Crazy council plan for clontarf.

Pete_Cavan

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

And what happens with the wall height?! Seems to have got lost in all the hubris over planning conditions but most of the councillors seemed satisfied with the engineering behind it all.

My reading of it is that the wall height has been found to be both in compliance with the planning permission received and necessary to prevent future flooding. It seems even those opposed to the project have realised this and have now turned their attention to slinging mud over anything else they can find, planning conditions is top of that list. Even the planning conditions argument doesnt hold much water (excuse the pun) as it is based on previous projects which are not happening.

expectationlost

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

My reading of it is that the wall height has been found to be both in compliance with the planning permission received and necessary to prevent future flooding. It seems even those opposed to the project have realised this and have now turned their attention to slinging mud over anything else they can find, planning conditions is top of that list. Even the planning conditions argument doesnt hold much water (excuse the pun) as it is based on previous projects which are not happening.

i'd like to see a direct comparison of that section of the wall with the previous more expensive plan

Squeaksoutloud

expectationlost wrote: »

i'd like to see a direct comparison of that section of the wall with the previous more expensive plan

Here is the EIS for that other scheme:

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/08159.pdf

EDIT - Page 57-81 of that EIS has some great montages of the deck promenade and cable type structure.

Wall seems to be same height as current project.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Here is the EIS for that other scheme:

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/08159.pdf

EDIT - Page 57-81 of that EIS has some great montages of the deck promenade and cable type structure.

Wall seems to be same height as current project.

here are the volume 2 drawings to go along with that eis http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/08159%20Volume%202%20Drawings.pdf


to answer myself page 24, 2012 curent interim works plan

The flood defence wall will be provided to a level of 4.25m ODM. This is the same level as proposed in the Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project approved by An Bord Pleanála

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/Part%20VIII%20Planning%20Report%20Dec%202012.pdf

I guess the EIS wouldn't nessecarily include all details and images of wall heights, but I not sure which images you suggest shows that section in the previous plan

the high part is mount prospect to naniken stream? the old pond corner/front of the park to the stream http://www.seanhaughey.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Presentation-to-Elected-Officials-5th-Nov.-2015.pdf what chainage range is that? increase in wall height listed on page 11 http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/Part%20VIII%20Planning%20Report%20Dec%202012.pdf but not sure exactly which section and total height. this is section D http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1002.pdf the higest part is in this doc i think http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1003.pdf full planshttp://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway


if there had been more of boardwalk on the sea side of a flood defence wall, even more clontarf'ers would be imagening it would turn out like the liffey boardwalk

expectationlost

here's the full text of the motion http://naoise.ie/city-council-motion-on-dollymount-flood-defence/ via Naoise who then says Second opinion on height of Dollymount Flood Defence required http://naoise.ie/second-opinion-on-height-of-dollymount-flood-defence-required-o-muiri/ ok so people don't trust DCC but giving false hope too + cost

Squeaksoutloud

DCC Update and seems a good measured response - no planning issues with them continuing works over the Winter as I would have thought:

http://www.dublincity.ie/dublin-city-council-clarifies-aspects-flood-alleviation-cycleway-and-watermain-works-clontarf-0

A number of issues have been reported in the media in recent weeks in relation to aspects of the current flood alleviation, cycleway and water main works along Clontarf promenade, which require clarification.

The issues can be categorised under two headings firstly: the height, material and finish of the wall and secondly: planning questions relating to the times during which work may take place and the planning condition relating to the establishment of an environmental liaison committee.

Height of the wall: In light of some public concern relating to the rationale supporting the height of the flood defence wall we are arranging to seek an independent expert opinion to examine the technical information that informed our decision to erect the flood defence wal,l and secondly, to examine if the approved height is a proportionate and correct response to this information. We understand that local Councillor Naoise Ó Muirí (Chairperson of Environment Strategic Policy Committee) has already suggested this approach.

It should be noted that An Bord Pleanála in granting two previous permissions for projects on the same site which proposed a flood wall of the same height made the following comments in 2008, "the proposed development represents an appropriate response to flooding risk in the area", and in a later permission in 2011, "the proposed development would represent an appropriate response to identified coastal flooding problems in Clontarf area..". It should be further noted that the rate of sea level rise on which previous calculations were based have been exceeded in the intervening period. The fact that this is an interim solution and 350mm (14") lower than the final proposal was also noted by An Bord Pleanála as minimising visual impacts.

