New Houses Kilcock

dj_bulldogg

Yes, there is lighting but this is not an issue. They are insulated electrical cables and would be able to be surrounded in water with no danger.

dj_bulldogg

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

1metre until breach. How many metres did river rise on 40ml of rain in 12hrs, 6-10? Would 60ml of rain in 48hrs have done it? That is not a biblical event.


Further, If you got a measuring stick (or a theodolite) from the edge of that river up to the highest point it flooded a few weeks ago you will find that it rose by roughly a metre (not 6-10) if it had of been 6-10m the whole country would be flooded (",)
Then consider that this rise was at the base of the valley. The valley widens significantly as you move up. I will attach a picture to explain what I mean.
In other words, you would need 3/4 times the amount of rain for it to move up another 1m in height and reach the houses.

Please find attached what I am trying to explain. The bottom of a valley will flood 1m high a lot quicker than the wider part of the valley above.
This will take a significantly higher volume for f water. And even still the houses are built up a further 250mm from road.

Reg_hurley

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

Yes, there is lighting but this is not an issue. They are insulated electrical cables and would be able to be surrounded in water with no danger.

Thanks.
I don't understand why they would create a nice lighted path in a pond.
Why put it there at all if it's intended purpose is to flood when it rains? Perhaps they predicted it will flood very rarely.
I'd imagine there will need to be a lot of safety measures and signs to limit the liability of someone walking along a path under water and straying into a river.

dj_bulldogg

Agreed. It won't be a pond all the time. Only during periods of heavy rain. I would guess that 85% of the time the path will be walkable and accessible. The question is how long it will take the ground to settle and firm up? Who knows...?
Yes the issue of safety was raised by the potential purchasers. The Building Contractor is to revert with suggestions over the coming weeks.

ixus

From its narrow base to peak was certainly more than a metre. Mountellick waters rose by 2metres:
https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/president-expresses-deepest-concern-and-sympathy-for-flood-victims-36347056.html

I agree 6-10 was OTT but purely for illustration. I understand the process of the flood mitigation.

It's vital purchaser's have as much information as possible. Looks like many went in with tunnel vision. Saying that, the EA dismissed me out of hand when I asked, saying it was certified.

The bigger picture is how further development along the river will impact things. I wouldn't fancy living on that house on the main road. Erosion over time must be a factor when the river swells so much.

dj_bulldogg

Further developments will mean further dredging and widening of the stream/river, further attenuation areas and soakaways and other flood mitigation provisions such as raising the levels of the house. I disagree on the level from the bank. If you were to stand at the bank and look over the field. It won't come up to eye level. The only real way to tell is with a theodolite.

listermint

And so it goes on, we continue to build on flood planes. Lets face it that is what it is hence the need for measure to prevent flooding ingress on the houses.

This sort of development should be banned after the rubbish that went up during the boom years.

I suspect it wont because its cheap land it lines pockets and sure you can 'mitigate' things.

Graham

listermint wrote: »

And so it goes on, we continue to build on flood planes. Lets face it that is what it is hence the need for measure to prevent flooding ingress on the houses.

because the development didn't flood?

baaba maal

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

Further developments will mean further dredging and widening of the stream/river, further attenuation areas and soakaways and other flood mitigation provisions such as raising the levels of the house. I disagree on the level from the bank. If you were to stand at the bank and look over the field. It won't come up to eye level. The only real way to tell is with a theodolite.

And further development increases impermeable land cover in roads, paths and the building footprints- so this is extra volumes of water that need to be attenuated elsewhere. I understand the concept for the drainage here, but I think the lights standing in water beside the path show they dropped the ball on this part of the project.

listermint

Graham wrote: »

because the development didn't flood?

Oh it flooded alright.

But sure wasnt it 'controlled' and sure building on flood plains as no real impact up or down stream of the control


*said no one ever.


**Ireland Inc. Cheap land trumps all.

Bristolscale7

The highlights of this thread was the presentation of higher water levels downstream in Leixlip as a reassurance. A fool and their money....

Graham

listermint wrote: »

Oh it flooded alright.

But sure wasnt it 'controlled' and sure building on flood plains as no real impact up or down stream of the control


*said no one ever.


**Ireland Inc. Cheap land trumps all.

are you just upset it didn't flood, have a particular axe to grind with the development/developer or are we just rambling in general?

marieholmfan

Graham wrote: »

are you just upset it didn't flood, have a particular axe to grind with the development/developer or are we just rambling in general?

Clearly it did flood. The obsessive protestations of Dublin based posters notwithstanding.

highdef

I have to agree with Marie. The development most certainly did flood. You can't say that the public park is not part of the development when it obviously is.

Graham

To suggest the 'development' flooded rather than the attenuation pond/flood-channel is deliberately misleading.

highdef

Graham wrote: »

To suggest the 'development' flooded rather than the attenuation pond/flood-channel is deliberately misleading.

Calling a attenuation pond/flood-channel a public park is also deliberately misleading.

Graham

highdef wrote: »

Calling a attenuation pond/flood-channel a public park is also deliberately misleading.

Unless it's a park most of the time........

marieholmfan

Graham wrote: »

Unless it's a park most of the time........

Except for Autumn, Winter, Spring and soft summer days?:rolleyes:

L1011

Graham wrote: »

To suggest the 'development' flooded rather than the attenuation pond/flood-channel is deliberately misleading.

