Millerstown Kilcock New Development

Graham

highdef wrote: »

But still, only finding out now that your little park gets covered in deep flood water with a much deeper river further down is not very nice having paid a large sum for your new home.

I see this flood plain area as being very dangerous. If the river were to flood just a small amount (say after a heavy summer shower), a child could be playing in the shallow water of the park, step forward and then be in a fast moving deep river.

But that's surely the entire point of the little park. It's a sacrificial strip to take the flood water, something it appears to be doing quite well so far.

As for small children being allowed to play in the shallow part of any floodwater, I'd say that's something better handled by social services rather than planning.

Rivers the world over occasionally burst their banks, it's probably a good rule of thumb not to allow children to go and paddle in the floodwater.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Tested under what conditions? The above photos are shocking.

Under flooding conditions??

I've no doubt some people will be shocked at the sight of a sacrificial flood strip being flooded. Personally I look at the photos and think 'huh, it worked'.

marieholmfan

Millersdrown

highdef

Graham wrote: »

But that's surely the entire point of the little park. It's a sacrificial strip to take the flood water, something it appears to be doing quite well so far.

As for small children being allowed to play in the shallow part of any floodwater, I'd say that's something better handled by social services rather than planning.

Rivers the world over occasionally burst their banks, it's probably a good rule of thumb not to allow children to go and paddle in the floodwater.



Under flooding conditions??

I've no doubt some people will be shocked at the sight of a sacrificial flood strip being flooded. Personally I look at the photos and think 'huh, it worked'.

I do agree that the strip of land, with its raised areas has worked in this instance. Doesn't look pretty but flooded parks rarely do.

Let's say I'm a kid and it's a nice summers day. I'm playing in the park with my friends, doing what kids do. A thunderstorm hits and the water level rises and breaches the banks. After the rain passes, I go out again to play with friends down in the park area but now there's water coming up into the park. Looks like fun. We play along in the shallow water lapping up into the park area, having great fun because the water is not deep. I take one step too far and end up in the river which is fast flowing and quite deep....it's plausible.

Whilst the river looks very pretty when flowing at normal rates, it floods a lot. Would it have been a better idea to culvert it along the whole front of the development? Or would this have lead to other issues further up/downstream?

highdef

Another thing is house insurance.....these houses (the ones you can see in the photos attached earlier, at the very least) are unarguably located within 100m of a flood plain. It can be difficult to get house insurance if you live less than 200m from a flood plain, never mind 100m or less.

How can the developers get permission to build the houses so close to a flood plain, if it means that buyers are going to run into problems insuring their properties???

Graham

highdef wrote: »

I do agree that the strip of land, with its raised areas has worked in this instance. Doesn't look pretty but flooded parks rarely do.

Let's say I'm a kid and it's a nice summers day. I'm playing in the park with my friends, doing what kids do. A thunderstorm hits and the water level rises and breaches the banks. After the rain passes, I go out again to play with friends down in the park area but now there's water coming up into the park. Looks like fun. We play along in the shallow water lapping up into the park area, having great fun because the water is not deep. I take one step too far and end up in the river which is fast flowing and quite deep....it's plausible.

Whilst the river looks very pretty when flowing at normal rates, it floods a lot. Would it have been a better idea to culvert it along the whole front of the development? Or would this have lead to other issues further up/downstream?

Personally I think the current option was the right choice.

From a purely aesthetic point of view it looks good. From a practical point of view I suspect a culvert would just shift the problems downstream.

Logically we can't put every waterway that runs through a town into a culvert.

As for the child-safety aspect, there's no indication the area flooded in seconds so it's unlikely any small children (or parents) would have been caught off-guard by some tsunami style flooding.

highdef

Graham wrote: »

As for the child-safety aspect, there's no indication the area flooded in seconds so it's unlikely any small children (or parents) would have been caught off-guard by some tsunami style flooding.

I didn't mean that someone is caught up in tsunami style flooding. What I meant is a child returning to play in the park after a heavy summer shower has passed and happening across the suddenly higher level of water lapping into the park. Then playing paddling in this shallow water (whilst still technically in the grassy area of the park), taking one step in the wrong direction and falling into the deep and fast flowing river.

I agree that children "should" be supervised when out playing, especially if younger but older primary school kids may be deemed to be able to play freely outdoors.

I'm simply highlighting a genuine safety risk.

Bristolscale7

Graham wrote: »

I've no doubt some people will be shocked at the sight of a sacrificial flood strip being flooded.

In one of the above photos the road is submerged. I wonder if that is part of sacrificial strip. Insurers think of floods in terms of flood recurrence intervals--a five-year flood, a ten-year flood, and so forth. It would be interesting to find out if what occurred today was an actual 'flood' or a 'normal occurrence' that residences can expect a couple of times every year.

Graham

highdef wrote: »

I'm simply highlighting a genuine safety risk.

Agreed, there's always an element of risk whenever children and a large body of water intersect.

I think it's one of those things we just need to be personally aware of for ourselves and any children. I genuinely don't think culverts and miles of fencing are the answer.

