DART+ (DART Expansion)

In this case, the question isn't ABP, it is Irish Rail!

The ABP Inspectors report is absolutely scathing of IR, they seem to have completely dropped the ball on this:

Furthermore, the depot location is not one where such development has been planned for in
any plan. This development also poses a significant flood risk to lands and
property in the vicinity. I am clearly of the opinion that this site should have been
rejected early in the consideration of location options for a depot of such strategic
significance. It should never have proceeded as far as a detailed site specific
flood risk assessment and been subject to any Justification Test. A depot of such
strategic transport infrastructure significance did not need to be sited on lands
that extensively and regularly flood at the geographical end of one of the Dart+
Programme projects. The depot does not need to be at this location. I cannot
come to any reasonable understanding as to why the applicant has chosen to
pursue the depot development at this location when it is evident that the lands
are prone to extensive and regular flooding. The risks to this important strategic
infrastructure and the potential for this very substantial development to pose
significant flood risk beyond the depot lands in order to alleviate flood risk of this
infrastructure cannot be acceptable. This is not proper planning and sustainable
development.

Ouch!!

And then there is this from further on:

The Hearing spent the best part of three days discussing the depot. These

discussions highlighted the deficiencies in information and resulted in the

applicant having to provide a wide range of information much of which should

ultimately have been in the application documentation in the first instance. The

most basic details

structures proposed

adjoining lands

levels

understanding of the proposed depot site and the access road thereto. Lack of

information on foundations

and over basic levels across the site

impervious area of the site to gauge an understanding of the applicability of

intended SuDS measures were some of the matters which remain somewhat

unclear. It was most unsatisfactory having to seek to acquire such details and

even more so when incorrect information was provided and new details had then

to be provided at later times. This left interested parties with a very significant

degree of confusion over what proposed development was ultimately being

sought. Ongoing questioning and regular acquisition of drawings and other

documentation from the applicant arising from this lack of information was

necessary to obtain some degree of clarity on what is intended at the depot site.

What is most concerning is that it is wholly accepted by the applicant that the site

for the proposed depot is on Flood Zone A. For the landowners and observers

______________________________________________________________________________

there was evident concern about siting strategic infrastructure of this nature on

Flood Zone A. I fully concur with the position of the landowners and neighbouring

property owners. I must seriously question why the applicant considered this

location for a depot when it was accepted as being in Flood Zone A. Knowing this

should have resulted in this site’s avoidance. This would have been in

accordance with the Flood Management Guidelines and would concur with

proper planning and sustainable development. One does not proceed to try and

engineer out the evident problems with a site which regularly floods when

consideration of alternative locations should have been paramount. The applicant

has reviewed several alternative sites about which there is no understanding if

any of these alternative locations had any significant flooding issues or concerns.

An alternative location for the depot is a fundamental requirement for this railway

development and ultimately for the DART+ Programme. Developing the wrong

site at the outset must be avoided.

Seriously it is pretty painful reading.

Not really, building a depot in the middle of an area designated as Flood Zone A, seems very questionable.

During the oral hearing IR even admitted that the depot could be flooded during a major flooding event!