Wall construction material: it is currently proposed that the wall would be constructed using reinforced concrete. A number of people have suggested that the use of glass would be a suitable alternative in terms of providing increased visual amenity. The use of glass was examined previously but was ruled out on a number of grounds as follows: unproven effectiveness in this type of location, installation costs, maintenance cost, limited visibility through it, a long procurement period and a limited life span. Raising the level of a glass wall would be impossible in the future. The installation costs would be a large multiple of the cost of reinforced concrete and would in effect limit the resources available to carry out further flood relief works in this other flood risk areas. Maintenance costs would include constant cleaning, vandalism, marine deposits and age related degradation. While glass walls have been used by the council in other locations, we have not commissioned them in any location which is subjected to regular wave action, nor has any other Council in Ireland to the best of our knowledge. Even if the expected life span put forward by manufacturers of fifty years is achievable for such a prototype, this is far short of that provided by the proposed alternative. It would also constitute a material change to the Part VIII Planning Permission and would require the entire process to be recommenced.

Finish of the wall: The Council has already undertaken to engage with the local public representatives to agree a suitable natural stone finish for the road side of this new wall .

Planning issues relating to allowable Working periods: some confusion has arisen in relation to the times at which works can be carried out in the area. There are three distinct planning permissions relating to the current works granted in 2008, 2011 and 2013.. The planning permission in 2013 stated the following in Condition Six , ".. that the development comply with the conditions attached to previously permitted An Bord Pleanala schemes PL29N.JA0008 and PL29N.YA 0008 as amended by this proposal ." ( these previous permissions were the two mentioned above granted in 2008 and 2011). These permissions had very onerous seasonal working constraints, as the 2011 permission included permission to build a seven metre cantilevered cycleway on the sea side of the sea wall and included piling in the lagoon area. The most recent 2013 permission relates to works, the vast majority of which are on the land side of the sea wall. It is for this reason that the 2013 permission states in Condition Ten, " ..the construction period for works to the lagoon shall be restricted to between March and September each year. Any exceptions sought shall be agreed in advance with the National Parks & Wildlife Service. The timing of all other works outside the lagoon shall be agreed with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

This is the condition that controls the current works and it is imperative to emphasise that the Council at no time breached the planning conditions of this permission in relation to permitted working times.

Planning issues relating to setting up environmental liaison committee:

In the 2013 permission condition 8 stated, ".. An environmental monitoring and liaison committee shall be established for the duration of the construction period ". The recommended membership of this committee was set out in the earlier 2011 permission as follows: " an environmental monitoring and liaison committee shall be established by the applicant for the construction period ; membership shall be restricted to four persons plus an independent Chairperson . The committee shall comprise representation from :

Dublin City Council
The local community which borders the project
Ecological groups with a specialist interest in the area
National Parks and wildlife service (NPWS)
Office of Public Works "
The mathematics are not quite right ( five groups involved but the group is to be limited to four ) but we are making plans to establish the group in consultation with the Area Committee and the relevant groups mentioned. The group was not formed previously as it did not prove feasible to achieve the composition suggested. We did however liaise with Birdwatch Ireland , NWPS and OPW in relation to the works and regular information leaflet drops to the affected community .

The City Council is regularly criticised for its actions, sometimes justifiably so, but our brief is to take a strategic approach to issues which have a general effect on the citizens of Dublin. These decisions can sometimes have a limited adverse effect on a limited number of citizens. In this case, the flood defence wall will impede the view of the sea currently enjoyed by motorists (the view enjoyed by pedestrians most wheelchair users and cyclists travelling on the sea side of the road will not be affected) for a distance of around four hundred metres. The benefit is that the people of the Clontarf area will be protected from tidal flooding for many years to come. We will also deliver on two actions we are regularly accused of not delivering - joined up thinking (combining a water main, cycleway and flood defence in the one scheme) and forward planning (protecting into the future against an ever increasing risk of coastal flooding). "

Ends

odyssey06

Thanks for publishing the piece, but I have to take issue with the notion that it is a measured response... It has had to be dragged out of DCC kicking and screaming when they should have been providing this level of engagement from the outset.

