Millerstown Kilcock New Development

smelly sock

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

And most people here probably couldn’t afford it.. ahhh well ..
Look I’m not biased I just read all the documents and have proven all the clueless people in here wrong and have enjoyed every minute of it !

Any credibility you had just went. Go and get your wages off Maple 10's Reilly.

djbulldogg1983

smelly sock wrote: »

Any credibility you had just went. Go and get your wages off Maple 10's Reilly.

I’m not involved in any domestic building. I work for an international construction firm who are top 10 in the UK by turnover.
We design and build football stadiums, data centers and that sort of thing.
Reilly couldn’t afford me

mloc123

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

It takes 10 mins to walk to the village and 5 mins to drive to Maynooth.. wipe dee doo you really showed me up there

My point was. If you cannot accept that such basic details you provided are incorrect.. how do we know that any of the other details you provided are?

Anyway, at least you admit that your original "2 minute walk" to the train was out by a factor of 5. I would expect a better attention to detail from such an experienced civil engineer

djbulldogg1983

mloc123 wrote: »

My point was. If you cannot accept that such basic details you provided are incorrect.. how do we know that any of the other details you provided are?

I didn’t base my timing to the village on exact science. It was more a flippant remark.
I couldn’t care less if you don’t believe the facts that I am demonstrating.
Some people believe the world is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I’m not here to appease the less informed, more to show them up as clueless and speaking about things that they have no clue about.
I think I’ve done that, it’s gotten very quiet all of a sudden

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

I’m not here to appease the less informed, more to show them up as clueless and speaking about things that they have no clue about.
I think I’ve done that, it’s gotten very quiet all of a sudden

You make vague reference to documents that don't say what you claim they say; you make repeated timing references from Fantasyland.

You don't have a basis to call someone clueless.

mirrorwall14

Honestly it’s got quiet because no one is bothered arguing with you and your tone, not because you’ve convinced us that there’s nothing wrong.

I’m not from the area originally but went to college in Maynooth and even I knew that field flooded. I do live in Kilcock now but wouldn’t have touched that estate. The houses will eventually sell but I doubt any locals or those in the know will buy.

My concerns and reasons why
1. Flood works done resulted in massive flooding in the front of the estate which is both dangerous for anyone with children and awful looking for residents. Yes it didn’t flood the houses but that doesn’t change how it looked. Planned flooding or not is irrelevant to me, I’ve lived opposite a river before and that one is even less protected than ours was and ours was still dangerous in flood. There isn’t even an attempt to fence it off. Heck the streetlights flooded so it even though it is a planned flood plain (accepting what you’ve posted) it didnt look like it. And it’s also worth noting that the grass stayed waterlogged for the whole winter and spring
2. Resale value. The history of that area as a flood plain and now publicity and the flooded river pictures will always affect the resale value in that estate now. Again whether the flooding was contained or not is irrelevant, perception is important
3. Insurance. While houses may have insurance now, there is nothing to stop the insurance companies refusing to insure them in the future. And have we had any confirmation that insurance companies are covering flood risk?

djbulldogg1983

smelly sock wrote: »

Any credibility you had just went. Go and get your wages off Maple 10's Reilly.

And I don’t care what you make of my credibility.
It’s more credible than some of the clowns posting in here and that’s a fact!
What have all the trolls learned.

Let’s revisit what we have all learned;

1. The front green was a planned water storage area and has worked in the second highest water levels ever experienced in the Rye River. It also is designed to accommodate +20% for future water levels.
2. The house FFL (that’s FInished Floor Levels for the simpletons) are 600mm above the 1/1000 year AEP levels.
3. We have a nice little cartoon for the simpletons to show where catchment area flood planning is derived and the considerations to achieve these principles
4. We now know that Meath CoCo have signed off on the flood works to Millerstown estate, just not upstream of the estate which are lands that the developer doesn’t own. They have now reprofiled these lands too free of charge.
5. The estate is close to the village a 10 minute walk, small victory for the simpletons
6. Houses are insured with flood cover by independent insurance companies, not by the developer.
7. €395k for a 4 bed semi in Kilcock is expensive. However this is off set by the €20k HTB scheme that most of the residents would have used. The houses are also A rated so comparing to older estates in Kilcock isn’t really relevant. In today’s housing market €395k is in line with expectancy.
8. People who don’t know what they are talking about end up looking stupid and are lucky that they can hide behind an avatar.
9. No matter how many facts a person raises people still believe that the earth is flat. So unfortunately in some cases you just can’t fix stupid

itzme

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

itzme wrote: »

