Crazy council plan for clontarf.

Pete_Cavan · 04-11-2015 7:06pm

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.

From the Part VIII Planning Report Dec 2012;

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.

I was going to post all of section 2.1.1 Description of Options in the quote but it is too much information and I doubt the mods would be happy with such a large post. It is there for you to read anyway.

But you do have a point, why bother with public consultations when people wont even look at the documents to inform themselves.

odyssey06 · 04-11-2015 7:54pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But you do have a point, why bother with public consultations when people wont even look at the documents to inform themselves.

Sea flood defences are 2 pages in a 38 page document entitled "Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Wall (Wooden Bridge) To Causeway Road"

Section 4.8 states that:
"The scheme will have relatively low impact profiles from all strategic viewpoints. "
I refer you to Photo 4.2 which appears to illustrate the level of the seawall relative to cars, pedestrians and cyclists and has been contradicted by what was actually put in place.

I am entirely unsurprised therefore that this escaped the attention of local elected officials and residents, who make the mistake of assuming that DCC could be trusted to behave with integrity towards local residents.

I completely reject the assertion that that document counts as a realistic document for helping the general public understand the impact of the proposed changes.

Indeed, why bother with public consultations when the information is presented in such a way that public isn't engaged with it?
Surely the reaction of local elected officials and residents should tell you that this process has failed and this is not the way to present information honestly and with integrity to the public about proposed changes.

Maybe there is no alternative to fixed concrete flood defences and the consequent loss of views etc and degradation of the clontarf promenade as a public amenity... But DCC should be honest about it. Is it any wonder local people react when DCC go about changes in this manner?

expectationlost · 04-11-2015 9:31pm

as many politicians statements on the wall as you could ever want http://www.clontarf.ie/news

Cllr. Naoise O'Muiri FG battles back

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.

Heney
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/statement-from-cllr-deirdre-heney-sea-wall

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.

Cllr. Ciaran O' Moore SF http://www.clontarf.ie/news/statement-from-cllr-ciaran-o-moore-sea-wall

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

SF have been middling on this, they've put out statements re importance of flood defence.

Finian http://www.clontarf.ie/news/statement-from-finian-mcgrath-sea-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.

already built, where was Damian?

Haughey http://www.clontarf.ie/news/statement-from-sean-haughey-sea-wall

”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.

not my fault

Terence Flanagan 28th October Dublin Bay North residents’ concerns about adjustment to sea wall height need to be addressed http://terenceflanagan.ie/2015/10/28/dublin-bay-north-residents-concerns-about-adjustment-to-sea-wall-height-need-to-be-addressed/

Donna Cooney recently slected for the Green Party We Will March and Blow our Bulls Horns Until the Wall Falls! http://www.clontarf.ie/news/donna-cooney-we-will-march-and-blow-our-bulls-horns-until-the-wall-falls

expectationlost · 04-11-2015 10:20pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

Sea flood defences are 2 pages in a 38 page document entitled "Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Wall (Wooden Bridge) To Causeway Road"

agree

Section 4.8 states that:
"The scheme will have relatively low impact profiles from all strategic viewpoints. "
I refer you to Photo 4.2 which appears to illustrate the level of the seawall relative to cars, pedestrians and cyclists and has been contradicted by what was actually put in place.

I am entirely unsurprised therefore that this escaped the attention of local elected officials and residents, who make the mistake of assuming that DCC could be trusted to behave with integrity towards local residents.

I completely reject the assertion that that document counts as a realistic document for helping the general public understand the impact of the proposed changes.

Indeed, why bother with public consultations when the information is presented in such a way that public isn't engaged with it?
Surely the reaction of local elected officials and residents should tell you that this process has failed and this is not the way to present information honestly and with integrity to the public about proposed changes.

Maybe there is no alternative to fixed concrete flood defences and the consequent loss of views etc and degradation of the clontarf promenade as a public amenity... But DCC should be honest about it. Is it any wonder local people react when DCC go about changes in this manner?

4.8

"The scheme will have relatively low impact profiles from all strategic viewpoints. .... The most likely concerns are in relation to potential visual impacts of the flood defence wall. Along the majority of the scheme the existing sea wall is at a level of approximately 4.0 metres ODM and will therefore only require an increase of up to 0.25 metres. In some locations however only a low wall exists outside of the footpath the new wall will need to be increased by up to a metre. This will however still only be slightly higher than the level of the footpath. See Photo 4.2
below and Drawings 1001 - 1004 in Appendix A.