"The City Council is regularly criticised for its actions, sometimes justifiably so" ... especially when you are supposed to form a liaison committee with the local community represented as a condition of planning permission... and you do not. Seems like an exercise in corporate-bureaucratic self-justification to me.

"The Council has already undertaken to engage with the local public representatives to agree a suitable natural stone finish for the road side of this new wall ." ... this also was a condition of the planning permission that the finish of the wall blend in with existing structures. DCC make it sound like they are doing this to be reasonable, when the only reason DCC are doing this is due to the uproar raised by the local community.

expectationlost

Finian McGrath TD Sea Wall Update on NearFM http://nearfm.ie/podcast/?p=16980 claims extra feet added to wall that wasn't in original plan? really?

i emailed him to ask to expand on that claim

Squeaksoutloud

Well considering he keeps referring to An Bord Planeala conditions I wouldn't trust a word he said. Bord Planeala weren't even the planning authority to grant permission for this scheme but unfortunately most people listening to him don't understand this. :rolleyes:

I don't see any planning condition in the planning approval or even the planning documentation (Part 8) submitted about the aesthetic finish. It should have been included though and I cant believe consideration was even given to exposed concrete (though presentation indicated most of it was to be plastered?) but at least DCC have admitted this is still work in progress and the final finish is to be agreed.

As for several feet higher that sounds like an unfounded claim with no evidence to back it up! From watching that presentation at the council meeting and the various info on social media it seems to be at the height in the planning docs..4.25 or whatever. I think there was some mention that some capping finish might result in it being slightly higher but apparently abandoned now - was it horgan jones had something about the wall going in a few inches lower so it wouldn't go over??

odyssey06

An independent assessment of the figures used as inputs to the raising of the sea wall is available here:
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/clontarf-sea-wall-independent-heights-survey?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Clontarf+Sea+Wall+-+Independent+Heights+Survey&utm_content=Clontarf+Sea+Wall+-+Independent+Heights+Survey+CID_246899fdb468cf01c595bdeac2800ee9&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=httpwwwclontarfienewsclontarf-sea-wall-independent-heights-survey

It's about 8-10 pages in length so can't reproduce in full, but I think that anyone after reading this report with an open mind could not have confidence in the figures used by DCC, and clearly they need to be re-evaluated.

One key point on the lack of integrity by DCC in all this:
"In its presentation to Councillors of 5th November 2015, DCC used land-originated flooding photographs on Pages 25 and 26 of its presentation that gave the impression of seaward-generated flooding. All floods in the section between the Bull Bridge and the Causeway have been caused by rain and excess flow in the Nanikin River and/or Santry River. I have since sent to DCC the Exceptional Weather Events report from Met Éireann that explains the inland rather than seaward origin of the most severe flood, which occurred in June 1993."

And more on the reliability of the figures and assumptions:
"According to DCC sources, it is estimated that world sea levels rose by between 100mm and 250mm during the 20th Century. It is further claimed that global figures indicate a current annual increase of 2-4mm/annum. Research is needed to explain the claim of a rise in average tide levels in Dublin Port of approximately 90mm over the past 15 years, i.e., an average of 6mm per annum. DCC also claims that average tide levels are now 145mm higher than in 1963. This suggests a rise of 55mm over 37 years (1963 to 2000) and then 90mm over 15 years (2000 to 2015). This seems anomalous and requiring of further investigation...
It appears that engineers alone are making 200 year decisions and putting in their customary loadings. The fact that sea defences could be built using a modular solution that would allow further height to be added in 30, 50 or 100 years’ time, depending on the actual outcome re global warming/sea level rises etc., does not seem to have been considered. New materials, such as synthetic “glass” with the strength of steel, are likely to be invented within these time-frames and existing solutions will become much cheaper as technologies mature. At present, the amenity view and the visual impact on the biosphere are being sacrificed to engineering margin alone. We need the response of other parts of DCC and other interested parties, including residents, to balance out the engineering view."

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

An independent assessment of the figures used as inputs to the raising of the sea wall is available here:
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/clontarf-sea-wall-independent-heights-survey?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Clontarf+Sea+Wall+-+Independent+Heights+Survey&utm_content=Clontarf+Sea+Wall+-+Independent+Heights+Survey+CID_246899fdb468cf01c595bdeac2800ee9&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=httpwwwclontarfienewsclontarf-sea-wall-independent-heights-survey

It's about 8-10 pages in length so can't reproduce in full, but I think that anyone after reading this report with an open mind could not have confidence in the figures used by DCC, and clearly they need to be re-evaluated.

