Millerstown Kilcock New Development

djbulldogg1983

In any case the houses that are built should be signed off on a phased basis with all this other work to be completed.
There is unessecary risk being put on the homeowners and their families. Eventually these houses will be signed off so why not sign them off now so that these families can buy their homes and get on with their lives.
Let the developer and the bloody CoCo fight amongst themselves and come to a conclusion about the rest of the issues.

L1011

The "attenuation strip" is marked as parkland in the planning docs and idea that it is ok to flood appears to have appeared on here.

ixus

I would see it as odd an experienced developer misinterpreted an ambiguous passage from Coco without either side clarifying in advance.

I drove by the flooding at its height when it was safe to do so. It might have been the second highest flooding of the river but it's not the most amount of rain we've received in one day in this region. Would be interested to know why this happened.

The development may be free of flood potential but the knock on effects have to be accounted for and managed both upstream and downstream so as to have no overall negative effect on the river. This would seem fundamental to any such development.

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

The "attenuation strip" is marked as parkland in the planning docs and idea that it is ok to flood appears to have appeared on here.

A parkland with attenuation tanks buried below just for the craic?
Read all the documents, it’s in there.
Look at the contouring of the field, it all has a purpose.

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the updated flood maps submitted by RPS and approved as part of planning.
The could have built a big huge wall instead but they opted for a nice amenities green instead.. the right choice I’m sure you agree?

smelly sock

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

A parkland with attenuation tanks buried below just for the craic?
Read all the documents, it’s in there.
Look at the contouring of the field, it all has a purpose.

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the updated flood maps submitted by RPS and approved as part of planning.
The could have built a big huge wall instead but they opted for a nice amenities green instead.. the right choice I’m sure you agree?

Or they could hsve opted not to build houses on a flood plain.

djbulldogg1983

ixus wrote: »

I would see it as odd an experienced developer misinterpreted an ambiguous passage from Coco without either side clarifying in advance.

I drove by the flooding at its height when it was safe to do so. It might have been the second highest flooding of the river but it's not the most amount of rain we've received in one day in this region. Would be interested to know why this happened.

The development may be free of flood potential but the knock on effects have to be accounted for and managed both upstream and downstream so as to have no overall negative effect on the river. This would seem fundamental to any such development.

This is all part of flood planning...
These are all the issues that are raised and modeled for by the civil engineers who design it.
You ever hear of SUDS? Read up on that and give yourself an insight into how coco’s and developers deal with the removal of soft porous surfaces being replaced by hard impermeable surfaces.
This is all accounted for at planning stage.
Look it’s ok to be suspicious and I am too and I question everything.
But I don’t see people questioning the other estates being built along the river. Of which there has been a few.
Kildare CoCo didn’t even raise flooding as an issue in the new Ryebridge phase. No uproar here about that???
Yet the guys that have put proper thought, planning and engineering principles in place are getting slated in here?
It’s laughable really.

listermint

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

A parkland with attenuation tanks buried below just for the craic?
Read all the documents, it’s in there.
Look at the contouring of the field, it all has a purpose.

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the updated flood maps submitted by RPS and approved as part of planning.
The could have built a big huge wall instead but they opted for a nice amenities green instead.. the right choice I’m sure you agree?

So as part of planning there was works to be carried out which the developer read and agreed to and now the council won't sign off because there is an argument on who is to carry out works.

To me that sounds like a problem and its a problem that both the developer and the council are at fault for. The fact that the development has not completed the full planning permission means it's invalid and those families shouldn't have been in until that was done. That's on the developer.

myshirt

What prices did these go for? How come none of the other developments along the banks are seeing issues?

McGarrell Reilly are a good developer. Something fishy from them here.

listermint

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

This is all part of flood planning...
These are all the issues that are raised and modeled for by the civil engineers who design it.
You ever hear of SUDS? Read up on that and give yourself an insight into how coco’s and developers deal with the removal of soft porous surfaces being replaced by hard impermeable surfaces.
This is all accounted for at planning stage.
Look it’s ok to be suspicious and I am too and I question everything.
But I don’t see people questioning the other estates being built along the river. Of which there has been a few.
Kildare CoCo didn’t even raise flooding as an issue in the new Ryebridge phase. No uproar here about that???
Yet the guys that have put proper thought, planning and engineering principles in place are getting slated in here?
It’s laughable really.

