Crazy council plan for clontarf.

tricky D

With localised swells.

Icepick

more silly nimbyism from people who think they are living in a village

Also what views does it spoil? from cars?

Walk or cycle then.

odyssey06

Icepick wrote: »

more silly nimbyism from people who think they are living in a village
Also what views does it spoil? from cars?
Walk or cycle then.

Gosh. How strange that the people most affected by the wall are most concerned about it. But go ahead, throw the label nimbyism at it. You know, you would think the people living beside the sea would be the ones most concerned about their homes flooding.
So when they raise concerns about the proposed flood defence scheme, such as why it's higher in areas that are less likely to flood, people from outside the community might want to take a step back and think you know, maybe the local community are *legitimately entitled* to their concerns and throwing the label nimbyism at it is the silly thing to do.

It's entirely possible to improve the flood defences in Clontarf, while meeting the concerns of the local community. There shouldn't have to be protests just to get DCC to do their job properly.
Other councils, when faced with similar issues have come up with better solutions that fix the problem without diminishing the environment.
Why can't DCC?

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

Gosh. How strange that the people most affected by the wall are most concerned about it. But go ahead, throw the label nimbyism at it. You know, you would think the people living beside the sea would be the ones most concerned about their homes flooding.
So when they raise concerns about the proposed flood defence scheme, such as why it's higher in areas that are less likely to flood, people from outside the community might want to take a step back and think you know, maybe the local community are *legitimately entitled* to their concerns and throwing the label nimbyism at it is the silly thing to do.

It's entirely possible to improve the flood defences in Clontarf, while meeting the concerns of the local community. There shouldn't have to be protests just to get DCC to do their job properly.
Other councils, when faced with similar issues have come up with better solutions that fix the problem without diminishing the environment.
Why can't DCC?

if you so concerned you might want to back that up with a bit more details and facts.

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

if you so concerned you might want to back that up with a bit more details and facts.

We've been here before with the flood defences for the other end of Clontarf.
DCC proposes the nastiest cheapest solution as the only solution.
Locals are concerned.
Locals are accused of nimbyism and worse. Many comments seem to be motivated primarily by spite and jealousy and delight at the thought of depriving people of a nice view.
Locals organise mass protest.
DCC are brought to some semblance of sanity and latest proposal is for staggered sea walls so that the promenade is preserved.

My main point is that opposing DCC's cheapest nastiest solutions is not nimbyism. Yes, there is a problem, but that doesn't mean any crap solution would do.
Same thing we've seen with car access to Dollymount beach. Yes there's a problem, so that's the easiest solution for DCC, ban it.

As for nimbyism, all of Dublin is our back yard. If DCC get away with this kind of nonsense in Clontarf, it'll be your area next.

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

We've been here before with the flood defences for the other end of Clontarf.
DCC proposes the nastiest cheapest solution as the only solution.
Locals are concerned.
Locals are accused of nimbyism and worse. Many comments seem to be motivated primarily by spite and jealousy and delight at the thought of depriving people of a nice view.
Locals organise mass protest.
DCC are brought to some semblance of sanity and latest proposal is for staggered sea walls so that the promenade is preserved.

My main point is that opposing DCC's cheapest nastiest solutions is not nimbyism. Yes, there is a problem, but that doesn't mean any crap solution would do.
Same thing we've seen with car access to Dollymount beach. Yes there's a problem, so that's the easiest solution for DCC, ban it.

As for nimbyism, all of Dublin is our back yard. If DCC get away with this kind of nonsense in Clontarf, it'll be your area next.

i didn't say anything about nimbyism, I'm constantly criticising DCC for lack of consultation, its up to DCC to do a good job on that, but I want you to back up your claims above. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97566153&postcount=304

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

i didn't say anything about nimbyism, I'm constantly criticising DCC for lack of consultation, its up to DCC to do a good job on that, but I want you to back up your claims above. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97566153&postcount=304

Indeed, your comments earlier are much appreciated about the mismatch between how DCC are presetning this and what's being delivered... bit of a bait and switch.

As I said, we've been here before for the other defences. Only option was one big wall, now staggered walls are on the table - it seems amazing what becomes possible when pressure is applied.

In light of that... DCC say they've considered glass instead of a concrete wall but did they really consider it or did they more "dismiss" it by setting it up as a strawman?
Glass is an expensive option, but then so is property tax in Clontarf whose revenues are flowing to DCC.
DCC have concerns about vandalism of the glass... but no concerns about vandalism of a big stone wall? One side of which won't be visible from the road? Really?
Why if other city councils (Galway?) can use glass in flood defences, DCC can't?
Are there only specific lengths of the defences that glass cannot practically be used for and some areas where concrete must be used? Then use glass as much as can and link them with closeable floodgates (within reason, not expecting 1 metre alternates).