One key point on the lack of integrity by DCC in all this:
"In its presentation to Councillors of 5th November 2015, DCC used land-originated flooding photographs on Pages 25 and 26 of its presentation that gave the impression of seaward-generated flooding. All floods in the section between the Bull Bridge and the Causeway have been caused by rain and excess flow in the Nanikin River and/or Santry River. I have since sent to DCC the Exceptional Weather Events report from Met Éireann that explains the inland rather than seaward origin of the most severe flood, which occurred in June 1993."

And more on the reliability of the figures and assumptions:
"According to DCC sources, it is estimated that world sea levels rose by between 100mm and 250mm during the 20th Century. It is further claimed that global figures indicate a current annual increase of 2-4mm/annum. Research is needed to explain the claim of a rise in average tide levels in Dublin Port of approximately 90mm over the past 15 years, i.e., an average of 6mm per annum. DCC also claims that average tide levels are now 145mm higher than in 1963. This suggests a rise of 55mm over 37 years (1963 to 2000) and then 90mm over 15 years (2000 to 2015). This seems anomalous and requiring of further investigation...
It appears that engineers alone are making 200 year decisions and putting in their customary loadings. The fact that sea defences could be built using a modular solution that would allow further height to be added in 30, 50 or 100 years’ time, depending on the actual outcome re global warming/sea level rises etc., does not seem to have been considered. New materials, such as synthetic “glass” with the strength of steel, are likely to be invented within these time-frames and existing solutions will become much cheaper as technologies mature. At present, the amenity view and the visual impact on the biosphere are being sacrificed to engineering margin alone. We need the response of other parts of DCC and other interested parties, including residents, to balance out the engineering view."

i don't know why we're supposed to believe him

expectationlost

latest draft flood map consultation ( you have to make an account with an emaal to view em) https://maps.opw.ie/flood_draftmap_consult/afa/337/ last maps here refer to front of St Annes

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

i don't know why we're supposed to believe him

He had made statements which can be falsified, it's not a question of believing it. Accept it or reject it. Let's take one for starters, that DCC used photographs of landward flooding in their presentation justifying seaward defences...
If anyone would like to defend DCC on that point, fire ahead.

I think any person with an open mind at this point would have to conclude that any benefit of the doubt should be with him rather than DCC, and anything emanating from DCC cannot be trusted without independent assessment which is a sad state of affairs for an organisation who is supposed to be charged with the care of the city. Instead DCC chooses to put itself into an adversarial relationship with the local community through its conduct, acts of omission and mis-communications.

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

He had made statements which can be falsified, it's not a question of believing it. Accept it or reject it. Let's take one for starters, that DCC used photographs of landward flooding in their presentation justifying seaward defences...
If anyone would like to defend DCC on that point, fire ahead.
.

why don't you falsify DCC statements


I havn't found anymore information about those flood photos, but as you seen from my previos post I've been looking, i need a description of that flooding as only pluvial.

why should the benefit of doubt be with him?


I think he and other like Finian maybe making gross overstatements of the situation even if I think DCC havn't communicated things well.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Well considering he keeps referring to An Bord Planeala conditions I wouldn't trust a word he said. Bord Planeala weren't even the planning authority to grant permission for this scheme but unfortunately most people listening to him don't understand this. :rolleyes:

DCC seem to have agreed to abide by Bord Planeala conditions now

Squeaksoutloud

odyssey06 wrote: »

An independent assessment of the figures used as inputs to the raising of the sea wall is available here:
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/clontarf-sea-wall-independent-heights-survey?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Clontarf+Sea+Wall+-+Independent+Heights+Survey&utm_content=Clontarf+Sea+Wall+-+Independent+Heights+Survey+CID_246899fdb468cf01c595bdeac2800ee9&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=httpwwwclontarfienewsclontarf-sea-wall-independent-heights-survey

It's about 8-10 pages in length so can't reproduce in full, but I think that anyone after reading this report with an open mind could not have confidence in the figures used by DCC, and clearly they need to be re-evaluated.

One key point on the lack of integrity by DCC in all this:
"In its presentation to Councillors of 5th November 2015, DCC used land-originated flooding photographs on Pages 25 and 26 of its presentation that gave the impression of seaward-generated flooding. All floods in the section between the Bull Bridge and the Causeway have been caused by rain and excess flow in the Nanikin River and/or Santry River. I have since sent to DCC the Exceptional Weather Events report from Met Éireann that explains the inland rather than seaward origin of the most severe flood, which occurred in June 1993."

And more on the reliability of the figures and assumptions:
"According to DCC sources, it is estimated that world sea levels rose by between 100mm and 250mm during the 20th Century. It is further claimed that global figures indicate a current annual increase of 2-4mm/annum. Research is needed to explain the claim of a rise in average tide levels in Dublin Port of approximately 90mm over the past 15 years, i.e., an average of 6mm per annum. DCC also claims that average tide levels are now 145mm higher than in 1963. This suggests a rise of 55mm over 37 years (1963 to 2000) and then 90mm over 15 years (2000 to 2015). This seems anomalous and requiring of further investigation...
It appears that engineers alone are making 200 year decisions and putting in their customary loadings. The fact that sea defences could be built using a modular solution that would allow further height to be added in 30, 50 or 100 years’ time, depending on the actual outcome re global warming/sea level rises etc., does not seem to have been considered. New materials, such as synthetic “glass” with the strength of steel, are likely to be invented within these time-frames and existing solutions will become much cheaper as technologies mature. At present, the amenity view and the visual impact on the biosphere are being sacrificed to engineering margin alone. We need the response of other parts of DCC and other interested parties, including residents, to balance out the engineering view."

Well first of all I certainly wouldn't exactly call it an independent assessment as this person quite clearly has issue with the proposed flood defence scheme.

As for this:

One key point on the lack of integrity by DCC in all this:
"In its presentation to Councillors of 5th November 2015, DCC used land-originated flooding photographs on Pages 25 and 26 of its presentation that gave the impression of seaward-generated flooding.

That appears to me to be an unfounded and false accusation. DCC have never claimed that this area has flooded and if they did I am sure it would be the first defence they would be using for the wall height! Those photos quite clearly show the water flowing from over the park boundary wall.

In fact...this update here proves this:

http://www.janehorganjones.ie/clontarf-flood-defences-update-6th-november-2015/

Engineers stated that while there are no properties along this particular
section of the Coast Road adjacent to St. Anne’s Park, flooding starting
here can build up and head towards properties. They stated it would not remain confined to that area.

In relation to the sea level rises you quote above:

Research is needed to explain the claim of a rise in average tide levels
in Dublin Port of approximately 90mm over the past 15 years, i.e., an average of
6mm per annum

Did you take the time to watch the presentation at the DCC Special Meeting (http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/197373) where it was confirmed these were actual gauge measurements from Dublin Bay and the increase was ending up at 109mm up to 2014..a serious rate of increase in my opinion. Of course this is claimed to be anomalous by the author.

As for the rest of the 'independent assessment' it lists some levels from around the bay which I am sure are all very correct. It also confirms the wall is currently constructed to the correct planning level of 4.25m which puts Finian McGraths from the podcast mentioned earlier out the window straight away.

The sentence about tidal flows long since escaping out over Bull Island:

As such, all excess tidal flows will have long since escaped across the island and Royal Dublin golf course

seems silly and I don't think the sea works that way!

WRT the comment:

The highest tide experienced historically as per Dublin City Council (“DCC”) is 3.040 OD

The DCC presentation refers to a base flood level of 3.2m which is a standard for the East coast so I am curious why this is that bit higher than the 3.04 he refers to..

Again, taken from the Horgan Jones link above the design is based on future predictions:

Standard tide height

o Associated wave height (this has been reduced in this instance
because of the presence of Bull Island). The height has been
calculated at 0.25m instead of the usual 0.75m stipulated by the
OPW. 0.75 is standard for the east coast of Ireland but the presence
of Bull Island means we can reduce this. Otherwise, the wall would be
higher than it is now.

o Global warming element which is 500mm. 90-100mm of this has
already disappeared in the last 15 years. This is the absolute minimum
range as recommended by the OPW, though the thinking now is that
700mm is more likely to be the appropriate height. This means that
global warming appears to be happening faster than previously
thought.

o “Freeboard” element, or safety margin of 300mm which is the
standard safety margin to account for errors in the other areas (for
example, if global warming happens faster than anticipated or there
were local anomalies). If we were building an embankment rather
than a wall, this would have to be 500mm instead of 300mm as an
embankment will settle into the ground over time and become lower.

o 4.25 ODM (from sea level) is the resulting height, which is consistent
with other flood defences and thus is the minimum height stipulated
by the OPW regulations.

