Clontarf Flood Defense Wall to Come Down (slightly)

odyssey06

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Why do motorists need a view of anything other than the road? If they want a view they can park up and walk along the footpath beside the wall. This is ridiculous stuff altogether.

If you want a better view you can even walk on the beach... but it comes back to DCC's absolute screw-up of the planning process where during all the public consultations and presentations they promised no sightlines would be affected.

And likely, we'll have driverless cars before we'll need the extra height on that wall (we're talking about 50 year horizons here), and some cars have passengers...

minikin

They should finish the walls with mirrors, some residents need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Rigor Mortis

Can we all just be honest here and admit that most objectors don't give a toss about drivers going by. It's a convenient excuse and it has been successful in this case. It is akin to the hoardes of pearl mussel enthusiasts that have emerged from the woodwork in rural UIreland any time a pylon, turbine or any other contentious project is proposed.

The locals didn't want this and they put forward a number of arguments, some genuine and some a bit more spurious.

odyssey06

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

The locals didn't want this and they put forward a number of arguments, some genuine and some a bit more spurious.

Good point, and if a council wants to push through a project under those circumstances they need to be very careful not to score any own goals whatsoever in the planning process...

Pete_Cavan

I don't buy this loss of visual amenity lark. Imo, if the only sightlines effected are for those in cars only (i.e. not including higher seated vehicles) for about a minute as you drive along there, then that isn't sufficient to constitute loss of visual amenity. From sitting in a car, you can still see the sea, Bull Island, Howth Head, the Ringsend chimneys, etc. for almost the entire length of the wall!

Look in Google Street View and you can compare the view now to that in 2009, the few metres of sea in the difference does not constitute loss of visual amenity.

Fighting Tao

odyssey06 wrote: »

If you want a better view you can even walk on the beach... but it comes back to DCC's absolute screw-up of the planning process where during all the public consultations and presentations they promised no sightlines would be affected.

So the residents are kicking up just to stick it to DCC?

odyssey06

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So the residents are kicking up just to stick it to DCC?

There's an element of that... relations are strained to say the least between DCC and locals. It's got to the stage where there is a total breakdown of trust.

There was the crazy plan in the 80s to turn the Clontarf side of the bay into an underground fuel storage depot which to Sean 'Dublin Bay' Loftus regularly being elected to the Dail on a platform against it.

And the more recent plan which DCC proposed to use a new flood defence scheme as a pretence to lay a watermain at surface level...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/councillors-move-to-halt-clontarf-flood-defence-plan-as-locals-fear-loss-of-sea-views-1.615157

This has led to DCC leaving sandbags all along Clontarf so long they are now growing their own ecosystems... whereas before they only brought them out during times of flood risk.

Nothing DCC says on the subject of Clontarf can be trusted, and I don't believe that the current vote to lower the sea wall is purely about motorists views, at a basic level there aren't enough votes in that ... Some councillors have made reference to a 'mediation process' where the lowering was agreed e.g.
"Fine Gael councillor for Clontarf Naoise O Muiri said that the height decrease had already been agreed following a mediation process."
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/reducing-height-of-sea-wall-is-a-waste-of-money-36474561.html

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

If you want a better view you can even walk on the beach... but it comes back to DCC's absolute screw-up of the planning process where during all the public consultations and presentations they promised no sightlines would be affected.

.

documentation

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

documentation

"The scheme will have relatively low impact profiles from all strategic viewpoints."

See Section 4.8, photo 4.2 of this planning report document:
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/Part%20VIII%20Planning%20Report%20Dec%202012.pdf

This is not an accurate representation of what was actually built in the "Section showing most increase in flood defence wall."

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

"The scheme will have relatively low impact profiles from all strategic viewpoints."

See Section 4.8, photo 4.2 of this planning report document:
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/Part%20VIII%20Planning%20Report%20Dec%202012.pdf

This is not an accurate representation of what was actually built in the "Section showing most increase in flood defence wall."

"no sightlines would be affected" is not "relatively low impact profiles from all strategic viewpoints" and the murray review report says they wall would slighlty restrict views of the lagoon on the park side

http://naoise.ie/report-by-independent-expert-on-the-dollymount-flood-defence/ you probably wouldn't agree with him describing it as slight

GreeBo

odyssey06 wrote: »

The good news is that approx half of that stretch doesn't have any residents

Has anyone told the sea that its not welcome on the other stretch and that its not allowed to use the road?

odyssey06 wrote: »

The reduced height will still provide protection against 1 in 100 year flood events for the next 50 years.