My political instinct is that the underhanded way this has been brought in by DCC is so that they can get their nastiest cheapest solution in place and it's too late to put pressure on them for a better solution.
If this really was clearly and unarguably the only solution, why not be transparent about its introduction?

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

Indeed, your comments earlier are much appreciated about the mismatch between how DCC are presetning this and what's being delivered... bit of a bait and switch.

As I said, we've been here before for the other defences. Only option was one big wall, now staggered walls are on the table - it seems amazing what becomes possible when pressure is applied.

In light of that... DCC say they've considered glass instead of a concrete wall but did they really consider it or did they more "dismiss" it by setting it up as a strawman?
Glass is an expensive option, but then so is property tax in Clontarf whose revenues are flowing to DCC.
DCC have concerns about vandalism of the glass... but no concerns about vandalism of a big stone wall? One side of which won't be visible from the road? Really?
Why if other city councils (Galway?) can use glass in flood defences, DCC can't?
Are there only specific lengths of the defences that glass cannot practically be used for and some areas where concrete must be used? Then use glass as much as can and link them with closeable floodgates (within reason, not expecting 1 metre alternates).

show me where Galway have used glass in their sea wall defence?

Squeaksoutloud

I don't fully understand why people are saying they weren't aware of this or that DCC didn't fully engage?

Looking at the 'Facts' of this which some people don't seem to bother with and just go away on a rant...

Fact....This project is separate to the one further down in around Alfie Byrne Road so unrelated (where the flooding actually occurs!).

Fact...The project has full planning and looking at the required planning reports it actually refers to flood defence works amongst other things that make up the whole project...http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway

Flood defence works to provide a continuous flood defence level of 4.25m O.D. between the Bull Wall and Causeway Road;

Reading this document...http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/s2s/FAQ_29thOctober2015.pdf

The proper Part VIII consultation procedures were followed. The proposed scheme was advertised on the Dublin City Council website and also in the Irish Times on Friday 14th
December 2012. A total of 14 site notices were erected at key locations from just south of Wooden Bridge to just north of Causeway Road including at all major traffic junctions along that route.

Plans and particulars of the proposed scheme were available for public inspection for a six week period up to and including Monday 4th February 2013 at the following locations and
times:

1. Dublin City Council, Public Counter, Planning Department, Block 4, Ground Floor, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8, Monday-Friday 9.00am-4.30pm.

2. Raheny Library, Howth Road, Dublin 5 between the hours of 10.00am-8.00pm

Monday to Thursday, and 10.00am-5.00pm on Friday and
Saturday.

The proposal was presented to the North Central Area Committee on 17th September 2012 and on 19th
November 2012. A public information meeting was held on Tuesday 15th January at 7.30 p.m. in Belgrove Girls School Hall, Seafield Road. This meeting was hosted by the Clontarf Residents Association and was attended by circa 180 people. A follow-up meeting was also held at 3pm on Friday 10th
May 2013 in Conference Room 2, Northside Civic Centre, Bunratty Road, Coolock, Dublin 17. Public representatives and residents attended this meeting. The National Transport Authority and their project consultants Roughan & O’Donovan were present and dealt with any additional or new enquiries that had not been addressed in the already comprehensive consultation process.

Planning approval was granted on Monday 13th May 2013.

Actually reading the reports the original proposal was for a fancy boardwalk scenario like this which looked much better:



Now the question is what info was provided on the height and finish of the wall for what we are actually getting?

Page 11 of the report shows a table with the wall to be increased by up to 0.85m alongside St. Annes Park - explains what we are seeing now. The rest of it looks very small so I'm not too concerned with what is happening nearer to the Wooden Bridge. Page 24 goes on about the increases again and I see the drawings attached to the report show cross sections at various locations.

I don't see anything on finishes for the wall so that is something I will be querying although I see on the info provided in the document linked above that...

The current finish complies with the specifications of the Part
8 planning permission that was granted. However a change to the current finish is currently under consideration by Dublin City Council.

Fact...The job is unfinished and I don't think I have ever seen an unfinished construction job or wall look pleasant! The wall at the moment looks terrible but obviously more info on finishes is needed. As for the height at St. Anne's, I see they have some info on the link above but I think it needs more explanation...not likely to be too many waves at the location. But the footpaths are still to be put in place and road surfacing done so Id say the height is probably exacerbated at the moment.

So after all that, my only queries are can the wall be lowered alongside St. Anne's and details provided on the proposed finish.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

I don't fully understand why people are saying they weren't aware of this or that DCC didn't fully engage?