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/Part%20VIII%20Planning%20Report%20Dec%202012.pdf

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

and Appendix A for is oads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway

woodseb · 05-11-2015 9:33am

expectationlost wrote: »

4.8

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

it doesn't reflect what is being built along there....

then again - that picture is not of the section that is currently being built:rolleyes:

Section B is around Dollymount Ave - http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1001.pdf

Section E is in front of the park
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1003.pdf

expectationlost · 05-11-2015 2:08pm

woodseb wrote: »

it doesn't reflect what is being built along there....

then again - that picture is not of the section that is currently being built:rolleyes:

Section B is around Dollymount Ave - http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1001.pdf

Section E is in front of the park
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1003.pdf

but thats the main picture they decided to use to illustrate their plans, just like the cgi image they used above they choose the one that looks best rather then preparing people for the biggest impact.

woodseb · 05-11-2015 2:16pm

maybe they decided to use the illustrations for the pieces directly outside people's houses that would concern people most rather than the park?

the passage you copied above actually refers you to the photo below and the other drawings - if they were trying to obfuscate it, they are doing a bad job of it. i think you are trying to hard to find something to be outraged about.

Icepick · 05-11-2015 6:33pm

expectationlost wrote: »

presenter still giving out about reduced motorist's view

Their eyes should be on the road. And they can cycle if they want a view.

Icepick · 05-11-2015 6:35pm

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

The whole city is paying these people for flood defences and they complain about views from their cars.:pac:

odyssey06 · 05-11-2015 6:50pm

Icepick wrote: »

The whole city is paying these people for flood defences and they complain about views from their cars.:pac:

If you think about it for 10 seconds longer you might realise that it may not be the same people...

How rude and inconsiderate of people in Dublin to expect the best flood defences, and not say, a €36 million library... even if they didn't pay significant amounts in LPT, which in fact they do...

Squeaksoutloud · 06-11-2015 10:54am

Update from Clontarf.ie:

http://www.clontarf.ie/news/sea-wall-in-clontarf-latest-update

Sinn Fein Statement:

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.

So obviously the meeting with DCC Engineers indicates that the wall height is based on flood modelling which takes account for global warming and associated flooding of Bull Island and potential wave increases. Who would have thought that Engineers decide to design for the future and get slated by people saying flooding has never occurred here previously! Its a bit like designing the M50 for 2009 traffic levels or when Dublin Aiport T2 opened I remember people calling it a white elephant.

Hopefully the Clontarf.ie webpage will be more balanced in their viewpoints from now on now that some of the reasoning for flood defences have been explained to the likes of Finian McGrath and co.

expectationlost · 06-11-2015 1:07pm

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

carveone · 06-11-2015 2:48pm

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

Can't even imagine the cost of doing that and I think that's a pretty unreasonable suggestion. Besides "looking at" doesn't mean "doing it"

As an engineer myself, I would think that they wouldn't build a wall higher than they modelled for and people are inclined to think we just make numbers up (eg: the port tunnel which my brother in law worked on). After all, money spent on making a wall higher than it needs to be is money that could be used somewhere else. Like making cycle tracks that aren't terrifying to cycle on.

But then again, the section E drawing linked to above seems to show the wall at roughly hip height which doesn't match the picture in the Herald.

I keep feeling that this is an issue that keeps coming up over and over - what do other countries do? Do they raise a temporary hoarding to illustration the impact with "this is being build in 2 years from now"? Wouldn't that be better/cheaper? I was working on a Horizon 2020 submission which involved possible HF broadcasting from Portugal's coast. You should see their reaction to anything that even thinks of the possibility of impacting their shoreline and thus their tourist industry...

expectationlost · 06-11-2015 3:49pm

carveone wrote: »

Can't even imagine the cost of doing that and I think that's a pretty unreasonable suggestion. Besides "looking at" doesn't mean "doing it"

But then again, the section E drawing linked to above seems to show the wall at roughly hip height which doesn't match the picture in the Herald.

again path not built yet

Squeaksoutloud · 06-11-2015 6:24pm

Good post by Cllr. Jane Horgan Jones

http://www.clontarf.ie/news/statement-from-cllr-jane-horgan-jones-sea-wall

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 · 07-11-2015 1:53pm

expectationlost wrote: »

again path not built yet

Doh! I knew I was saying something wrong there - it's clear enough from the road level which is lower than the path.

DCC have agreed to put indicators (string lines) along the rest of the route to clearly indicate final intended heights.

That would have been a massive help to begin with and would have cost virtually nothing. I think DCC is getting a lot of flack because of the perception that the wall would have been lower than indicated (hell, I did it right in my last post) and they deserve some of it. In future they could save themselves a lot of grief by putting indicators up and then telling people.

