The civil scope, written as work rather than a menu.

Levels, access, retaining and the ground the building actually sits on.

For a house, dual occupancy or small commercial building on an existing lot, the civil problem is rarely the building itself. It is the driveway that has to meet the street at a lawful grade, the yard that has to fall to a real pit or easement, and the wall that has to hold the neighbour’s ground. We set those levels so the architect, the certifier and the builder are working from the same ground.

A typical infill commission starts from the architectural plans and a contour survey. We test the driveway against the street crossfall and sight lines, set finished levels for the building and the courtyards, and show retaining where the cut or fill needs it. The issued set is a plan, long-sections and a short report the consent authority can read without a second meeting.

Usually includes

• Driveway and access long-section, with grades and sight distance
• Earthworks balance, finished levels and retaining intent
• Civil interface notes the architect can draw to
• A report that states the assumptions and the controls relied on

We do not design the house, the structure of the building, or the landscape planting. If a structural engineer is required for a retaining wall, we say so in the scope.

Local roads, intersections and the civil edge of a subdivision.

Where a project creates or alters a public road, we design the alignment, the cross-section, the pavement intent and the tie-in to the existing street. The drawing is written against Austroads guidance and the council engineering specification that will actually be enforced at the hold point — not a generic road section copied from another council.

For a new local road or a widened frontage, we set the horizontal and vertical alignment, a typical cross-section, kerb returns and the pavement intent. Intersections are checked for the vehicle the council’s specification names. The public-domain edge — footpath, verge, drainage pits — is drawn so it matches the existing street rather than stopping at the boundary.

Usually includes

• Alignment, long-section and typical cross-sections
• Pavement intent for the nominated council specification
• Kerb, footpath and pit interface with the existing road
• A schedule of departures, if any, from the council standard

Traffic signal design, transport planning and full road-safety audits are referred to a specialist when the brief needs them. We do not pretend a civil plan is a traffic study.

Pipes, overland flow, detention and treatment that a council can follow.

We size the minor system, show where the major storm goes when the pits are full, and locate detention and treatment where the written controls require them. On-site detention, bioretention, rainwater reuse and a lawful point of discharge are designed as one strategy, with the calculation attached to the plan a assessor can check.

Hydrology is done for the storms the council actually asks for. The pipe network is drawn with levels, the overland flow path is shown when the minor system is exceeded, and detention is sized to the written storage and discharge limits. Where water-sensitive urban design is required, the treatment train — often a bioretention basin or a cartridge system — is located where it can be built and maintained, not only where it looks tidy on a plan.

Usually includes

• Catchment plan, hydrology and a pipe or swale network
• On-site detention sized to the written controls, with a section
• Treatment proposal where WSUD is required, with a calculation summary
• A nominated lawful point of discharge, or a statement that one is not yet proven

We do not invent downstream capacity. If the next pit, easement or creek has not been surveyed, that limit is written on the drawing.

What a flood study means for floor level, access and the civil works.

Many sites are not in a floodplain in the ordinary sense and are still flood-affected: overland flow, a sag in the road, a creek at the back boundary. We read the published study or flood certificate against the proposed floors, the driveway and the evacuation path, and we say plainly when a letter is enough and when a new model is required.

We read the flood study, flood certificate or council flood mapping the site actually sits under. Floor levels, garage levels, the driveway as an evacuation path, and flood-compatible building materials are checked against that source. The advice distinguishes mainstream flooding from overland flow, and it names the freeboard that applies. If the authority will not accept a desk review, the letter says a model is required and what that model needs.

Usually includes

• A written flood affectation review, citing the study and the levels used
• Implications for floor level, garage, fencing and access
• What a fuller flood impact assessment would still need
• Coordination notes for the architect and the planner

A letter is not a flood study and it is not a flood certificate. We do not certify that a site is flood-free.

Water, sewer and the lead-in that the authority will recognise.

A consent that ignores Sydney Water, Hunter Water or the local authority’s servicing rules stalls at the first application for connection. We prepare the reticulation strategy, the lead-in and the connection case in the authority’s language, and we keep the civil plans consistent with it.

We coordinate potable water, sewer and, where relevant, recycled water against the authority’s codes and the notices already issued for the site. Lead-ins, connection points, depth relative to stormwater, and easements are drawn so the civil set and the servicing application describe the same connection. Conflicts with existing mains are marked, not smoothed over.

Usually includes

• Water and sewer strategy, with connection points
• Lead-in plans and long-sections where a main has to be extended
• Coordination notes against the authority’s code and any feasibility letter
• A list of applications the client, not the consultant, must still lodge

Authority approval is the authority’s. We prepare the engineering case. We do not grant the connection, and we do not design electrical or gas reticulation.

A second set of eyes before lodgement, and a named engineer during the build.

Before a package is lodged or tendered, a peer review marks what is acceptable, what is incomplete and what conflicts. During construction we answer RFIs, attend the hold points named in the engagement, and keep revisions numbered. Statutory certification stays with a registered certifier.

A peer review is a reading of someone else’s civil package against the consent, the council specification and ordinary engineering care. Comments are ranked: must change before lodgement, should change before construction, noted for the file. Construction-phase support is narrower: we answer the RFI in front of us, sketch the revision if the original advice has to move, and record what was assumed from the photographs.

Usually includes

• A marked issue list, ranked by consequence, with drawing references
• RFI responses a superintendent can file
• Numbered revisions during construction support
• As-built coordination notes against the issued-for-construction set

We are not a principal certifier, a superintendent, or the builder’s designer of record unless the proposal says so in those words. A review is not a redesign.