Looking at the 'Facts' of this which some people don't seem to bother with and just go away on a rant...

Fact....This project is separate to the one further down in around Alfie Byrne Road so unrelated (where the flooding actually occurs!).

Fact...The project has full planning and looking at the required planning reports it actually refers to flood defence works amongst other things that make up the whole project...http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway

Reading this document...http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/s2s/FAQ_29thOctober2015.pdf



Actually reading the reports the original proposal was for a fancy boardwalk scenario like this which looked much better:



Now the question is what info was provided on the height and finish of the wall for what we are actually getting?

Page 11 of the report shows a table with the wall to be increased by up to 0.85m alongside St. Annes Park - explains what we are seeing now. The rest of it looks very small so I'm not too concerned with what is happening nearer to the Wooden Bridge. Page 24 goes on about the increases again and I see the drawings attached to the report show cross sections at various locations.

I don't see anything on finishes for the wall so that is something I will be querying although I see on the info provided in the document linked above that...



Fact...The job is unfinished and I don't think I have ever seen an unfinished construction job or wall look pleasant! The wall at the moment looks terrible but obviously more info on finishes is needed. As for the height at St. Anne's, I see they have some info on the link above but I think it needs more explanation...not likely to be too many waves at the location. But the footpaths are still to be put in place and road surfacing done so Id say the height is probably exacerbated at the moment.

So after all that, my only queries are can the wall be lowered alongside St. Anne's and details provided on the proposed finish.

Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protectionhttp://www.rod.ie/dollymount-promenade-flood-protection/

ROD undertook a feasibility study and preliminary design for a combined walkway and cycleway on the seaward side of the existing James Larkin Road, linking the 1.9km stretch from the North Bull Island Causeway to the Wooden Bridge at Dollymount in 2006. We were subsequently re-engaged in 2008 to undertake the Detailed Design and prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Three distinct designs were proposed to provide an efficient and environmentally sensitive solution. These include a steel deck supported on piles, a retaining wall option which makes use of the existing grassy areas along the scheme and also cable stayed bridge structure supporting the promenade. - See more at: http://www.rod.ie/dollymount-promenade-flood-protection/#sthash.cGwMBnwe.dpuf

Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Projecthttp://www.rod.ie/dollymount-promenade-flood-protection-project/

In 2012 we were appointed by DCC and the National Transport Authority to undertake an option selection and preliminary design of the Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Cycleway and Footway, Interim Works between Wooden Bridge / Bull Road and Causeway Road, as part of the Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project (DPFPP)

Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway and Footway Interim Works Scheme http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway
vs
Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-water-waste-and-environment-water-projects/coastal-flooding-projects#Dollymount%20Promenade%20and%20Flood%20Protection%20Project
2009 plan http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/Dollymount%20Promenade%20Non%20Technical%20Summary.pdf

Dublin City Council -Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Flood Defence Project Briefing Note – January 2012 http://naoise.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Briefing_Note_January_2012__Dollymount_Promenade_and_Flood_Defence_Project1.pdf

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

show me where Galway have used glass in their sea wall defence?

Actually it was Waterford City not Galway:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/final-phase-of-waterford-flood-relief-scheme-begins-211626.html

And information here on use in Norfolk, England:
* http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-19208908
* http://www.floodcontrolinternational.com/CASE-STUDIES/case-study-wells.html

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

Actually it was Waterford City not Galway:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/final-phase-of-waterford-flood-relief-scheme-begins-211626.html

And information here on use in Norfolk, England:
* http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-19208908
* http://www.floodcontrolinternational.com/CASE-STUDIES/case-study-wells.html

wells next to sea on map https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Wells-next-the-Sea,+Norfolk+NR23,+UK/@52.9642152,0.8480801,3144m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d771242ca1239b:0x48a6ef0ef85b7e10!6m1!1e1?hl=en

heres a pic http://www.herald.ie/news/council-should-take-note-of-clear-flood-defences-says-oriordain-34119856.html

is Waterford situation the same as Dollymounts?

woodseb

odyssey06 wrote: »

Gosh. How strange that the people most affected by the wall are most concerned about it. But go ahead, throw the label nimbyism at it.

i live right next to St annes and have no problems with the construction - the plans were as clear as day to anyone who bothered to look at them -it will be a massive improvement to the path from st annes to the wooden bridge especially for cyclists

i really don't get the hysterical reaction to it - and as others have said - its not finished so will look alot different to the eye once completed

spurious

I wonder will they sell off the two new benches by the pond that will now look at traffic and a wall? I'll give them fiddy quid for the two of them if they're going a begging.