I do get the general concern for this new development, it's an unknown entity and up until now the mitigation efforts have been entirely theoretical.

As a first-test, the outlook is promising but that's not to say it will remain that way.

Graham

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

In one of the above photos the road is submerged.

I don't see any submerged roads, did I miss a photo?

Added:
I do see both ends of the tarmac footpath across the strip that are submerged.

SQ2

marieholmfan wrote: »

It was on the news yesterday!

A horrible incident from 30 years ago... are you for real?

marieholmfan wrote: »

What about the handbag snatched beside the church a few months ago?

Crime is out of control in Kilcock.

Do you read the Champion?

It sounds like they need to move the Garda district HQ from Leixlip to Kilcock to deal with this alone.

There's very little crime in Kilcock, a few teenagers hanging around the train station and it's on the easy escape route that is the M4 which all local towns along the network are susceptible to.
Although with people dropping 500k+ on houses here, it may attract more attention from crims... they'd surely have something worth nicking!

Back on topic, there are some videos of Millerstown Lake here;
https://www.facebook.com/kilcockcommunitynetwork/

Take2Sean

€400k for flooding...with people saying it’s not that bad...the boom is well and truly back. I’m grateful we got cold feet (not from the water) about these houses. I reckon a lot of deposits are being withdrawn this week.

mirrorwall14

Take2Sean wrote: »

€400k for flooding...with people saying it’s not that bad...the boom is well and truly back. I’m grateful we got cold feet (not from the water) about these houses. I reckon a lot of deposits are being withdrawn this week.

I suppose it is a bit of a toss up. Yes the flooding was contained within the flood works but who wants a raging river of that size within your estate. Was down there today and there seems to be some damage to the bank on the house side and a massive ‘pond’ left on the lower levels now that it’s receded within the top of the banks

you2008

WOW this absolutely insane. Was thinking to put deposit today, but not after watching those videos
https://m.facebook.com/kilcockcommunitynetwork/

L1011

Being happy you can find one insurer now is all great until you realise that it's likely you'll get no insurers in future years. They are insulating themselves against legitimate risk. I wouldn't buy here under any circumstances

bigsheepdog

Millerstown is built on a flood plain. Locals like myself were shocked when planning permission was given for the estate. That field has flooded every winter for as long as i can remember. The flooding last week was the result of 24 hours rain.. If we were to get 3 or 4 days of wet weather in the future every house would likely be underwater. You'd be mad to buy a house there in my opinion.

Fire1985

I suppose the 'designated flood storage area ' did its job but the fact the river is there in the first place without fence up alongside it to prevent someone(kids) falling into it is crazy in my opinion... As a parent i could never forgive myself if anything happened to my kids. Basically having looked at this the residents will just have to put up with half the green area flooding every year... The builders say its highly unlikely and that the flooding in november was rare but i live nearby and this place always floods.

But the houses are top class ... top ( the booms back) prices.... & not much different than maynooth prices and the selling of these houses basically promotes maynooth to potential buyers because kilcock is a bit of a dump and about 20 years behind maynooth.. sorry if i offend anyone but thats my opinion.

as far as crime i guess kilcock has the same as any town really... rough element but so does maynooth if you look for it.

Graham

Fire1985 wrote: »

I suppose the 'designated flood storage area ' did its job but the fact the river is there in the first place without fence up alongside it to prevent someone(kids) falling into it is crazy in my opinion.

A very large proportion of the population live within walking distance of unfenced coastline, canals or rivers. For the very most part they manage to survive.

listermint

Graham wrote: »

A very large proportion of the population live within walking distance of unfenced coastline, canals or rivers. For the very most part they manage to survive.

Yeah, i suppose putting in a Park which your advertising as a park and it suddenly floods is different to you know.... the coast or a canal or a river.


But hey thats just me.

Fire1985

Graham wrote: »

A very large proportion of the population live within walking distance of unfenced coastline, canals or rivers. For the very most part they manage to survive.

There’s a huge risk in millerstown as it’s an estate that’s most likely going to have lots of kids. My opinion.

It’s not worth the risk especially at the ridiculous prices .

Also houses are been refused house insurance now. I know this as a fact as my friend has put a deposit down. The estate agents are trying to come to some sort of agreement with certain insurance companies. Expect high premiums.

When a builder has to explain the facts of the floods and why it was a freak it’s just a bad start and plants seeds of doubt in people’s minds.

Anyway I’m finished with this thread now as I won’t be buying there.

Graham

listermint wrote: »

Yeah, i suppose putting in a Park which your advertising as a park and it suddenly floods is different to you know.... the coast or a canal or a river.


But hey thats just me.

We are talking about a relatively small defined area that's only ever likely to flood after/during prolonged periods of abnormally heavy rain right? You know, the sort of weather that's likely to have parents keeping the little tykes snuggled up nice and warm in the house lest they get a bit damp.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, there's no expectation of a tsunami making its way down the Rye unannounced.

