Clontarf bike lane - what a shambles

mr spuckler

what's the deal with the steps down to sea-level along the new stretch? it doesn't look like there's any form of barrier there, so if waters rise above the height of the path they'll spill over at this point...have i missed something?

07Lapierre

odyssey06 wrote: »

There's a lot of mis-information on this thread about the wall height.
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0108/931867-clontarf-sea-wall/

The majority of the cost relates to the finishing works for the wall - copping & cladding which was not done pending final decision on the height of the wall.
This finishing work was one of the conditions of planning permission for the wall.

Another condition was not to affect the view between St Anne's Park & the Bay.

And if predictions are to be believed, we'll probably have driverless cars before we need a higher wall so everyone in the car, not just passengers, can enjoy the lovely view until it's absolutely necessary to block it

Why don’t they raise the wall and put a viewing platform on top? If anyone wants to see the view, they can stop... Park their car (paid parking) and then climb the wall and look at the view! The locals can set up stalls selling ice cream in the summer! A lost opportunity on behalf of the locals!

droidus

Theyre going to be begging to have that wall raised to 8ft in a few years.

John_Rambo

droidus wrote: »

Theyre going to be begging to have that wall raised to 8ft in a few years.

Just a few facts on the matter.

They breached planning. We can’t start letting people build walls over planning height no matter who they are.

There’s no houses along the stretch in question which is actually in Raheny opposite St. Annes park.

There’s no wave action (excuse used by DCC) at that end of the lagoon. Even with a big South Easterly and a spring tide it’s never flooded there from the sea.

The only time the road there has ever flooded was from run off from the lake and the park. The (smaller) wall held all the water in and a JCB had to come in and knock down the water to let it in to the sea.


They had all this info and still went ahead and built the wall higher than what they had permission to build.

mr spuckler

it's amazing how this information regarding the breach of planning is deemed to be incidental when there's sensationalising to be getting on with!

droidus

John_Rambo wrote: »

Just a few facts on the matter.

They breached planning. We can’t start letting people build walls over planning height no matter who they are.

There’s no houses along the stretch in question which is actually in Raheny opposite St. Annes park.

There’s no wave action (excuse used by DCC) at that end of the lagoon. Even with a big South Easterly and a spring tide it’s never flooded there from the sea.

The only time the road there has ever flooded was from run off from the lake and the park. The (smaller) wall held all the water in and a JCB had to come in and knock down the water to let it in to the sea.


They had all this info and still went ahead and built the wall higher than what they had permission to build.

That may all be true, but Clontarf is built on mostly reclaimed land and is destined for a very salty future.

This isnt a thread about climate, but if you do any reading at all on the subject you will soon discover that sea level rises will be both worse than previously thought and will come sooner than most people realise.

If I was living in Clontarf Id want a much higher wall, or some other combination of flood defense measures while such options are available. The fact is that any resident complaining about the wall based on aesthetic reasons will be changing their tune pretty quickly in the coming years when the waves begin to lap around their feet.

On the plus side, Artane & Raheny residents will have a lovely new sea view to admire.

expectationlost

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

You can't make better candidates stand for election and you can't make people vote for them. You've just got to accept that the people elected are the people the majority of your fellow voters want.

do the majority of voters want this wall reduced?

expectationlost

wheres the documentation that they built the wall higher they had approval for?

odyssey06

droidus wrote: »

If I was living in Clontarf Id want a much higher wall, or some other combination of flood defense measures while such options are available. The fact is that any resident complaining about the wall based on aesthetic reasons will be changing their tune pretty quickly in the coming years when the waves begin to lap around their feet. On the plus side, Artane & Raheny residents will have a lovely new sea view to admire.

I haven't seen any report which suggests that the higher sea wall height would the difference between Artane having a sea view or not.

The current reduced sea wall height provides defences for the next 50 years against 1 in 100 year flood events - versus 1 in 200 year flood events which is the standard DCC wanted. The expert report which recommended the reduction felt that 200 years was an 'extreme value'.

This is not an area where critical infrastucture is at stake, therefore protecting against 1 in 100 year events for the next 50 years appears to be a reasonable standard to adopt.
In the words of local John Morrissey, it "keeps access to the views and amenity which are such a fundamental part of the identity and character of the area"

07Lapierre

droidus wrote: »

That may all be true, but Clontarf is built on mostly reclaimed land and is destined for a very salty future.

This isnt a thread about climate, but if you do any reading at all on the subject you will soon discover that sea level rises will be both worse than previously thought and will come sooner than most people realise.


On the plus side, Artane & Raheny residents will have a lovely new sea view to admire.