So obviously the design is based on future levels not on past flooding events..I think everyone agrees including DCC that there has never been sea flooding in the past at this location. I guess we design our motorways for predicted future traffic so should we not be doing the same for our flood defences (oh wait remember how well the M50 design went!) - not much point in designing our infrastructure for 1995 is there.

But I do like the reference that different areas might need to be considered in terms of amenity - I see one solution possibly being the removal of the 300mm freeboard because any less and that wall I see every second day is going to be too small! Have you noticed since they started filling the road back in some of the first section of wall you see as you drive towards town is actually quite low - lower than anything up nearer to me in Baldoyle.

As for the silting up of area between land and bull Island I actually think the 'salt marsh' he refers to as increasing actually benefits birds as that it what provides their feeding grounds..

Clontarf.ie seems to have moved from a community website to something being used for editorial and political means and serious questions should be asked about this...am I right in saying it is run by a private company? The recent article about development beside St. Anne's Park was outrageous with most people commenting on it under the impression DCC were building houses in the park itself! Of course it is a private developer applying for permission on private lands and they had to issue a statement to correct all facts..but yet this wasn't clear to anyone reading the article (certainly for most people judging by social media comments).


http://www.clontarf.ie/news/statement-from-clontarf-residents-association-re-proposed-development-at-st-annes-park

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Well first of all I certainly wouldn't exactly call it an independent assessment as this person quite clearly has issue with the proposed flood defence scheme.

As for this:



That appears to me to be an unfounded and false accusation. DCC have never claimed that this area has flooded and if they did I am sure it would be the first defence they would be using for the wall height! Those photos quite clearly show the water flowing from over the park boundary wall.

In fact...this update here proves this:

http://www.janehorganjones.ie/clontarf-flood-defences-update-6th-november-2015/

just on this point last few pages of DCC presentation has two photos of flooding somewhere around there http://www.seanhaughey.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Presentation-to-Elected-Officials-5th-Nov.-2015.pdf

Squeaksoutloud

expectationlost wrote: »

just on this point last few pages of DCC presentation has two photos of flodding somewhere around there http://www.seanhaughey.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Presentation-to-Elected-Officials-5th-Nov.-2015.pdf

Yes they are the photos I am referring too but there is no text to decipher what was said alongside the images. If DCC were (stupid enough in!) claiming these related to sea flooding surely this would have been their number one defence and reason for the walls and all the notes from councillors after the meeting would have referred to previous sea flooding occurring in the area - nowhere have I seen anyone claiming sea flooding alongside St. Annes Park.

Weren't they doing some works there at the stream underpass before they started on the scheme - I remember DCC Drainage vans there and some yellow cabins for 2-3 weeks.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Yes they are the photos I am referring too but there is no text to decipher what was said alongside the images. If DCC were (stupid enough in!) claiming these related to sea flooding surely this would have been their number one defence and reason for the walls and all the notes from councillors after the meeting would have referred to previous sea flooding occurring in the area - nowhere have I seen anyone claiming sea flooding alongside St. Annes Park.

Weren't they doing some works there at the stream underpass before they started on the scheme - I remember DCC Drainage vans there and some yellow cabins for 2-3 weeks.

but they were using those photos to justify sea defences see minute 25 in this video http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/197373 engineer says there is flooding there

odyssey06

The entire point of the DCC presentation to local elected officials was about the height of the sea wall, there isn't a single mention in the text of supporting drainage works (e.g. to alleviate rainfall flooding)... so why include 2 dated photographs of the area in question showing flooding? It's inexplicable to me except as an attempt to misrepresent the situation to elected officials. Either someone in DCC tried to pull the wool over the elected officials' eyes; or DCC themselves don't realise that the area has never flooded.

Maybe the figures underlying the height are right, but DCC have shown evasiveness and defensiveness and adversarial behaviour to the local community which suggest to me they themselves either don't feel they are on solid ground, or don't understand the figures behind the wall enough to know what is really needed ... I don't think in 2015 it's enough to rely on the argument from authority and say well the engineers' must be right, without knowing what inputs, assumptions and parameters they were supplied with in preparing their report.

I think we have clearly reached the point where every figure underlying the proposed defences need to be re-examined thoroughly, and any assumption revisited with a brief to balancing the needs of flood defence with local amenity.
Does it make sense now to build a seawall of such height to cope with sea level rises expected in 50 years time in an area of high public amenity? Why not a modular approach that allows ramping up and down, the ability to build on better defences as they become available etc

Squeaksoutloud

expectationlost wrote: »

but they were using those photos to justify sea defences see minute 25 in this video http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/197373 engineer says there is flooding there

Just looked at that - they are referring to a future design event flood map not past flooding.

I have never seen DCC state anywhere that flooding has occurred here in the past from the sea.

The photos from the previous presentation have no context as there is no text with them..for all we know DCC were discussing flooding from the park! I am sure if they were claiming past flooding from the sea we would have heard about it by now and it would have been the main thing documented from that original meeting and at the webcast council meeting.

Squeaksoutloud

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think we have clearly reached the point where every figure underlying the proposed defences need to be re-examined thoroughly, and any assumption revisited with a brief to balancing the needs of flood defence with local amenity.
Does it make sense now to build a seawall of such height to cope with sea level rises expected in 50 years time in an area of high public amenity? Why not a modular approach that allows ramping up and down, the ability to build on better defences as they become available etc

I agree the figures do need to be reviewed and I believe this is being carried out...but I don't believe that DCC have ever claimed flooding from the sea there previously. I think it is disinenginous of the supposedly independent report to make accusation of DCC attempting to dupe the councillors when there is no evidence to suggest this.

Do you not think all the councillors would have been coming back with this message from that meeting if that is what they were being told - surely this would be the no. 1 point coming out of it.

Squeaksoutloud

Just having a quick read of the EIS for the old scheme which never got off the ground:

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/08159.pdf

Page 3/7 states:

Outline of Flood Defence Design Analyses
As part of their analyses Royal Haskoning produced a Design Criteria Report (Draft
January 2009), outlining the results of their calculations and also the design
assumptions made in reaching their conclusions. In order to fully assess the design
criteria for the flood defence, design conditions were used with a 200 year probability.
Four different scenarios were investigated, they are as follows:
x Scenario 1 ± 200 year tidal event with 1 year wave event
x Scenario 2 ± 10 year tidal event with 10 year wave event
x Scenario 3 ± 1 year tidal event with 50 year wave event
x Scenario 4 ± 200 year tidal event with Sea Level Rise with 1 year wave event
All four scenarios have a joint probability of 200 years. The results of the analyses
showed that Scenario 4 provided the worst case for the flood defence, with Scenario
3 providing the highest wave heights. The worst case effects from these scenarios
then led Royal Haskoning to recommend the required flood levels discussed below:
Do Minimum Scenario
x If no wave reduction barrier is proposed, the required Height of Flood Defence
= +4.6m ODM
Do Something Scenario
x Required minimum Height of Flood Defence when used in combination with the
proposed wave reduction barrier = +4.25m ODM

This refers to a flood defence level of +4.6m now reduced to 4.25m with a wave reduction barrier which I dont believe is being constructed with this scheme.

Anyway an interesting read and hopefully explains that these figures are not being picked from the sky by DCC Engineers.

odyssey06

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Do you not think all the councillors would have been coming back with this message from that meeting if that is what they were being told - surely this would be the no. 1 point coming out of it.

It's possible that the councillors themselves in the meeting were not aware they were being duped? Wouldn't that be part of the point of doing it?
I'm sure the independent report has by now come to the attention of local councillors so we'll have to see what happens in round 3...

I'm really not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to DCC when in recent times they have gone behind elected officials backs on such significant issues as the Poolbeg incinerator and awarding the refuse contract to Greyhound.

odyssey06

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Just having a quick read of the EIS for the old scheme which never got off the ground:
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/08159.pdf

Page 3/7 states:
This refers to a flood defence level of +4.6m now reduced to 4.25m with a wave reduction barrier which I dont believe is being constructed with this scheme.
Anyway an interesting read and hopefully explains that these figures are not being picked from the sky by DCC Engineers.