BoltzmannBrain

As long as they don't mess with Bull Island!

hardCopy

BoltzmannBrain wrote: »

As long as they don't mess with Bull Island!

If only the plans included replacing the causeway with a bridge, maybe that would save it.

expectationlost

BoltzmannBrain wrote: »

As long as they don't mess with Bull Island!

when havn't they?

expectationlost

on NearFM


Finian McGrath Ind TD including wall
http://nearfm.ie/podcast/?p=16815

Finian is having his meeting on the 7th to talk about reducing the height of a wall thats already built...

--

Clontarf’s ” Berlin Wall” / “Great Wall” Conor Doyle get update from Stephanie Regan FG about the wall now being erected on Clontarf’s seafront. http://nearfm.ie/podcast/?p=16817

from earlier today

three works for applied in in one path,wall and water main (that familiar)

presenter still giving out about educed motorist's view

says she looked at councillors leaflets and none mentioned the wall heightened, and couldn't remember being told that in presentations from the council

now that just her opinion.

Pete_Cavan

expectationlost wrote: »

Finian is having his meeting on the 7th to talk about reducing the height of a wall thats already built...

I hope they are having a collection to pay for any additional works they want done, certainly shouldnt be expecting the taxpayer to put up the bill for changing something which went through a full consultation and planning process.

And since when is doing three works in one a bad thing, I can only imagine the uproar if the Council dug up the road for several weeks to install the watermain, followed soon after by lane closure to build the flood defence, rolling into stop/go system as they realign the road to incorporate the cycle path. Sometimes DCC cant win.

expectationlost

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I hope they are having a collection to pay for any additional works they want done, certainly shouldnt be expecting the taxpayer to put up the bill for changing something which went through a full consultation and planning process.

And since when is doing three works in one a bad thing, I can only imagine the uproar if the Council dug up the road for several weeks to install the watermain, followed soon after by lane closure to build the flood defence, rolling into stop/go system as they realign the road to incorporate the cycle path. Sometimes DCC cant win.

DCC could win by doing more human consultation

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

wells next to sea on map https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Wells-next-the-Sea,+Norfolk+NR23,+UK/@52.9642152,0.8480801,3144m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d771242ca1239b:0x48a6ef0ef85b7e10!6m1!1e1?hl=en

heres a pic http://www.herald.ie/news/council-should-take-note-of-clear-flood-defences-says-oriordain-34119856.html

is Waterford situation the same as Dollymounts?

Waterford seem to have used it more for a quay\estuary setting, unclear how much sea water it would be exposed to. Would perhaps be more applicable to Liffey in city centre.

But Wells-next-the-Sea from the map looks to have some commonalities with say, the more sheltered section between the causeway and wooden bridge. If I'm reading it correctly it would be exposed to sea water.
The section from wooden bridge to alfie byrne road has the advantage of the promenade which has been suggested to allow flood and have secondary defences to protect houses and roadway.
Options for the exposed section beyond the causeway are more limited as unless you reclaim extra land (which in the long run of 100 year horizon may not be a bad idea if the sealevel projections are to be believed) or make use of St Anne's land to divert road, you don't have the secondary defenses option, and the glass may not be a feasible solution in an exposed section.

But unless the local community feels that DCC have explored these options, communicated the pros and cons in a transparent and non-technical way, and done as much as they can to accomodate the feedback then there will be protests and complaints.

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

Waterford seem to have used it more for a quay\estuary setting, unclear how much sea water it would be exposed to. Would perhaps be more applicable to Liffey in city centre.

But Wells-next-the-Sea from the map looks to have some commonalities with say, the more sheltered section between the causeway and wooden bridge. If I'm reading it correctly it would be exposed to sea water.
The section from wooden bridge to alfie byrne road has the advantage of the promenade which has been suggested to allow flood and have secondary defences to protect houses and roadway.
Options for the exposed section beyond the causeway are more limited as unless you reclaim extra land (which in the long run of 100 year horizon may not be a bad idea if the sealevel projections are to be believed) or make use of St Anne's land to divert road, you don't have the secondary defenses option, and the glass may not be a feasible solution in an exposed section.

But unless the local community feels that DCC have explored these options, communicated the pros and cons in a transparent and non-technical way, and done as much as they can to accomodate the feedback then there will be protests and complaints.

I wonder if the boardwalk that was potentially going to built in the previous version would act as return wave wall or some sort dissipation, i dont know im just guessing

Pete_Cavan

expectationlost wrote: »

DCC could win by doing more human consultation

"More human consultation" is very subjective. Sounds to me like no matter what they did, it wasnt going to be enough.