+1 Ask the people in Galway! they have flood defences, which were breached!

https://www.joe.ie/news/pics-theres-serious-flooding-galway-storm-eleanor-hits-611503

Chips Lovell

If anyone is interested in the background to this decision, read the council's own report on the proposed works.

The expert report concluded that the current height of the wall was justified based on design criteria and made it clear that the proposed reduction was based on "visual amenity".

The vote is going against DCC's own assessment of what's adequate and against the current national standard:

Dublin City Council determined that a height of 3.95m OD, as recommended by the independent expert, would provide less adequate protection against coastal flooding but would improve the view of the South Bull Lagoon for vehicle occupants driving along part of the roadway. The reduction in height would provide protection against a 100-year tidal event rather than the National standard of a 200-year tidal event and for only half the allowance for sea level rise expected over the period to the end of the century.

And:

Reducing the height of the sea wall would be contrary to the recommendations of Dublin Coastal Flood Protection Project and will result in the sea wall not meeting the required level of flood defence specified in the national standard for flood defence schemes. In addition, there will also be a cost for raising the wall at some future date, in line with the recommendations of the independent expert. The reduction in the height of the sea wall will however provide a marginal improvement in sea views for motorists

droidus

odyssey06 wrote: »

I haven't seen any report which suggests that the higher sea wall height would the difference between Artane having a sea view or not.

The current reduced sea wall height provides defences for the next 50 years against 1 in 100 year flood events - versus 1 in 200 year flood events which is the standard DCC wanted. The expert report which recommended the reduction felt that 200 years was an 'extreme value'.

This is not an area where critical infrastucture is at stake, therefore protecting against 1 in 100 year events for the next 50 years appears to be a reasonable standard to adopt.
In the words of local John Morrissey, it "keeps access to the views and amenity which are such a fundamental part of the identity and character of the area"

1 in 100/1 in 200 - those benchmarks are meaningless in the face of climate change. The state is in utter denial as to the severity and rapid onset of climate driven flooding and sea rise. We should be embarking on a huge civic works scheme to improve resilience and protect our cities against what is probably the biggest threat to ever face this country. The IPCC predictions are now well out of date. New research on glaciation in the Antarctic predicts up to a 20m rise this century. Conservative estimates are 3-5m, but as we reach tipping points it is impossible to know how bad it will get.

I fully expect large portions of Clontarf, Bayside and Fairview to be underwater in my lifetime. Howth will be an island. Costal residents who are lucky enough to be granted flood protection should take everything on offer and demand more.

AndrewJRenko

odyssey06 wrote: »

In the words of local John Morrissey, it "keeps access to the views and amenity which are such a fundamental part of the identity and character of the area"

Am I missing something here? The only people who benefit from the lower wall are those sitting in their cars, passing through. The lower wall is of no benefit to residents or walkers or other users of the area - just those sitting in cars. Have I got that right?

odyssey06

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Am I missing something here? The only people who benefit from the lower wall are those sitting in their cars, passing through. The lower wall is of no benefit to residents or walkers or other users of the area - just those sitting in cars. Have I got that right?

If you are on the seaward side, no difference.
If you are on the landward side e.g. along or in St Annes Park on foot then the current extra height has an impact.

DCC in their original planning permission application declared that no sight lines would be affected, including drivers, residents, walkers etc
Had they done so, the debate on visual amenity versus protecting against 1 in 100 or 1 in 200 year events could have been had before the wall was built and a whole lot of money could have been saved.

DCC also were trying to get away without 'finishing' the wall with cladding, another condition of their planning application.

Kaisr Sose

Weepsie wrote: »

Motorists should surely have their eyes on the road

Or their phones...:D

AndrewJRenko

odyssey06 wrote: »

If you are on the seaward side, no difference.
If you are on the landward side e.g. along or in St Annes Park on foot then the current extra height has an impact.

How exactly does it have an impact please?

odyssey06

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How exactly does it have an impact please?

You can't see the bay.

Effects

odyssey06 wrote: »

You can't see the bay.

Are you sure? I can't recall have any problems seeing it from where I've been standing.

odyssey06

Effects wrote: »

Are you sure? I can't recall have any problems seeing it from where I've been standing.

Maybe you are taller?


I can see Bull Island but not the water in the bay from St Annes.

Maybe it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's contrary to the basis on which DCC sought and were granted PP.

recedite

odyssey06 wrote: »

Maybe it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's contrary to the basis on which DCC sought and were granted PP.

I have not seen the PP, but normally you do not get PP on the basis of any particular "claims". You get PP for a building of x size or a wall of x height.
Media are reporting that council engineers failed to add in the height of the capping on the wall in their construction calculations. If so that would be very incompetent. These are highly paid people involved in the whole fiasco.

odyssey06

recedite wrote: »

I have not seen the PP, but normally you do not get PP on the basis of any particular "claims". You get PP for a building of x size or a wall of x height.
Media are reporting that council engineers failed to add in the height of the capping on the wall in their construction calculations. If so that would be very incompetent. These are highly paid people involved in the whole fiasco.