Thanks for the info again. 
What is the difference between flood storage and floodplain? A cursory look at google tells me that storage is underground for example the underground attenuation tanks. Floodplain would have to be on the surface such as any "planned" attenuation ponds. So for the flooding of the front park in Nov to fit the FRAMS, the front park would have be marked as floodplain not storage. 
It seems to be tricky to overlay that map onto the development, so if I am wrong here apologies but it would seem to me that the front park area of the estate is labelled as flood storage. I've got this from looking at the map on the developers site http://millerstown.ie/houses/ Do you agree? If that is true does that not in fact demonstrate that the front park was not planned as any type of flood attenuation/flood plain? The difference of opinion in this thread was not over whether the front park was meant to have attenuation tanks under the front park but whether the surface of the front park was meant to flood particularly to the level it did in Nov.

Have a look at the planned reprofiling of the river and the reprofiling of the channel. Again this is from the FRAMS report which the planning permission is based on.
Flood storage in this instance refers to containment of water in heavy rain.
Not an actual storage tank.
Drops mic again, getting very quiet in here everybody????

Remember when it was mentioned that you were being aggressively defensive... 
I've thanked you for your info, looked at it and asked some questions and you keep on responding with "mic drops" and talking about how quiet it has gotten. I read the original planning application and found nothing mentioning that the front park should flood or was intended to be used as flood storage. You are now providing a really valuable separate resource and interpretation that looks like you were right. I would generally try and do my homework as best I can, did that and was surprised to see the front park flooding, surely you could see that is genuine rather than descending in repeated childishness. The fact that there has been a history of developers abusing the planning process and leaving residents, pardon the phrasing, high and dry makes people anxious and less likely to believe developers especially when they isn't readily available evidence supporting them. You have started linking to the FRAMS which is looking like a great resource and would help answer people's questions and relieve any stress anyone buying there would have. Maybe it is my naivety in this area but I didn't look at it and can't seem to find it. You can't ignore that you've just started referencing it (or at least I missed any references to it before) so you can hardly start pretending that peoples concerns up until now were unjustified paranoia or witch hunting. You are trying to rewrite what happened due to what looks like very strong evidence now.
By the way do you have a link to the FRAMS, I can't seem to find it myself and would like to take a look.

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

You make vague reference to documents that don't say what you claim they say; you make repeated timing references from Fantasyland.

You don't have a basis to call someone clueless.

It’s from the FRAMS ... it’s a public document look it up.
Fantasy timings - Jesus wept. If that’s all you can say then my work here is done

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

It’s from the FRAMS ... it’s a public document look it up.
Fantasy timings - Jesus wept. If that’s all you can say then my work here is done

You cite it, you link to it

You keep saying the parkland was planned for water storage - proof please.

djbulldogg1983

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Honestly it’s got quiet because no one is bothered arguing with you and your tone, not because you’ve convinced us that there’s nothing wrong.

I’m not from the area originally but went to college in Maynooth and even I knew that field flooded. I do live in Kilcock now but wouldn’t have touched that estate. The houses will eventually sell but I doubt any locals or those in the know will buy.

My concerns and reasons why
1. Flood works done resulted in massive flooding in the front of the estate which is both dangerous for anyone with children and awful looking for residents. Yes it didn’t flood the houses but that doesn’t change how it looked. Planned flooding or not is irrelevant to me, I’ve lived opposite a river before and that one is even less protected than ours was and ours was still dangerous in flood. There isn’t even an attempt to fence it off. Heck the streetlights flooded so it even though it is a planned flood plain (accepting what you’ve posted) it didnt look like it. And it’s also worth noting that the grass stayed waterlogged for the whole winter and spring
2. Resale value. The history of that area as a flood plain and now publicity and the flooded river pictures will always affect the resale value in that estate now. Again whether the flooding was contained or not is irrelevant, perception is important
3. Insurance. While houses may have insurance now, there is nothing to stop the insurance companies refusing to insure them in the future. And have we had any confirmation that insurance companies are covering flood risk?