If people would actually engage with the project at planning stage and inform themselves of what is proposed instead of waiting until half way through construction (a stage when projects generally look crap) before deciding changes should be made, "more human consultation" can happen. Consultation has to happen both ways, DCC put the information out there for everyone, people are free to make submissions and request more information. If nobody does that it seems reasonable to me that DCC would think the information they have made public is sufficient.

Anyone who is not happy with the project should take it up with Finian McGrath and elected officials opposing the project, why didnt they voice concerns earlier? Obviously because this is an easier way to con votes out of people, do nothing until it is too late and when they cant change anything, they can say at least I tried. Plenty will fall for it.

expectationlost

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

"More human consultation" is very subjective. Sounds to me like no matter what they did, it wasnt going to be enough.

If people would actually engage with the project at planning stage and inform themselves of what is proposed instead of waiting until half way through construction (a stage when projects generally look crap) before deciding changes should be made, "more human consultation" can happen. Consultation has to happen both ways, DCC put the information out there for everyone, people are free to make submissions and request more information. If nobody does that it seems reasonable to me that DCC would think the information they have made public is sufficient.

Anyone who is not happy with the project should take it up with Finian McGrath and elected officials opposing the project, why didnt they voice concerns earlier? Obviously because this is an easier way to con votes out of people, do nothing until it is too late and when they cant change anything, they can say at least I tried. Plenty will fall for it.

there's alway a bit of that, more so from those not yet elected but maybe these politicians couldn't imagine what the wall would look like either. Politicians can only pass on the information thats given to them by DCC. Im a bit hard on Finian because as much as politicians hype up anger they also use these meetings to disappate it and he's talking about making sure its finished nicely.

maybe people genuinely never heard of it, its hard to keep up with these projects, that start to be discussed and then they go off to be designed years pass and you forget about them and you miss them, notices in papers is no good, text notices on site are not good enough, I think leaflets should be sent to people homes, DCC has to publish the information for people to see, information and drawings the regular people can understand.

they missed out on building Clontarf flood berm and DCC thinks doing the same thing again will bring different results. Crazy.

expectationlost

Council to alter Clontarf sea wall after locals complain http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/council-to-alter-clontarf-sea-wall-after-locals-complain-1.2415819 just the finish of it, but Damien O'Farrell isn't happy he put down a emergency motion on it at yesterdays council meeting but it was rejected becuase it was not an emergency and the works had the proper permissions https://t.co/oRm0W4kfrF http://www.clontarf.ie/news/special-council-meeting-requested-regarding-sea-wall he said the after the berm issue the council had agreed that they would talk to people about flood works and the aestethics and amenity and agree that with people before buidling something and he says the reneged on that agreement

hatrickpatrick

Feel sorry for the folks in Clontarf, this stinks of the Dun Laoghaire library mess - council proposal and artists conceptions made the project look far less horrific and massive than it ultimately ended up being.

At least this gives us out in Sandycove fair warning that we need to start trying to block this thing before they have a chance to build it

odyssey06

Short notice, but for anyone who can make it, there will be a public meeting at Clontarf Castle tonight (4th November) about this, ahead of a private information meeting between DCC and local elected officials:
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/public-meeting-re-sea-wall-4th-november

my friend

To all the objectors, are you willing to sign a disclaimer to your insurance companies, DCC and the tax payer with respect to any and future flood claims if the plans are shelved and your views maintained

odyssey06

my friend wrote: »

To all the objectors, are you willing to sign a disclaimer to your insurance companies, DCC and the tax payer with respect to any and future flood claims if the plans are shelved and your views maintained

You seem to be implying that just because some sort of flood defence is needed, locals should accept the quickest cheapest nastiest solution.
One wonders why we have councillors and any sort of public consultation at all. Let's just throw up the highest biggest wall we can in the shortest amount of time.
Nobody is more aware of the flood risks in the area than Clontarf residents themselves.

If you need a new door for your car, would you be happy if the garage puts on a different colour door?
Or if you need a new window, wouldn't you object if the workman comes along and concretes it up?

sheesh

RMD wrote: »

That view also equals a decent chunk of a house price. Many people will buy a house along Clontarf road because they'll have a view over the bay. Taking into account there's 300 hundred houses along the road, it adds up to a couple of million in falling prices. Not to mention as said it's a popular amenity used by cyclists, walkers, sports teams / athletic clubs etc. Stick a 9 foot mound in the middle of it and it ruins it for a lot of people.

In the 10+ years I've been living in Clontarf I've only seen 2 bad spots of flooding both well controlled by sand bags. I've never seen flooding conditions that would require a 9 foot wall.

what happens when it does flood the houses? how will that affect the prices.