It's contrary to the presentations they made to an Bord Pleanala in support of the PP and during the public consultation period and to councillors when they voted on the original proposal.
I don't know if the public consultation is a legal requirement or an optional nice to have, but if it is a requirement then as far as I'm concerned it is invalidated.

That would be interesting for the capping - that would explain a lot. And would certainly breach the planning conditions.
The capping was one of the planning conditions.

Could DCC be trying to spin this to blame it on spoiling of motorist's views, when in fact they cannot meet the planning conditions of a height of X together with the height of the capping?

Effects

recedite wrote: »

These are highly paid people involved in the whole fiasco.

When it comes to the council, highly paid doesn't always equate with competence.

recedite

odyssey06 wrote: »

Could DCC be trying to spin this to blame it on spoiling of motorist's views, when in fact they cannot meet the planning conditions of a height of X together with the height of the capping?

I don't know, but I was just saying you don't get PP for a specific presentation or any specific claim made at it. You get PP for the specific set of plans as presented in the application.

Just thinking now though, a local authority does not usually apply for PP from itself, they just do whatever they want and call it a section 8.
The public can complain, but the the council normally goes ahead anyway.
So why did these councillors vote to reduce the wall height? It could be that they are unusually sensitive to local voters, or that they are covering up a mistake made in the construction height, or that the height is exactly as it was in the plans but they failed to visualise what it would look like when built in real life, or that some influential lobby got to them after it was built.

odyssey06

recedite wrote: »

Just thinking now though, a local authority does not usually apply for PP from itself, they just do whatever they want and call it a section 8.

This suggests they needed some sort of OK from An Bord Pleanala?
http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/northsideeast/articles/2015/10/30/4108504-council-responds-to-sea-wall-controversy/

"The Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) project is a scheme comprising elements of two projects, the Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) and the North City Arterial Watermain (NCAM), both of which have planning approval from An Bord Pleanála. Subsequent to the planning approval by An Bord Pleanála of the DPFPP in December 2011, Dublin City Council (DCC) and the National Transport Authority (NTA) received Part 8 Planning approval for this scheme in May 2013."

The public can complain, but the the council normally goes ahead anyway.
So why did these councillors vote to reduce the wall height? It could be that they are unusually sensitive to local voters, or that they are covering up a mistake made in the construction height, or that the height is exactly as it was in the plans but they failed to visualise what it would look like when built in real life, or that some influential lobby got to them after it was built.

That's a very good summation, for what it's worth, I think it could be a combination of the first three with the mistake being the most urgent driver.

Chips Lovell

I’m asssuming the cladding is decorative and not a part of the flood barrier. If that’s the case it shouldn’t be factored into the height. You could always leave it off but I’m assuming the residents would be whinging about that too.

I’m still stunned at the sheer ignorance of the locals that they’d prioritise the view for motorists over meeting the national standards for flood defences.

Vizzy

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's a very good summation, for what it's worth, I think it could be a combination of the first three with the mistake being the most urgent driver.

If you honestly think that ALL the Councillors will band together to cover a mistake by Council Engineers or Planners or whatever, you living in a conspiracy bubble I'm afraid.

odyssey06

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I’m asssuming the cladding is decorative and not a part of the flood barrier. If that’s the case it shouldn’t be factored into the height. You could always leave it off but I’m assuming the residents would be whinging about that too.

I’m still stunned at the sheer ignorance of the locals that they’d prioritise the view for motorists over meeting the national standards for flood defences.

You can't leave it off if it's part of the planning conditions not to have a bare concrete wall...

I don't think it's sheer ignorance to hold DCC to account when they promise X to residents and councillors and breach it. Not for one second.

recedite

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I’m asssuming the cladding is decorative and not a part of the flood barrier.

The capping is the bit on top. I suppose it could be made of the same material as the cladding, but it would still add a bit to the height.

recedite

Does anybody know what lets freshwater flooding through this wall out into the sea, but stops seawater flooding coming back the other way?

odyssey06

Vizzy wrote: »

If you honestly think that ALL the Councillors will band together to cover a mistake by Council Engineers or Planners or whatever, you living in a conspiracy bubble I'm afraid.

ALL the councillors didn't even vote to fund the reduction... some of the councillors from the clontarf-D3 area are doubtless responding to local pressure, the question is why councillors not from clontarf-D3 would vote in favour of it... unless they thought it was the right thing to do or were paying it forward to call in favours down the line.