Is it actually an attenuation pond or are you just assuming that, because it flooded? Does it have the correct equipment for releasing water at a controlled rate, after a hydrocarbons interceptor? It isn't an attenuation system without that.

I lived in an estate with extensive attenuation tanks, under the green area. That is the normal setup KCC insist on at the least, would assume all councils did.

Graham

L1011 wrote: »

Is it actually an attenuation pond or are you just assuming that, because it flooded?

Couldn't tell you, across the thread it's been referred to as flood channel/attenuation pond, i.e. the bit that's intended to flood.

From the developers release:

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.

marieholmfan

Graham wrote: »

Couldn't tell you, across the thread it's been referred to as flood channel/attenuation pond, i.e. the bit that's intended to flood.

By you and nobody else.

Graham

marieholmfan wrote: »

By you and nobody else.

My mistake, I must have imagined......

Reg_hurley wrote: »

At the meeting did they indicate these were included in the flood attenuation pond?

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

Further developments will mean further dredging and widening of the stream/river, further attenuation areas and soakaways and other flood mitigation provisions such as raising the levels of the house.

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

Not true. I attended a meeting last week. There is no request to keep quiet. It is all very open forum and the Estate Agents, Consulting Engineer and Building Contractor were all there to answer questions.
All new developments will have attenuation areas and soakwaways that will accommodate significant water volumes.

dj_bulldogg

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The highlights of this thread was the presentation of higher water levels downstream in Leixlip as a reassurance. A fool and their money....

Upstream / down stream doesn't make a blind bit of difference. It demonstrated a significant water event to that stretch of the river.
I don't care what you think, I'm in construction and I know what I'm talking about and have consulted with many experts on the situation at Millerstown.
All you "know-it-all doomsdayers" will be waiting a long time for those houses to flood, the front green can flood all it wants.
Also there is no protection from falls my into the canal across the road? So why the questions about safety provisions?

But you will continue to talk about it and predict it until then.
I'm from Kildare, not Dublin, I'm a potential buyer who has a deposit down.
Likelihood is we are going to let it go. But not because ill-informed nosy neighbours having their say :-) because I'm looking to buy in my hometown close by.

Keep spewing **** about it here though, nobody with an ounce of construction knowledge gives a **** about your opinions, and neither should any buyer. You are as much in danger in many estates in Kilcock. Many have flooded before.

So g'luck folks .. troll away

dj_bulldogg

marieholmfan wrote: »

Clearly it did flood. The obsessive protestations of Dublin based posters notwithstanding.

The houses didn't flood and were nowhere near being flooded.
That's the point.
Dublin based posters? What does that have to do with anything??
Clueless woman who doesn't know what she's talking about, there's definitely relevance to that blanket statement.

ixus

Christmas drinks are grrreat!

Personally, I had an interest long before works began. I genuinely liked the front houses and location. Had gone through the plans and was seriously considering a bid. Garden size and flooding was the issue. Am glad I didn't follow through as I wouldn't be happy with it. Regardless of whether it ever floods or not.

The price for the risk, albeit minimal and the garden size is crazy. The price for the house in itself with Kilcock as a location is up there on the crazy spectrum too.

In respect to canal comparison; the verges along canal can be climbed out of by grabbing shrubbery at regular spots. No such option along this river. There is physically nothing to use as leverage. You are staying in until pulled out or swimming a distance for some traction. At least in the canal you can hold onto something.

The whole non-kildare/local bashing thing is repulsive and doesn't warrant engagement with the poster initiating it.

t305nqe

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

Keep spewing **** about it here though, nobody with an ounce of construction knowledge gives a **** about your opinions, and neither should any buyer. You are as much in danger in many estates in Kilcock. Many have flooded before.

So g'luck folks .. troll away

dj_bulldogg, please tell us all, what estates have flooded before in Kilcock?

As a resident, I am not aware of any unless you are referring back to the time when Noah had his Ark.

Best of luck with your house purchase and I do hope that you are right. I wouldn't wish any ill will towards anyone who brought in Millerstown

Reg_hurley

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

, the front green can flood all it wants.
Also there is no protection from falls my into the canal across the road? So why the questions about safety provisions?

A lot of anger built up in that post.
I think the above might be in response to my comment regarding safety measures, so I'll respond to it.
The main difference I see between the canal and the front green (that's meant to flood apparently) is that the tow path beside the canal isn't meant to flood.
The developer has built a path with lights right through a front green that floods into the river. From the last set of photo's there's no separation between this path when it floods and the river .

I do feel this has been a very interesting thread with people on both sides of the suitability of the development debate.
The Dublin v Kildare tangent doesn't do it any favours though.

marieholmfan

Reg_hurley wrote: »

The Dublin v Kildare tangent doesn't do it any favours though.

Millerstown is in Meath which is why it was built. The social housing will be for Meath people. Kilcock is full. It doesn't need more people.

marieholmfan

dj_bulldogg wrote: »

Keep spewing **** about it here though, nobody with an ounce of construction knowledge gives a **** about your opinions, and neither should any buyer. You are as much in danger in many estates in Kilcock. Many have flooded before.

Do what you like it is no skin off my nose if you want to pay half a million quid to live underwater in a council estate in Meath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu7HoGZaspo

ghostdancer

marieholmfan wrote: »

Millerstown is in Meath which is why it was built. The social housing will be for Meath people. Kilcock is full. It doesn't need more people.

well Kilcock is the murder capital of Leinster, after all.... :rolleyes: