New Houses Kilcock

highdef

Whilst we had a lot of precipitation, it was not exceptional. Dunsany Met station is the closest official station (15km to the north) and it recorded 36.3mm yesterday. Already saturated ground exacerbated this rainfall however the ground is normally saturated at this time of year anyway.

Rainfall totals so far this month at Dunsany are running at 68.6mm. Average total for all of November is 84mm so given we are into late November, rainfall overall this month is running at about average. Looking at October, the total was 73.9mm. The average is 90.6 mm meaning October was a good bit drier than normal.

So in the grand scheme of things, apart from the spell of wet weather yesterday, it's not been drier than normal for almost 2 months.

highdef

Graham wrote: »

That's what I don't get. There's people calling out the council/developers for something that by all accounts appears to have gone to plan.

I'd absolutely understand the uproar if parts of Millerstown were discovered floating around the car park of NUIM this morning.

I'm not suggesting Millerstown is flood-proof, but by all accounts so far so good.

You have to remember than only a small fraction of the land that will be developed, has been developed. Most of the rain that fell in the development area fell onto soil and would percolate down naturally and eventually find it's way to the river, over a long period of time.

When the housing developments are complete, there will be massive amounts of run-off working it's way down hill to river at surface level, following heavy/torrential rain. I see in the planning permission that there is there be some sort of massive tank near the centre of the development that is for absorbing rain water but that can only do so much.

Think of the amount of water that will be flowing towards the Rye at surface level when all the roads and pathways and houses are in place, that does not do so now.

I do hope I am proven wrong on this.

Bristolscale7

I just downloaded the weather data for the Dunsany station here:
http://www.met.ie/climate-request/

Since 2007 there have been five daily rainfall events greater than what occurred yesterday (36.3):

65, 56.4, 48.4, 41.2, and 37.8

The fact that there were two > 50 in the last 10 years would concern me given how the place looked with 36.3ml.

From a practical point of view, if the bank requires comprehensive home insurance for a mortgage, might this present a problem?

brillo pad

Information statement
23 November 2017
Millerstown Kilcock
McGarrell Reilly Homes

Millerstown Kilcock benefits from an extensive landscaped river park alongside the river Rye and
close to the Grand Canal on the Maynooth Road. The site has been designed and is being
constructed in compliance with the OPW Flood Guidelines. The works are being completed in
accordance with planning permissions from ABP for flood management works and Section 50
Applications with the OPW. The housing development is located outside the 1.0 % AEP Fluvial
Event flood zone as identified in the Kilcock FRAMS. The finished floor level (FFL) of houses
individually are 500mm higher than the predicted 0.1% AEP Fluvial Event flood level, regardless
of their location / proximity to the river.
The heavy rainfall event which occurred on Wednesday 22nd November was a significant event
as categorised and reported by Met Èireann and caused flooding in the Eastern Catchment
including Laois, Kildare, Meath, many parts of Dublin the M3 and the M4 etc. The flood event
resulted in river levels rising along the River Rye channel through Kilcock.
There was no flooding within the Millerstown development. All houses, estate roads and
entrance bridge are all designed and constructed above the predicted flood levels plus an
additional height to withstand extreme weather events. This morning water levels in the river
levels have abated and are returning to seasonal norms.
DBFL Consulting Engineers for McGarrell Reilly have confirmed that the flood protection
measures operated as anticipated and allowed flooding to occur in the designated flood
protection channel etc. All works on site have been implemented in advance of occupation of
the houses and the engineers are certifying the works as complete to the requirements to the
planning permissions received. The flood protection works have been validated by RPS group,
the authors of the Kilcock FRAMS signed off by OPW, Kildare County Council and Meath County
Council, as being consistent with their flood modelling
Yesterdays extreme weather event has occurred as anticipated and demonstrates that the flood
measures are in place and operating as expected.

END

highdef

A fairly accurate statement except for "There was no flooding within the Millerstown development." - So the parkland is not part of the Millerstown development???

Graham

highdef wrote: »

"There was no flooding within the Millerstown development." - So the parkland is not part of the Millerstown development???