1. Many people live beside the sea where water levels rise and fall. Each to their own.
2. Resale value will stabilize when in 20
Years time the houses never flood.
3. See 2 above

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

You cite it, you link to it

You keep saying the parkland was planned for water storage - proof please.

Look at the drawing and read the FRAMS.. it’s all there bud.

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

Look at the drawing and read the FRAMS.. it’s all there bud.

The drawings on the planning file show it as parkland. I looked (when a previous poster kept calling it an "attenuation strip", without basis)

You can provide links or have everyone assume you're lying due to inability to provide links. Your choice.

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

The drawings on the planning file show it as parkland. I looked (when a previous poster kept calling it an "attenuation strip", without basis)

You can provide links or have everyone assume you're lying due to inability to provide links. Your choice.

I got a copy of the FRAMS from Meath CoCo. You can do the same.
I don’t care what anyone in here thinks of me
The FRAMS won’t change, and it’s for public record. I’m not giving it to you, I’ve given you some extracts just to prove you wrong.

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

I got a copy of the FRAMS from Meath CoCo. You can do the same.
I don’t care what anyone in here thinks of me
The FRAMS won’t change, and it’s for public record. I’m not giving it to you, I’ve given you some extracts just to prove you wrong.

So you don't have any evidence to actually give us and expect us to believe you when you appear to be here primarily to justify investing in the houses - including fantasyland commute times...

Right so.

djbulldogg1983

Have a look at the little yellow block.
That’s the bridge going into the estate.
Look at the dark blue line,that’s the Rye River.
Look at the turquoise hatched area,that’s the area where they predicted water to overflow (the front green). If you can’t comprehend this info or see that this shows an overflow to the park then you can’t read a drawing.
Follow the profile.
Request the FRAMS, but as you can’t decipher the very clear drawing from this I don’t think it will be of any benefit.
Get educated.
I’m not holding anyone’s hand anymore.

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

So you don't have any evidence to actually give us and expect us to believe you when you appear to be here primarily to justify investing in the houses - including fantasyland commute times...

Right so.

Again, I don’t care what you think.
I know I have the facts and you have an opinion.
I’m just putting on record here the facts for the benefit of the people who have bought there and to clear up the lies and rumour being spouted in this forum.
The people who have bought don’t need opinions of the clueless, they need the facts.
I have given you extracts of the FRAMS, I have told people where to source this document and it’s now on public record that all of you have no idea what you’re talking about!

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

Again, I don’t care what you think.
I know I have the facts and you have an opinion.
I’m just putting on record here the facts for the benefit of the people who have bought there and to clear up the lies and rumour being spouted in this forum.
The people who have bought don’t need opinions of the clueless, they need the facts.
I have given you extracts of the FRAMS, I have told people where to source this document and it’s now on public record that all of you have no idea what you’re talking about!

You haven't provided the document. Are you ever going to?

Or indeed the drawing you're explaining in post #257, for that matter.

If you are so certain of the facts you should really put that energy in to actually providing them, rather than throwing insults around and doing everything you can to avoid providing them.

L1011

Pretty certain everyone can make their own mind up now.

No links, insults, Fantasyland timings. No reason to believe a word you say. If evidence is that easily find you'd just provide it.

itzme

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

So you don't have any evidence to actually give us and expect us to believe you when you appear to be here primarily to justify investing in the houses - including fantasyland commute times...

Right so.

Again, I don’t care what you think.
I know I have the facts and you have an opinion.
I’m just putting on record here the facts for the benefit of the people who have bought there and to clear up the lies and rumour being spouted in this forum.
The people who have bought don’t need opinions of the clueless, they need the facts.
I have given you extracts of the FRAMS, I have told people where to source this document and it’s now on public record that all of you have no idea what you’re talking about!