However, the engineers and dcc can only design to minimal heights to migitate flooding risks now and in the future so the height is that which the civil engineers deems necessary. I do wonder though could they have dropped the 300mm freeboard height and, in future, raised the wall height (I don't know anything about building walls - maybe you can't make a wall higher later). I wonder how much raising the road costs ... vaguely wondering if D3 would like a special addition to their property tax to pay for the view

odyssey06 · 07-11-2015 2:23pm

carveone wrote: »

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

As a D3 resident I'm fine with this as long as we can levy any non D3 cars using that road... Some sort of M50 toll number plate recogniton system...

expectationlost · 07-11-2015 9:35pm

Sean haughey posted the presentation pdf they got from DCC http://www.seanhaughey.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Presentation-to-Elected-Officials-5th-Nov.-2015.pdf

has pictures of
Flooding St. Anne's Park 1995
Flooding St. Anne's Park 2011

no more details of those
http://floodmap.ie doesn't show floods at dollymount

Squeaksoutloud · 08-11-2015 11:42am

Think that came from park side as opposed to sea. Would have occurred due to a high tide however.

expectationlost · 08-11-2015 9:06pm

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Think that came from park side as opposed to sea. Would have occurred due to a high tide however.

yes somebody on clontarf.ie suggested that too, which would make it very deceptive, although it could be combination of pluvial and over-topping, need to find previous records on those incidents, I don't know why they are not in http://floodmap.ie/

expectationlost · 11-11-2015 2:17am

Dollymount flood defence wall reaches the Dail http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015111000033?opendocument#FF00350 what seems like an interesting point at first re Bord Pleanála report

Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Minister of State for his response, but I disagree with him and Dublin City Council on this project. The name of the project was very misleading. It was called the Sutton to Sandycove scheme, which received approval in 2013 in an interim works project. It comprised elements of two schemes, one of which was the Dollymount promenade and flood protection project which received An Bord Pleanála approval in 2011. The Minister of State should also note that the conditions of that approval still apply to this interim project as far as flood defences go.

Condition No. 5 clearly states that an environmental and liaison committee shall be established with the local community representatives. It would appear that this has not happened and Dublin City Council may be in breach of An Bord Pleanála planning conditions. If this is the case, this is a very serious matter. I call on the city manager, Mr. Keegan, to make a statement on this matter. At a recent information meeting with councillors, Dublin City Council admitted that it was its intention to build the sea wall in question higher than the 4.25 m permission granted in Part VIII of the approval in 2013.

BP http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/YA0008.htm

Condition No. 5 An environmental monitoring and liaison committee shall be established for the
duration of the construction period; membership shall be restricted to five
persons including an independent Chairperson. The committee shall comprise
representation from: -
• Dublin City Council
• the local community which borders the project
• Ecological groups with a specialist interest in the area
• National Parks and Wildlife Service
• Office of Public Works.
Reason: To provide for consultation in relation to community and
environmental matters during construction.

recent DCC report http://www.seanhaughey.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Presentation-to-Elected-Officials-5th-Nov.-2015.pdf

Environmental Measures
•Works have been programmed and are being carried out taking cognizance of the designations of the area.
•Project Environmentalist has been engaged by the Contractor for the duration of the Works.
•Site meetings have been held on site with NPWS.
•No more works on foreshore until after 1st April 2016 to avoid disturbing wintering birds.
•Some concerns raised by BirdWatch Ireland have been addressed and they have been invited to site whenever suits them.
•Grassland Management Plan in place to facilitate feeding of wintering birds that have recently arrived

hmm is Finian really worried about the birds

Squeaksoutloud · 11-11-2015 11:28am

I'll just leave this here so the next time Damian O'Farrell and co rail against the building of this cycleway....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG6pBR3u3nI

They seem to be saying the job cant go on over the Winter now but from reading the planning docs works are permitted once not down in the lagoon. I think they may be mixing up to old Dollymount Promenade Scheme which didn't go ahead..

jon1981 · 11-11-2015 1:16pm

In summary, is this mess the council or local residents & representatives fault? This thread started in 2011 and seemingly it was quite obvious about their intentions on the wall. Why is this all a shock now?

expectationlost · 11-11-2015 1:19pm

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

I'll just leave this here so the next time Damian O'Farrell and co rail against the building of this cycleway....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG6pBR3u3nI

They seem to be saying the job cant go on over the Winter now but from reading the planning docs works are permitted once not down in the lagoon. I think they may be mixing up to old Dollymount Promenade Scheme which didn't go ahead..

don't think so, see DCC http://www.clontarf.ie/news/information-update-on-s2s-sea-defence-wall

The S2S project is an interim 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 an Interim scheme in May 2013.

expectationlost · 11-11-2015 5:48pm

special meeting on this at 6:16 tonight http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/197373

https://twitter.com/DubCityCouncil/status/664387162150932480

Clontarf Residents Assocaition are also worried about the birds they say http://www.clontarf.ie/news/seawall-update-open-letter-to-public-representatives

expectationlost · 11-11-2015 7:33pm

notes from meeting http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/197373

engineer presentation

the high part of the wall it would talk a driver going 50kph 3 seconds to pass that section of the wall

glass panels that could possibly withstand waves have only been developed in last 12 months and are still only in pilot stage

Damien O'Farrell giving out already, he's able to turn his anger on and off very quickly

Naoise FG saying if anything is wrong it should be removed, if they didn't anything wrong legally or factually or scientifically (obviously he doesn't think they did)

Deirdre Heney FF has a go at Damien O'Farrell acussing others of having a go at her at public meetings, but she doesn't come across well.

