Crazy council plan for clontarf.

Icepick wrote: »

more silly nimbyism from people who think they are living in a village
Also what views does it spoil? from cars?
Walk or cycle then.

expectationlost wrote: »

if you so concerned you might want to back that up with a bit more details and facts.

expectationlost wrote: »

i didn't say anything about nimbyism, I'm constantly criticising DCC for lack of consultation, its up to DCC to do a good job on that, but I want you to back up your claims above. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97566153&postcount=304

Flood defence works to provide a continuous flood defence level of 4.25m O.D. between the Bull Wall and Causeway Road;

The proper Part VIII consultation procedures were followed. The proposed scheme was advertised on the Dublin City Council website and also in the Irish Times on Friday 14th
December 2012. A total of 14 site notices were erected at key locations from just south of Wooden Bridge to just north of Causeway Road including at all major traffic junctions along that route.

Plans and particulars of the proposed scheme were available for public inspection for a six week period up to and including Monday 4th February 2013 at the following locations and
times:

1. Dublin City Council, Public Counter, Planning Department, Block 4, Ground Floor, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8, Monday-Friday 9.00am-4.30pm.

2. Raheny Library, Howth Road, Dublin 5 between the hours of 10.00am-8.00pm

Monday to Thursday, and 10.00am-5.00pm on Friday and
Saturday.

The proposal was presented to the North Central Area Committee on 17th September 2012 and on 19th
November 2012. A public information meeting was held on Tuesday 15th January at 7.30 p.m. in Belgrove Girls School Hall, Seafield Road. This meeting was hosted by the Clontarf Residents Association and was attended by circa 180 people. A follow-up meeting was also held at 3pm on Friday 10th
May 2013 in Conference Room 2, Northside Civic Centre, Bunratty Road, Coolock, Dublin 17. Public representatives and residents attended this meeting. The National Transport Authority and their project consultants Roughan & O’Donovan were present and dealt with any additional or new enquiries that had not been addressed in the already comprehensive consultation process.

Planning approval was granted on Monday 13th May 2013.

The current finish complies with the specifications of the Part
8 planning permission that was granted. However a change to the current finish is currently under consideration by Dublin City Council.

expectationlost wrote: »

show me where Galway have used glass in their sea wall defence?

odyssey06 wrote: »

Gosh. How strange that the people most affected by the wall are most concerned about it. But go ahead, throw the label nimbyism at it.

BoltzmannBrain wrote: »

As long as they don't mess with Bull Island!

expectationlost wrote: »

Finian is having his meeting on the 7th to talk about reducing the height of a wall thats already built...

expectationlost wrote: »

wells next to sea on map https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Wells-next-the-Sea,+Norfolk+NR23,+UK/@52.9642152,0.8480801,3144m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d771242ca1239b:0x48a6ef0ef85b7e10!6m1!1e1?hl=en

heres a pic http://www.herald.ie/news/council-should-take-note-of-clear-flood-defences-says-oriordain-34119856.html

is Waterford situation the same as Dollymounts?

expectationlost wrote: »

DCC could win by doing more human consultation

my friend wrote: »

To all the objectors, are you willing to sign a disclaimer to your insurance companies, DCC and the tax payer with respect to any and future flood claims if the plans are shelved and your views maintained

odyssey06 wrote: »

You seem to be implying that just because some sort of flood defence is needed, locals should accept the quickest cheapest nastiest solution.
One wonders why we have councillors and any sort of public consultation at all. Let's just throw up the highest biggest wall we can in the shortest amount of time.

2.0 Alternative Designs Considered
2.1.1 Description of Options
A number of scheme options were developed and assessed as follows:
Do Nothing;
Interim Scheme – Option 1;
Interim Scheme – Option 2;
Interim Scheme – Option 3;
Interim Scheme – Option 4;
Interim Scheme – Option 5; and
DPFPP Option.

...

2.1.2 Appraisal of Options
Option 5 which is the design solution most consistent with the approved DPFPP scheme was identified as the preferred solution when assessed against a number of headings as shown in Table 2.1 below.

However there has been a lack of balance to the coverage on www.clontarf.ie thus far.

In the context of sea levels rising in general and in the Clontarf area on average 6mm a year for the last 15 years (according to DCC engineers - data which I will seek to get published after the meeting tomorrow) I believe there is a requirement for a long-term flood defence. Flood defence is a specialist engineering area and DCC has invested substantial time and public resources to design the appropriate defence and determine the right barrier height; this also involved the commissioning of external expertise. Much and all as I would like to see a lower barrier height I expect the design to stand up to robust scrutiny when we question DCC officials on it tomorrow morning.

Some would like to see the barrier height reduced which I can understand but will neither settle on an alternative height nor provide a revised engineering rationale for it.

The consultation and decision process on this project has been going on for a few years with different aspects being controversial. It’s an area of significant importance and sensitivity but we can’t ignore the advice on global warming and increased level of tides etc.

Obviously Dublin City Council, the OPW and the Government have strategic plans for the development of flood protection measures and it makes sense to implement these as opportunities arise in conjunction with other work such as the Sutton to Sandycove cycleway.

In relation to the flood defense wall, I fully agree that a flood defense wall is required. In saying that I disagree with the height of the wall and I have concerns in relation to the render on the wall

I want to say that not only am I vehemently opposed to the construction of this wall which is destroying a public amenity but I am also taking strong and direct action in order to halt the ongoing construction to give space for a resolution to be found.