I know it's easier to ignore me and build up the narrative that you are some victim here or that you're talking to some set of pitch fork wielding, in your words, trolls. But I'll continue in the hope you'll actually get back to discussing this. 
I've read and looked more at the selective section you've shared on re-profiling and doesn't it slightly contradict some of what you are saying. It does seem to (but without the full doc doesn't conclusively prove why not just share the doc?)  that there was a channel intentionally built beside the river in the park to accommodate Q100 +20% climate change. When I say contradict, it clearly states that the development lands are not included in flood plain or flood storage, so if you are going to be pedantic with terminology and calling people simpletons for not understanding acronyms you might want to be a bit more careful. One part of the  doc you shared says it is part of flood storage another says it is removed from flood plain/storage. 
Also, the river re-profiling is meant to accommodate Q100 + 20% climate change, considering some of the paths into the estate were covered in the flooded water area in Nov 17 that doesn't leave a lot of options. Essentially, the access paths to the estate were built in the re-profiled channel or the channel did not accommodate the flooded waters. Is there another option here? either way that isn't correct surely you can see that. 

Just to be clear, from what you have shared it does seem like there was a re-profiling channel intentionally built to accommodate overflow into the front park. One part of the doc states it is flood storage, another specifically state it has been removed from the flood storage. This was not mentioned in any of the developers description of the estate nor in the developments planning applications. So you have to admit that this would be a shock to the vast majority of prospective buyers. All of this seems, but again if you shared the doc it'd be easier, show that part of the park was meant to flood but at the same time seems to show that the extent of the flooding in Nov was not planned and that some part of the flood planning failed. 

I've tried to engage with you in a constructive way but you seem to be more interested in some kind of point scoring at this stage. It's up to you how you respond

djbulldogg1983

People reading this thread can all make up their own minds.
Consult the FRAMS this is the guiding document for the works as per An Bord Pleanala decision to grant.
It’s there for public consumption.
Meath CoCo will give you a copy.
Happy reading

itzme

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

People reading this thread can all make up their own minds.
Consult the FRAMS this is the guiding document for the works as per An Bord Pleanala decision to grant.
It’s there for public consumption.
Meath CoCo will give you a copy.
Happy reading

So you're going to ignore my questions again, you make claims about "facts" and "opinions" but when some of your "facts" are questioned you "drop the mic" and walk away? You are presenting yourself with each comment less like an honest broker in this

djbulldogg1983

itzme wrote: »

So you're going to ignore my questions again, you make claims about "facts" and "opinions" but when some of your "facts" are questioned you "drop the mic" and walk away? You are presenting yourself with each comment less like an honest broker in this

I’ve already answered many of your questions and have advised of the guiding document.
I’m not re-answering questions like some parrot.

The whole point of me coming in here was to counter the rumours being spread.
Now anyone who is curious has all the info and names of the relevent documents to answer their own questions.
I ain’t getting paid to do this so excuse me if I politely tell you all to go jump.
The info is there, do with it what you please.
Now I have a job and a life to get back to, argue amongst yourselves.
ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE.

Just ask Meath CoCo and do some research like I did

ghostdancer

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

People reading this thread can all make up their own minds.
Consult the FRAMS this is the guiding document for the works as per An Bord Pleanala decision to grant.
It’s there for public consumption.
Meath CoCo will give you a copy.
Happy reading

As someone who hasn't posted in this thread at all, and actually thinks the hysteria about the estate flooding is blown wildly out of proportion, and the chances of the houses at the front being flooded is minuscule, let alone any of the others, the main conclusion I've come to over the last few pages is that you've been called out and shown up on numerous incorrect statements, and that you appear to be completely incapable of accepting that you were proven wrong multiple times.

djbulldogg1983

L1011 wrote: »

Pretty certain everyone can make their own mind up now.

No links, insults, Fantasyland timings. No reason to believe a word you say. If evidence is that easily find you'd just provide it.

Why would I provide it to you?
Do I owe you something?
Are you paying me for my time?
I’ve given up enough of my time already proving my points.
If you want to counter it, go get the FRAMS and counter it. I’ll look forward to that exchange!
It’s there, for free... go get it yourself and stop being so lazy ..
I put in the effort and look at me now, I know the real story.
Look at you all, relying on rumours

djbulldogg1983

ghostdancer wrote: »

As someone who hasn't posted in this thread at all, and actually thinks the hysteria about the estate flooding is blown wildly out of proportion, and the chances of the houses at the front being flooded is minuscule, let alone any of the others, the main conclusion I've come to over the last few pages is that you've been called out and shown up on numerous incorrect statements, and that you appear to be completely incapable of accepting that you were proven wrong multiple times.