But that side of the river doesn't flood. This estate was built literally on a flood plain.

That's the point people are making

Graham

listermint wrote: »

But that side of the river doesn't flood. This estate was built literally on a flood plain.

That's the point people are making

That's the point the hysterical people are making.

The are was prone to flooding, until it was raised significantly and large scale engineering works were completed.

It's not rocket science. Raise the land, divert the water.

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

A parkland with attenuation tanks buried below just for the craic?
Read all the documents, it’s in there.
Look at the contouring of the field, it all has a purpose.

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the updated flood maps submitted by RPS and approved as part of planning.
The could have built a big huge wall instead but they opted for a nice amenities green instead.. the right choice I’m sure you agree?

I read the lot. The parkland flooded and apologists claimed it was an "attenuation strip".

I read the entire flood maps. Stuff flooded that shouldn't have in a pretty bog standard rainfall.

djbulldogg1983

listermint wrote: »

So as part of planning there was works to be carried out which the developer read and agreed to and now the council won't sign off because there is an argument on who is to carry out works.

To me that sounds like a problem and its a problem that both the developer and the council are at fault for. The fact that the development has not completed the full planning permission means it's invalid and those families shouldn't have been in until that was done. That's on the developer.

100% agree .. both are at fault .. and the people at risk are the people with deposits down

djbulldogg1983

Graham wrote: »

That's the point the hysterical people are making.

The are was prone to flooding, until it was raised significantly and large scale engineering works were completed.

It's not rocket science. Raise the land, divert the water.

Graham 100% correct

djbulldogg1983

listermint wrote: »

But that side of the river doesn't flood. This estate was built literally on a flood plain.

That's the point people are making

It is built beside a flood plain.
All the historical flood maps show the spread and area of previous flooding. The houses are built beside this, not on it!

djbulldogg1983

myshirt wrote: »

What prices did these go for? How come none of the other developments along the banks are seeing issues?

McGarrell Reilly are a good developer. Something fishy from them here.

Well Kildare CoCo ok’d Ryebridge and didn’t ask for any special flood mediation to be put in place for estates like Millerstown down stream. But I don’t see anyone here up in arms over that?

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

I read the lot. The parkland flooded and apologists claimed it was an "attenuation strip".

I read the entire flood maps. Stuff flooded that shouldn't have in a pretty bog standard rainfall.

“Pretty bog standard” ?? why don’t you all google floods November 2017 ? Where half of Dublin, Meath and Laois were all under water!! Fairly bog standard alright... fml

djbulldogg1983

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

“Pretty bog standard” ?? why don’t you all google floods November 2017 ? Where half of Dublin, Meath and Laois were all under water!! Fairly bog standard alright... fml

Have a look at some of the bog standard headlines

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

“Pretty bog standard” ?? why don’t you all google floods November 2017 ? Where half of Dublin, Meath and Laois were all under water!! Fairly bog standard alright... fml

Were they close to the 1 in 100 year that the containment had to do? No.

Are you connected to the developer, or what other reasons do you have for this aggressive defence?

ixus

People are only becoming more aware due to recency bias of major floodings in last few years nationwide.

It was raised in appeals to ABP for Cairns development in Maynooth.

There were plenty of appeals based upon flooding fears for Millerstown through the various stages of application.

There's no doubt they have spent vast sums doing substantial work. It's bananas to me clarification wasn't sought in advance. Hoping to get by? Council move goal posts after the rain event?

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

Were they close to the 1 in 100 year that the containment had to do? No.

Are you connected to the developer, or what other reasons do you have for this aggressive defence?