There was never any agreement by local resident groups / business groups, joint working group (Clontarf Residents Assoc. / Clontarf Business Assoc.) or myself as a public representative to the wall heights that are under construction presently. This project was billed as a much needed cycleway and assurances were given as to relatively minor wall heights etc. I believe that DCC need to take responsibility for this debacle which has arisen due to their lack of proper and transparent consultation AGAIN.

”Like most people, I too am shocked by the height and appearance of the sea wall now under construction opposite St. Anne’s Park. I understand that this project was given the necessary planning permission by the elected Council on May 13th 2013, prior to my election to the Local Authority. I believe that there was inadequate public consultation in this regard and that the true scale of the project was never fully revealed.

expectationlost wrote: »

4.8


hmmm does this drawing reflect whats being built all along there?

my friend wrote: »

To all the objectors, are you willing to sign a disclaimer to your insurance companies, DCC and the tax payer with respect to any and future flood claims if the plans are shelved and your views maintained

We share the concern that the raising of the wall height obscures the view of Dublin Bay from the road, especially in front of St Anne’s Park

Increasing tidal and wave heights and global warming are set to greatly increase the risk of flooding. The planned height has in fact been reduced as now the coping is being taken into account in the height, which was not the case previously.

We welcome the commitment of officials to bring forward proposals for a better finish to the concrete wall. We pressed for these to be brought forward as soon as possible and official agreed to present them next month.

expectationlost wrote: »

yes and the Herald choose this as it headline Council to look at raising part of road by Clontarf flood wall http://www.herald.ie/news/council-to-look-at-raising-part-of-road-by-clontarf-flood-wall-34174988.html

that would take some doing

Flood Risk

Engineers stated that while there are no properties along this particular section of the Coast Road adjacent to St. Anne’s Park, flooding starting here can build up and head towards properties. They stated it would not remain confined to that area.
OPW maps being circulated by some local representatives only take account of static tidal flooding risk and do not include wave overtopping data, nor global warming risk.
Since 1930, the average tide level has risen by about 200mm. This means we are at approximately ten times the tidal flood risk that existed in the 1930s.
As an example of the effect of even minimal wave overtopping, engineers stated that if 100mm (4 inches) of water comes over the sea wall between the Wooden Bridge and the green area before the Causeway Road then that is the equivalent of 20 times the peak flow of the Naniken River.

Components of Flood Design Height
Engineers told us that there were four main elements to the design:

Standard tide height
Associated wave height (this has been reduced in this instance because of the presence of Bull Island). The height has been calculated at 0.25m instead of the usual 0.75m stipulated by the OPW. 0.75 is standard for the east coast of Ireland but the presence of Bull Island means we can reduce this. Otherwise, the wall would be higher than it is now.
Global warming element which is 500mm. 90-100mm of this has already disappeared in the last 15 years. This is the absolute minimum range as recommended by the OPW, though the thinking now is that 700mm is more likely to be the appropriate height. This means that global warming appears to be happening faster than previously thought.
“Freeboard” element, or safety margin of 300mm which is the standard safety margin to account for errors in the other areas (for example, if global warming happens faster than anticipated or there were local anomalies). If we were building an embankment rather than a wall, this would have to be 500mm instead of 300mm as an embankment will settle into the ground over time and become lower.
4.25 ODM (from sea level) is the resulting height, which is consistent with other flood defences and thus is the minimum height stipulated by the OPW regulations.

Glass Wall/”The Waterford Option”

Engineers told us that the first and most important difference between the Clontarf and Waterford coastlines is that while Waterford is on an estuary, we are on a bay.
The wave element is therefore particular to this area. Wave action here is obviously reduced significantly because of Bull Island, but not eliminated completely.
A glass wall will not be able to take wave impact in the same way that a wall does.
If any one part of a glass wall is smashed due to wave action or vandalism, then the entire flood defence becomes ineffective. If the defence goes in one spot then the effect is like links going in a chain – and it is not worth much along the rest of the way.
The other element is cost. Even if a glass wall was appropriate, it would double (or more) the cost of the whole scheme (current contract €6.6m).
Putting a glass section at the top of the wall would involve rebuilding the sea wall in its entirety, with significant cost implications – it is not possible from an engineering point of view to put it on top without going down and rebuilding the L wall beneath the surface.
Other locations where glass panels have been used are experiencing vandalism problems, i.e. Grand Canal Quay.

Combination of Projects

Engineers advised us that the two projects (S2S and flood defences) were being built together because elements of the existing wall were in such poor condition that the whole scheme worked together – the new wall had to be built and strengthened before the cycleway and footpath could be constructed, so that is why both are being done at the same time.

Funding
NTA 51%
DCC 36% (the Flood Defence Works element)
Irish Water 13% ( the watermain, which is part of the North City Arterial Watermain
Total cost of project is €6.6m.

The OPW are not funding this project directly but it is still a requirement that the flood defence element complies with their regulations.

Height figures

The worst section in terms of height has already been completed.
This is opposite St. Anne’s park.
The highest point of this section is 1.138 metres from the finished footpath level for pedestrians and cyclists (taking into account a 150mm kerb height). View for pedestrians and cyclists on the sea side of the roadway is not obstructed.
The highest point from the road for motorists is 1.138 metres plus 120-150mm, depending on which part of the road a car is on. This includes the capping stone.
The capping stone at this section is to be 3 inches.
The total length of this section is 460 metres. Driving at the speed limit, it would take 33 seconds to pass this section.
DCC have agreed to put indicators (string lines) along the rest of the route to clearly indicate final intended heights.

carveone wrote: »

vaguely wondering if D3 would like a special addition to their property tax to pay for the view