Well that’s ok mate.
I’ve nothing to hide.
Look back on all the hysterical posts littered throughout this forum.. Kilcock being the crime capital of Ireland, show house flooding, developer backed insurance. Absolute nonsense. And these same people then demanding proof???
Look back from the start and at some of the stupid comments being made.
I may have gotten a few facts about how long it takes to walk to Kilcock.
But I’ve clearly demonstrated facts by showing extracts from the FRAMS and I’ve explained how flood works are planned in a general sense.

If you would like to counter anything I have shared you are welcome to.

I’m not here to impress anyone

djbulldogg1983

ghostdancer wrote: »

As someone who hasn't posted in this thread at all, and actually thinks the hysteria about the estate flooding is blown wildly out of proportion, and the chances of the houses at the front being flooded is minuscule, let alone any of the others, the main conclusion I've come to over the last few pages is that you've been called out and shown up on numerous incorrect statements, and that you appear to be completely incapable of accepting that you were proven wrong multiple times.

I accepted I was wrong on timings to and from the estate.
What else have I been proven wrong with?
Or what else have I not accepted?
Very sweeping statement there

L1011

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

Why would I provide it to you?
Do I owe you something?
Are you paying me for my time?
I’ve given up enough of my time already proving your ignorance.
If you want to counter it, go get the FRAMS and counter it. I’ll look forward to that exchange!
It’s there , for free... go get it yourself and stop being so lazy ..
I put in the effort and look at me now, I know the real story.
Look at you, living on hate and rumour and jealousy of somebody who is more informed than you.

Because the argument you are spending so much time making is entirely dependent on it. And without it nobody tell if your "facts" are as made up as your travel times or not

mloc123

djbulldogg1983 wrote: »

Why would I provide it to you?
Do I owe you something?
Are you paying me for my time?
I’ve given up enough of my time already proving your ignorance.
If you want to counter it, go get the FRAMS and counter it. I’ll look forward to that exchange!
It’s there , for free... go get it yourself and stop being so lazy ..
I put in the effort and look at me now, I know the real story.
Look at you, living on hate and rumour and jealousy of somebody who is more informed than you.

I don't think anyone is that invested in this whole situation, apart from yourself.
Which is odd, because you have no link to the development at all.

You are the person that came on here and start to state "facts" but when asked for documentation to back them up you say.. go find it yourself. Most people that state facts are happy to link to the source.

You think that my disputed walk times from the estate to the train is minor, but this is something that I can easily verify using a third party source. Like I mentioned before, you stated this as fact (comparing the 2 min walk of Millerstown to the 20 minute walk of Westfield - when in reality the gap is much smaller).

Is the FRAMS a physical document or a PDF, the only option is to go direct to the Meath CoCo building and request it?

To note... I don't think the houses will flood. I am not attempting to dispute that, and have not with you.

djbulldogg1983

mloc123 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is that invested in this whole situation, apart from yourself.
Which is odd, because you have no link to the development at all.

You are the person that came on here and start to state "facts" but when asked for documentation to back them up you say.. go find it yourself. Most people that state facts are happy to link to the source.

You think that my disputed walk times from the estate to the train is minor, but this is something that I can easily verify using a third party source. Like I mentioned before, you stated this as fact (comparing the 2 min walk of Millerstown to the 20 minute walk of Westfield - when in reality the gap is much smaller).

Is the FRAMS a physical document or a PDF, the only option is to go direct to the Meath CoCo building and request it?

To note... I don't think the houses will flood. I am not attempting to dispute that, and have not with you.

The FRAMS is the guidance document.
I wouldn’t share it here because people are not qualified enough to understand it.
But if people would like to know where to get it and have it explained to them then they can request it from Meath CoCo.
I have taken some extracts to explain certain issues in dispute on this forum.
I’m not hiding anything, I’ve no ties to this except for a close family member bought here and asked me to investigate. It was obviously without prejudice because I do not claim to be an expert in flooding.
But I talked her through the FRAMS and explained the basics of the document.
That was free to her obviously but I certainly wouldn’t just hand it to some people here, they can do that themselves.
I owe nobody in this forum any favors.

I have explained where to get this, I am hiding nothing nor do I need to hide anything.

People can make up their own minds who is being more detailed.

Most of the posters are making assumptions.
If you want the facts go get the FRAMS