Family have bought there and being in construction I investigated for them.
Seems as though it was the second largest water volume measured in the Rye it was not bog standard, it was significant and the waters were contained in the green area.
Aggressive, you mean informed... right?
Nothing aggressive in anything I have written, simply countering the constant misinformation and sarcastic ramblings regularly being spouted in this thread

djbulldogg1983

ixus wrote: »

People are only becoming more aware due to recency bias of major floodings in last few years nationwide.

It was raised in appeals to ABP for Cairns development in Maynooth.

There were plenty of appeals based upon flooding fears for Millerstown through the various stages of application.



There's no doubt they have spent vast sums doing substantial work. It's bananas to me clarification wasn't sought in advance. Hoping to get by? Council move goal posts after the rain event?

Look, I agree.. there has been back peddling... all concerned have been spooked by the water build up on the two occasions.
The CoCo are probably doing damage limitation, maybe they did sign-off on it prematurely and now they are back peddling..
The developer probably could have done more to improve the flood relief, but they did what all builders do... the bare minimum to pass!!

See attached some sections from
The Flood Risk doc in planning and it is clear that Builder followed the rules and both the CoCo and developer worked to plan for all circumstances.
This wasn’t just the old school “arra sher just build it and we’ll worry about it later”!

liam7831

djbulldogg1983 wrote:

Look, I agree.. there has been back peddling... all concerned have been spooked by the water build up on the two occasions. The CoCo are probably doing damage limitation, maybe they did sign-off on it prematurely and now they are back peddling.. The developer probably could have done more to improve the flood relief, but they did what all builders do... the bare minimum to pass!!

Still too risky to buy in a flood plain imo, who's going to maintain the flood defence measures over the years ?

djbulldogg1983

liam7831 wrote: »

Still too risky to buy in a flood plain imo, who's going to maintain the flood defence measures over the years ?

Any home within 500 meters of a water course lives in flood zone C so you can include about half of all houses in Ireland in that there are rivers and streams everywhere.
Easy to sit in judgement of others here.
Everything is a risk when you are borrowing money that ties you into a contract for life based on your circumstances in that moment and the preceding 6 months. But sher look, you only live once
Could be hit by a bus tomorrow

djbulldogg1983

liam7831 wrote: »

Still too risky to buy in a flood plain imo, who's going to maintain the flood defence measures over the years ?

Well the council are responsible and there is a maintenance schedule agreed. I believe it is every 5 years there is a study to be carried out

djbulldogg1983

Little video that might help some people understand the considerations and basic principles of modern flood risk and management.
Everyone needs to calm down and let the experts in Civil Engineering do their jobs.

https://vimeo.com/174936098

liam7831

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

Little video that might help some people understand the considerations and basic principles of modern flood risk and management.
Everyone needs to calm down and let the experts in Civil Engineering do their jobs.

https://vimeo.com/174936098

Where were the "experts" when this was planned?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/floods-sink-councils-master-plan-for-thousands-of-homes-in-county-cork-379213.html

djbulldogg1983

liam7831 wrote: »

Where were the "experts" when this was planned?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/floods-sink-councils-master-plan-for-thousands-of-homes-in-county-cork-379213.html

Further clarification for future development land requested before construction/ design commences... not much of a headline to be honest.

djbulldogg1983

liam7831 wrote: »

Where were the "experts" when this was planned?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/floods-sink-councils-master-plan-for-thousands-of-homes-in-county-cork-379213.html

That is literally a CoCo have earmarked lands for future development and some of it flooded.
Nobody has even tendered the works.
Try again Liam.
Or better yet just accept that you really are not that educated in this field and you are clutching at straws?
..... Liam furiously googles more irrelevant stories....

smelly sock

Whats even more bizarre is how they are selling houses for that price in Kilcock. Stunning really.

djbulldogg1983

smelly sock wrote: »

Whats even more bizarre is how they are selling houses for that price in Kilcock. Stunning really.

It’s the same in Celbridge, Maynooth, Leixlip et al.
Westfield 4 bed semis going for €450k.
Castlewellen 4 beds going for the same, with post stamp gardens.
It is shocking really, tiger is purring again.
But what can people do?
They need to buy in the current market and these are the prices, it’s not their fault!