Rigor Mortis

It's not that we are anti-wall. Some of our best friends are walls. But we just don't want a wall here. The wall would be far happier living with other walls. Somewhere like China. But i need to be clear, the residents of Clontarf are not Wall-ist

humberklog

I can't figure out the big deal that residents (or passer-by's) have with the wall and don't really care.

My problem is is how did the wall get built incorrectly? There's an element of the wall that has been built too high with regards to the planning permission and there's another stretch that has been built too low (this seams to be reported on less but is just as important).


The original works went on way to long for what was being done and it wasn't even completed (not cladded) and what was done was done wrong.

Does anyone recall who the main contractors were that carried out the job?

Sleeper12

I'd only we had the councillors support on the St Anne's 8 story development

beertons

This people are really going to flip, when high rise start popping up.

odyssey06

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

It's not that we are anti-wall. Some of our best friends are walls. But we just don't want a wall here. The wall would be far happier living with other walls. Somewhere like China. But i need to be clear, the residents of Clontarf are not Wall-ist

Joe, we don't know where this wall came from. Nobody in Clontarf asked for it. Nobody knows who built it. It just turned up one night like it has no home to go to.
There's places in Ireland that are crying out for a wall. They could give the wall a good home where it will feel welcome and feel like it's doing an honest day's work. Is there no other town that could adopt the wall? The people of Clontarf will happily pay for the wall's train fare if there's some there to meet the wall at the station and show them the body of water they have to mark.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/storms/storm-frank-exhausted-residents-of-town-demand-defences-promised-to-them-years-ago-34325462.html

Rigor Mortis

odyssey06 wrote: »

Joe, we don't know where this wall came from. Nobody in Clontarf asked for it. Nobody knows who built it. It just turned up one night like it has no home to go to.
There's places in Ireland that are crying out for a wall. They could give the wall a good home where it will feel welcome and feel like it's doing an honest day's work. Is there no other town that could adopt the wall? The people of Clontarf will happily pay for the wall's train fare if there's some there to meet the wall at the station and show them the body of water they have to mark.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/storms/storm-frank-exhausted-residents-of-town-demand-defences-promised-to-them-years-ago-34325462.html

the train fare could be as much as 60 - 500k. you guys game for that much of a whip around

odyssey06

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

the train fare could be as much as 60 - 500k. you guys game for that much of a whip around

I know a man in need of a wall who can trump that offer...

expectationlost

humberklog wrote: »

I can't figure out the big deal that residents (or passer-by's) have with the wall and don't really care.

My problem is is how did the wall get built incorrectly? There's an element of the wall that has been built too high with regards to the planning permission and there's another stretch that has been built too low (this seams to be reported on less but is just as important).


The original works went on way to long for what was being done and it wasn't even completed (not cladded) and what was done was done wrong.

back this up with documentation please

humberklog

expectationlost wrote: »

back this up with documentation please

No.

humberklog

I went for a looksee today. The area in question according to The Irish Times is 625m in length. It runs between the Causeway Rd. and The wooden Bridge. More specifically the wall itself starts opposite the pond and runs to the pedestrian crossing at Mount Prospect Ave.

Heading south from the Causeway Rd. here's where it starts...

As you can see it's re-inforced concrete uncladded. The blue spray line is one of 2 things: It's a guide for the cutting of the wall or it's a rough guide to show what the finished wall should be. My guess is the latter because a string line hasn't been used to define the cut better for the contractor. It's roughly 300mm below finished level.

The wall runs towards the Wooden Bridge...



There's variations in height...




After the pedestrian crossing at Mount Prospect the wall has been completed all the way to the Wooden bridge...


As you can see the wall isn't cladded. It's rendered and finished with an 8" capping stone. This wall varies in height too.

humberklog

So there are no views being restricted for residents, it's all park. The height doesn't restrict wheelchair users view (one of the reasons put forward). The majority of pedestrians use the wall side and that's accompanied by a dual cycle path.
According to Damien O'Farrell (DC Councillor, non-party who voted in favour of the remedial works)(Pat Kenny's show, Newstalk 9th Jan,2018)) the wall has been built too high in parts and too low in others.

The wall will cost will be 500k, this was said by Pat and was uncontested by DO'F.
DO'F says the wall is 2km in total (I measure it at 1.6km) of which only the front of park will be cladded, he says it's 460m (I measure it to be 650m).

