or assumption has been carried out, neither have they been addressed in the further correspondence. What was the point of contracting for a KBR report when its recommendations are totally ignored?
e. What is the point of contracting for a KBR report when the information given to KBR is not correct? i.e. Pipe diversion to Mc Phail and Down Stream Detention Basin on the wrong property.
12. KBR report states “If both U/S and D/S detention basin is adopted otherwise this will need to be increased by about 50% to accommodate 3.786m3/s. the 50 years ARI flood Peak is 6.49 m3/s assuming BJS detention basin with overland flow diversion from sub-catchment H1″. (I presume to Mc Phail St) Page 9. Both the Down Stream Detention Basin and the overland flow diversion from H1 to Mc Phail have not been proceeded with (Pipes, Drains Gutters and roadway of Mc Phail are fully flooded in a minor weekly storm).
a. Has any other proposal been made to replaced these recommendations?
b. Have they been carried out?
c. Why have they not been mentioned in the correspondence or reports?
d. Do any of our Engineers read the reports ?
e. When KBR calculated this reports and following comments were they under the mis-apprehension that the roadways were the correct size?
f. If our Engineers read the KBR report would they not realise that the roadways were not the correct size and that the proposed Detention Basin was in the wrong property?
g. Or would they realise and not bother to inform KBR ?
h. Or would KBR have been informed by Council Staff but not bothered to alter their drawing figure 1 page 3 of their $30,000 dollar report?
i. Either way with mistakes as simple as these how can we have any confidence in our senior engineering staff or the Reports when peoples lives and fortunes (houses) are at risk.?
13.Letter from BJS 21st June 2005 states “As Constructed surveyed levels verifying Lots having freeboard from this flowpath it is suggested if there is potential for flooding to these lots, then that would be as a direct result of works carried out within the upstream adjacent developed site.”
a. Would it not have been prudent at this time for a Senior Engineer, in writing to point out to BJS that more water is coming into the HW40 from Gympie Securities then Decker’s and if Decker had not agreed to this Gympie Securities would have had to increase the size of their pipes under Mc Phail Street by digging them up and replacing them?
b. As KBR has not addressed BJS’s opinion on increases in “potential for flooding” due to “a direct result of works carried out within the upstream adjacent developed site.” or made any allowances for it, what is the point of Council paying for this report or the advice of the consultants engineers?
c. Are Councils Senior Engineering unaware of the above problems with these reports?
d. Have Councils Senior Engineering Staff informed KBR that some or all of the above issues have not been addressed in KBR’s report?e. Are KBR now aware of these problems but has not amended its report to address any of them?
f. Would Council want a more consummate report from KBR, not just value for money but to protect its self from claims of Duty of Care or Negligence in any future inquiry? When at the beginning of the report KBR it states, “KBR has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. No warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied is made with respect to the data reported or to the findings, observation and conclusions expressed in this report. Further, such data, findings, observations and conclusions are based solely upon site conditions in existence at the time of the investigation. KBR accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever”.
14. In a case of a 50 year Storm Flood event and KBR assumptions that work has been done which we know has not been done, would we call it a Natural Disaster or a Council Disaster? From Cr Ron Owen.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Ralph Waldo Emerson