You think the coast or other rivers are different

highdef

I took the following video during the morning of the most recent major flooding (don't worry, there will be plenty more opportunities to view floods like this in the future), following some heavy rain overnight. Note that it is not raining anymore and also bear in mind that the water level rose quite a good bit more during the day, despite little rain.

Whilst the water in the park area is is not moving much at all, it can be clearly seen that the water closer to the camera is moving at quite a pace. The water would be very deep at this point too.

This happened during the winter so it's unlikely that kids will be out playing in the water during the day, although I wouldn't be surprised.

If there was a summertime downpour that led to something akin to what is in the video, it would be more likely that kids might play and splash about in the shallower water in the "park" area, where they normally play day to day. However , if they were to take a step too far and stood beyond the river bank as they played in the shallow water.....well we know what result then.

Graham

Awesome, a flood water in flood channel expose.

In the summertime when there's no flood water, there's still a river there and a canal over the road.

Now if only there were some responsible person/s to educate/supervise these children that are apparently going to be moving into waterside developments completely unaccompanied and with absolutely no understanding of water safety.

Seriously though. If you have a child that's not old enough to understand the dangers, are you really suggesting you'd let them off to paddle in floodwater?

listermint

I just don't see how you can say that video is ok. That's meant to be a park. They've said it's a park.

It's a flood plain with lamposts and electrical boxes in it under water.

Crazy stuff altogether

highdef

Graham, I completely understand what you are saying and I agree to quite some extent that the danger level is low. However, I think what is most people's main gripe is that that the developers have very clearly stated that the park is a park and just that on the Millerstown home page:

"Millerstown benefits from an extensive landscaped river park alongside the River Rye and the Grand Canal on the Maynooth Road.

The houses are positioned fronting a unique highly landscaped linear park, providing residents with a fantastic recreational area along the riverside."

I find the above rather misleading although I will agree that it is a very unique park, in that it's not always a park. If I were buying in that development, the above copy and paste from the website would greatly appeal to me however if I then found out that the flooding that is seen in the video I posted is to be a semi-regular thing, I would be extremely pi$$ed off.

The marketing people should have said:

"Millerstown benefits from an extensive landscaped river park/flood attenuation channel alongside (but sometimes in) the River Rye and the Grand Canal on the Maynooth Road.

The houses are positioned fronting a unique highly landscaped linear park, providing residents with a fantastic recreational area along the riverside however sometimes the fantastic recreational area is under water as the River Rye floods regularly but sure why would you be in the park if the weather was poor."

Graham

listermint wrote: »

I just don't see how you can say that video is ok. That's meant to be a park. They've said it's a park.

It's a flood plain with lamposts and electrical boxes in it under water.

Crazy stuff altogether

Park in the centre of Carlow floods fairly regularly. The locals don't appear to have any problem accepting that it's a park or that it may be safer to keep children away from it when it's underwater.

You'd wonder how a beach is considered a civic amenity when it spends half the year under a few feet of tidal water. How on earth could that be considered safe when children are encouraged to build sandcastles slap bang in the middle of it.

If you don't trust the flood works despite the recent proof they work, don't buy there.
If you don't think you can control your children around open water, don't live near open water.

Seriously, this hysterical "won't somebody think of the children" stuff just makes me think of The Simpsons.

L1011

That is not a "flood channel" except in your mind Graham. Read the planning documents and you'll see the actual flood alleviation works, which it isn't part of.

It is a park as per planning.

Something has gone badly wrong with the planned flood alleviation, that's blatantly obvious.

There's an open attenuation pond on the plans for the estate but it is not the park - it is shown as having underground attenuation tanks. Plans state they're meant to be able to hold a 100 year return period event of rain...

Graham

L1011 wrote: »

That is not a "flood channel" except in your mind Graham. Read the planning documents and you'll see the actual flood alleviation works, which it isn't part of.

It is a park as per planning.

Would it be fair to say the responsible consulting engineers have a little more information at their disposal?

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.l

lordgoat

Graham wrote: »

Would it be fair to say the responsible consulting engineers have a little more information at their disposal?

You know what would be really helpful? Posting a link to the full article. Saying where the 2 lines you've pulled comes from. Generally giving all the information.

L1011

Graham wrote: »

Would it be fair to say the responsible consulting engineers have a little more information at their disposal?

Considering they aren't the firm that did the design docs in the planning apps, nope.

Its a park, not a flood channel. It got planning permission as a park with attenuation tanks beneath, not as an open attenuation pond. Any use as an open attenuation pond is a breach of planning

Graham

lordgoat wrote: »

You know what would be really helpful? Posting a link to the full article. Saying where the 2 lines you've pulled comes from. Generally giving all the information.

It was a release by the developers posted by another poster in the other Millerstown thread. The release appeared to be in response to the collective "I told you so's" when the area that was meant to flood actually flooded.

So far I've seen no coherent rebuttal that would cause me to disbelieve the statement, in fact the responses can probably be summed up to be "but that spot always flooded before the flood prevention works were completed" or "won't somebody think of the children".