What's confusing?

"allowed flooding to occur in the designated flood protection channel"

highdef

They contradict themselves in the statement. They first say that there was no flooding within the Millerstown development and then proceed to say that flooding occurred where expected within the development.

I don't know about you but I find that highly contradictory.

Graham

highdef wrote: »

They contradict themselves in the statement. They first say that there was no flooding within the Millerstown development and then proceed to say that flooding occurred where expected within the development.

I don't know about you but I find that highly contradictory.

Seriously you're nit-picking now. Flooding happened where it was meant to happen.

Not in the development, in the flood-protection channel.

highdef

It's not really nit-picking though. They highlight the fact that there is an extensive landscaped river park alongside the river Rye as part of the development. It was this very park that flooded, not just a bit of it but the vast majority. To say that it is not part of the development when it was McGarrell Reilly Homes who built it is completely inaccurate.

Graham

Obviously considered to be 2 separate entities.

1) The development
2) The flood-protection channel

I'll bow out of this particular line of debate now because it's pointless. However you want to interpret the naming of the entities the outcome remains the same.

highdef

Whilst I am with you on this to some extent, I'm trying to read it as the vast majority would read it.

If any other Boardsie's who have seen the flooding (whether or not if it was expected and went as per plans) read the statement, I could be pretty sure that most, if not all will say that the statement "There was no flooding within the Millerstown development" is both untrue and misleading.

I shall bow out of this one as well :P

greg1981

I would be more concerned about the damage that yesterday's and any future flood is gonna cause to the houses and the estate: apart from the park not being used by anyone for extended periods of time, there is a big chance of rats running around the estate putting everyone in danger, the soil being constantly damp which may lead to a house foundations being wet too and that means mouldiness issue inside.
That worries me i have to say..

Graham

Given the height above water of the houses I can't imagine the ground would stay particularly wet but you should maybe have a chat with your surveyor if you're worried that damp may be an issue.

Would there be any rats in the vicinity given the entire site has been pretty much completely bulldozed recently?

highdef

I agree with Graham. Assuming flood waters don't go much higher and/or reach the houses, I don't think there will be any structural issues to any of the buildings.

As for rats, there are likely to be some about, given that the area is surrounded by open country and rivers/streams. Unlikely to be a big issue, maybe more of them closer to the edges of the estates. As Graham said, the building work will be driving them out of the area and they would only return to some extent, as would be expected.

If you are concerned, get yourself a cat. I live in a fairly rural area and my cat has resulted in me only ever seeing one live mouse. Have seen plenty of dead rats and mice (and some birds too, unfortunately) though.

greg1981

One would think they should be gone but they live in wet areas so again...will have to wait and see

Bristolscale7

brillo pad wrote: »

The housing development is located outside the 1.0 % AEP Fluvial
Event flood zone as identified in the Kilcock FRAMS.

I'm looking at the map on page 81 of the Kilcock Local Area Plan. On the map attached, the estate appears to be in the green flood plain. It's a low resolution map, so perhaps brillo pad you could confirm that the estate is not within the green area on the map. Edit: is the Kilcock FRAMS map different than the one from the Kilcock Local Area Plan?

http://www.kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/KilcockLocalAreaPlan2015-2021/Draft%20Kilcock%20LAP%202015-2021red(1).pdf

listermint

Whatever about the ins and outs of protections for this specific estate and predefining its own personal flood plain. It begs the question why we are still building on natural flood plains in the first place. This construction whilst may not impact the individual homes on it, can impact further up or further downstream as the original flood zone is no longer available and has been leveled up to install housing.

This stuff is the insanity that went on 10 years ago, except with higher houses.


Building on flood planes, When will Europe give us a smack around the ear for this stuff.

Graham

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I'm looking at the map on page 81 of the Kilcock Local Area Plan. On the map attached, the estate appears to be in the green flood plain. It's a low resolution map, so perhaps brillo pad you could confirm that the estate is not within the green area on the map.

Would the green flood plain not have changed with the extensive ground works?