I don't think figures are being picked from the sky... but who set them with a 200 year horizon? What external data inputs are they relying on and did they verify them or assume they were correct? I'm sure the figures used are the result of modelling, but the quality of the output in a model will depend on the quality of the input, and the parameters of the model run.
These are the kind of questions I mean in terms of re-examination.

I really don't think, given the improvements that can be expected in flood defences in response to rising sea level impact on advanced countries, that we should be including 200 year horizons in these calculations - if my understanding of the above comments is correct, it seems to have been factored in?

Also, lost track of some threads there - what happened the wave reduction barrier? Removed cos of possible impact on the nesting birds?

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Just looked at that - they are referring to a future design event flood map not past flooding.

I have never seen DCC state anywhere that flooding has occurred here in the past from the sea.

The photos from the previous presentation have no context as there is no text with them..for all we know DCC were discussing flooding from the park! I am sure if they were claiming past flooding from the sea we would have heard about it by now and it would have been the main thing documented from that original meeting and at the webcast council meeting.

sorry got my documents mixed up, yes the flooding photos were in the presentation for the 5th Nov which was a local area meeting?,

http://www.slideshare.net/naoiseomuiri/s2s-presentation-to-dcc-11th-november-2015
this is presentation from the 11th from the dublin wide meeting the video which doesn't have those flooding photos.

Closer to the 26 minute mark, he does say 'currently' there is flooding in the standard event here, although your right to point out that's a draft plan re future flooding threats

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think figures are being picked from the sky... but who set them with a 200 year horizon? What external data inputs are they relying on and did they verify them or assume they were correct? I'm sure the figures used are the result of modelling, but the quality of the output in a model will depend on the quality of the input, and the parameters of the model run.
These are the kind of questions I mean in terms of re-examination.

Also, lost track of some threads there - what happened the wave reduction barrier? Removed cos of possible impact on the nesting birds?

costs its says, hence interim works
http://www.finianmcgrath.ie/contentFiles/News%20PDF/clontarf_cycleway_update.pdf (midway down pg7?) even with the wave reduction barrier they full intended scheme would have been 4.6odm not 4.25odm they say

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

costs its says, hence interim works
http://www.finianmcgrath.ie/contentFiles/News%20PDF/clontarf_cycleway_update.pdf (midway down pg7?) even with the wave reduction barrier they full intended scheme would have been 4.6odm not 4.25odm they say

Thanks for the clarification ... Excerpting a different section of the report makes for worrying reading.

"Visual Impact of the scheme:
There are some concerns regarding the visual impact of the scheme.
Response: Other than minor increases in the flood protection height, varying up to a maximum of 1.0 metres in height the proposal will not have any significant visual obstruction or deterioration. The scheme as proposed will enhance the scenic beauty by removing the DCC pumping station and placing it below ground and by renovating the tram shelter."

I find it worrying that the engineer preparing the report seems to have been infected by corporate speak and is the one making public statements to the effect that a 1 metre increase is "minor". Isn't a 1 metre increase in height of seawall the most pertinent visual obstruction? What other significant visual obstruction does he imagine citizens expect a sea wall to have when they query the visual obstruction that will result from raised sea walls?

Also, all the people who said why are people only complaining now about the height of the wall... They didn't start now, but DCC public's "consultation" doesn't actually mean they will do anything with the inputs received from citizens except dismiss them.

Squeaksoutloud

Irish Times Article and interactive maps of potential global warming effect in Dublin here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/path-to-paris/climate-change-will-ireland-s-coastal-cities-and-towns-be-under-water-1.2457216

No wave action included!

Interesting to see Bull Island disappear. Anyway just thought it was worth posting as relevant to the discussion here.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Irish Times Article and interactive maps of potential global warming effect in Dublin here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/path-to-paris/climate-change-will-ireland-s-coastal-cities-and-towns-be-under-water-1.2457216

No wave action included!

Interesting to see Bull Island disappear. Anyway just thought it was worth posting as relevant to the discussion here.

2 degree warming gives me a seaside home but 4 degrees and I'm under water

ah these kinda maps are very speculative