The cost of cladding is he estimates (3 estimates)- between 200k and 300k or "the guts of 300k" or weirder again- "it will cost 300k to clad 480m (not a type-o just a new figure by DO'F)- take your pick there.

So part of the wall will be cladded, not sure how long and not sure at what cost. This cladding will not match the works already completed. The existing work that needs to be revisited was put in too high in parts and too low in other.
That work by the way is badly put in- the wall isn't straight and true where it should be. To my eye it moves in and out by about 75mm. I've 15years experience as a site engineer, senior engineer and contracts manager of civil and structural contractors so have a pretty good eye.
I've a pretty good nose when something stinks too...and something's not smelling right here.

Glad it’s coming down and being capped, it’s an absolute disgrace what they’ve done opposite the park. It’s taken them years to replace the old cycle lane with something less safe and they build a wall that looks like the central median on the M50.

And then when it was agreed with locals over a year ago that it would be lowered and capped they throw out pie in the sky figures on how much it will cost before the vote to have councillors and people from outside the area up in arms over the cost to lower it, making out people who want to protect the look of their local area to be wasting money that could be used for some other imaginary cause of the day. Very distasteful behaviour from DCC.

This video is over two years old to show how long this joke has been going on for

https://youtu.be/ADGwpcL8t0Q

expectationlost

where did the council say the wall would be cladded? link

New article today on the journal in regard to the underhand tactics by DCC

https://www.thejournal.ie/clontarf-sea-wall-row-3792030-Jan2018/

humberklog

From the Council's statement...

“The estimated cost breakdown was shared with local elected representatives. The wall cutting is the main contributor to the preliminary costs due to anticipated cutting methodology. The amounts given to elected representatives exclude VAT. This figure cannot be released as it is commercially sensitive."

Damian O'Farrell has said a number of times that the cost of cutting the wall is 60k and here the council are saying they're not releasing the cost because it's "commercially sensitive"...eh it'd be commercially sensitive if they'd an estimate in mind and we're opening it to tender. It's not commercially sensitive if a price (60k) and contractor are already agreed.

Who made the mistake with the heights? It reads that there was an agreed height at planning that was to be adhered too. If the council did a Benny on this then fair enough they've to foot the bill. If it was an error by the contractor then it's up to them at their cost to fix it.

"Due to anticipated cutting methodology" oh ffs, it's an 8" thick RC wall- there aren't many flipping options.

So we've DO'F who agreed to the reduction of the wall and is saying it's costing 60k and we've the council saying the price is secret because it's commercially sensitive!?

Fighting Tao

It’s only a wall. Why the fuss? I really can’t get my head around it. You want to see over the wall then use the footpath beside it. It’s not as if it’s 10m high.

It’s really coming across like those that are complaining are like others who get a bee in their bonnet with regards to people parking outside their house.

Fighting Tao

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It’s only a wall. Why the fuss? I really can’t get my head around it. You want to see over the wall then use the footpath beside it. It’s not as if it’s 10m high.

It’s really coming across like those that are complaining are like others who get a bee in their bonnet with regards to people parking outside their house.

Look at the state of it in humberklog's photos, I'm less concerned about the hight than the build qality and finish. They done a terrible job as described by humberklog

That work by the way is badly put in- the wall isn't straight and true where it should be. To my eye it moves in and out by about 75mm. I've 15years experience as a site engineer, senior engineer and contracts manager of civil and structural contractors so have a pretty good eye.

Imagine if that was put in along Sandymount strand.

NickNickleby

cisk wrote: »

Look at the state of it in humberklog's photos, I'm less concerned about the hight than the build qality and finish. They done a terrible job as described by humberklog

Imagine if that was put in along Sandymount strand.

It bloody well wouldn't be. Not only that, there wouldn't be a 2 year argument about it either.

To my mind, its all about the aesthetics of the solution. There are none, and its the middle finger to the locals who want some.

I don't live in Clontarf. But in my local park the clowns at DCC are about to cut down some nice trees and build a 'clubhouse' for a pretty much underused tennis court. Now, it mightn't be so bad if the building was nice, but no "F U, Artane residents, we're putting up a concrete bunker that looks like something out of Soviet Russia" and the councillors can do nothing about it. Despite objections from ALL the residents in the surrounding area (well bar one who we think proposed it and lives nearby and is one of the handful of people who use it, AND - so I'm told - works for DCC).

listermint

Doesnt sandymount already have a wall, quite an old one at that. Similar to the old section of wall at the woodenbridge bull island....