Wasn't that the point of the works?

liam7831

PR disaster for the development I wouldn't consider buying one now no matter what the price, disaster waiting to happen as these weather events become more prevalent

Bristolscale7

Graham wrote: »

Would the green flood plain not have changed with the extensive ground works?

Wasn't that the point of the works?

I think the only way to move a flood plain is to move the river but I'm not a limnologist.

highdef

I got the An Bord Pleanala report from Meath CoCo. Interesting point 18:

"The areas of public open space shown on the lodged plans shall be reserved for such use and shall be levelled, contoured, soiled, seeded and landscaped in accordance with the detailed requirements of the planning authority. This work shall be completed before any of the dwellings are made available for occupation and shall be maintained as public open space by the developer until taken in charge by the local authority. The delivery of the riverside open space shall be completed in Phase 1 of the proposed development.

Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory development of the public open space areas, and their continued use for this purpose"

The above suggests that the riverside park is just that.....a park. Not a flood channel during times of heavy rain. It's reasonable to assume that there will be many times when many parts of the park will not be accessible as a public open space, despite An Bord Pleannala stating that this must be the case.

http://idocswebdpss.meathcoco.ie/iDocsWebDPSS/ViewFiles.aspx?docid=2008143&format=jpeg - From the planning application. This shows the riverside park as being a public open space, with no mentioned of it being anything but. It would be reasonable that the park could be used at any time by the public and that the park is not DESIGNED to flood.

Would An Bord Pleannala be angry if they found out that the public park that they signed off on is actually a flood channel?

Let's not forget that there is another stream (known in the plans as the "upper ditch") at the back of the current development. This will be towards the back of the overall full development and will be another possible issue. This particular stream is a tributary of the bigger stream that runs parallel to straight section of the Moyglare Road, at the Kilcock end - basically, behind the Millerstown development. Even if the developers do mitigate flooding from this other stream, it will be interesting if it has impacts on the stream alongside the Moyglare Road. A flood storage cell is being built so hopefully that will suffice. From past experience, this does already flood during heavy rains so only time will tell.

listermint

I could be mad here but there seems to be missing pages from the 2003 Flood risk study done for Meath CC on Kilcock and the Rye River.

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/Publications/PlanningPublications/RatoathMunicipalDistrictPlanningPublications/Archives/File,30675,en.pdf

zoning matrix nor the parking study are missing, but the flooding one isnt there.

Bristolscale7

listermint wrote: »

I could be mad here but there seems to be missing pages from the 2003 Flood risk study done for Meath CC on Kilcock and the Rye River.

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/Publications/PlanningPublications/RatoathMunicipalDistrictPlanningPublications/Archives/File,30675,en.pdf

zoning matrix nor the parking study are missing, but the flooding one isnt there.

That is strange. Appendix 2, the flood study, does appear to be missing.

highdef

That is very strange indeed. I might query Meath Co Co about this.

you2008

Have a look the 1st video it is insane.
https://m.facebook.com/kilcockcommunitynetwork/

bbbbb1990

highdef wrote: »

That is very strange indeed. I might query Meath Co Co about this.

If you do please update us on what they have to say very strange circumstances.

Davyation

I notice that the second last document (a submission by an objector) in the Meath planning page for this site mentions that an inspectors report was overruled by the planning authority (as a new user on boards I'm not allowed to post the link). Meath CC's own inspector appears to have refused permission based on an underestimation of the flood risk, adn this was overruled by the planning board. Whilst this appears to be based on a previous iteration of this current submission, and there may be nothing substantial to it, it may still warrant querying:

Jonting

You can now get the Eircode for this estate. I called Axa Home Insurance today with the exact address and before the rep checked, she stated that if it was on a flood plain Axa would not quote. She returned quickly and confirmed it was NOT on a flood plain and they would supply full cover, flood included.

you2008

Jonting wrote: »

You can now get the Eircode for this estate. I called Axa Home Insurance today with the exact address and before the rep checked, she stated that if it was on a flood plain Axa would not quote. She returned quickly and confirmed it was NOT on a flood plain and they would supply full cover, flood included.

and the cover is bout €?

greg1981

Great news that is...