AAA, SF supporting FG motion over climate concerns

and now all the othe councillors repeating themselves

cllr saying condition 5 was totally ignored [ i don't agree.]

all cllrs say visual, visuals, visuals

DCC's response

they fully complied with all of the planning conditions

no liason committee because birdwatch and NPSW both said they didn't have the staff to be on one, but they did consult with them

DCC says everyone was consulted, loss of visual amenity was mentioned

Damien O'Farrell raised work time restrictions in the board pleannala report http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/orders/YA0/DYA0008.pdf

the council manager says that councillors agreed a part 8 report http://naoise.ie/part-8-report-on-s2s-cycleway-bull-wall-to-causeway/

10. As proposed the construction period for works to the Lagoon shall be restricted to
between March and September each year. Any exceptions sought shall be agreed in
advance with the National Parks & Wildlife Service. The timing of all other works
outside the lagoon shall be agreed with the National Parks and Wildlife Service

[and they got agreement to do so from the NPSW recently]

and that this is basis of the works not the bord pleannala report

Damien O'Farrell doesn't agree [but probably voted for at the time]

a composite motion was agreed among all sides, although it all happened very quickly at the end, and nub of the issues couldn't be argued out because that's not allowed in council meetings [exceptionally well timed interruption from PAddy Bourke Ind (although he is correct)]

text of motion passed

“That this City Council calls upon the CEO of Dublin City Council to immediately commit to fully implementing all the planning conditions set by the planning authorities including An Bord Pleanala, in respect of the Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Wall (Wooden Bridge) to Causeway Road.

via http://www.aodhanoriordain.ie/2015/11/11/council-update-clontarf-sea-wall/

expectationlost · 11-11-2015 7:55pm

woodseb wrote: »

maybe they decided to use the illustrations for the pieces directly outside people's houses that would concern people most rather than the park?

the passage you copied above actually refers you to the photo below and the other drawings - if they were trying to obfuscate it, they are doing a bad job of it. i think you are trying to hard to find something to be outraged about.

as pointed over out by Damien O'Farrell "Photo 4.2 Section showing most increase in flood defence wall" (although that may refer to the sea side?)

odyssey06 · 11-11-2015 10:20pm

jon1981 wrote: »

In summary, is this mess the council or local residents & representatives fault? This thread started in 2011 and seemingly it was quite obvious about their intentions on the wall. Why is this all a shock now?

The council were anything but obvious about their intentions... the planning documents are either incompetent or dishonest in their presentation of the impact of the sea wall on sightlines. The sightlines of cars, pedestrians and cyclists are explained in the planning document and mininal impact on ALL sightlines was declared. Now the wall is built it contradicts what was in the planning document. If the planning document had clearly declared the impact on sightlines from vehicles then your point would be valid as criticism of local reps\residents would be more reasonable. So in conclusion, the mess is entirely the council's fault. If they have to build the wall at this height, integrity demands that they spell this out... they didn't.

Also, subsequent events have established the viability of glass walls for sea flood defences, back in 2011 this would not have been established, but reading between the lines DCC's investigations into its use at the time seem to have only been as far as they needed to go to dismiss it.
It's important to lay down a marker here, not just for Clontarf but everywhere in Dublin that will need upgraded flood defences, that we're looking for innovative 21st century solutions worthy of the capital city of an EU member state, and not 19th century solutions.

DCC have to be hounded by local reps and the community to do a proper job as it is the only language they seem to respond to. The current head of DCC built a 36 million euro library in dun laoghaire whilst presiding over the collapse of it as a thriving business area... The previous head of DCC is now head of Irish Water. These are the kind of people we are dealing with.

Squeaksoutloud · 11-11-2015 11:35pm

So my reading of this is that they have applied all the planning conditions of the old promenade scheme (deck out in the lagoon etc) which received planning approval by An Bord Planeala in 2011 I think. In fact, D'OF was accusing DCC of being in breach of these conditions but surely they don't apply to a separate project which went through a different planning process with a different authority?

These conditions have now been transposed onto a separate scheme which went through a different Part 8 planning process through a different authority :eek:. Is that even legally possible?!!

As quoted above, one of the conditions of the Part 8 Planning was allowing works on the road during the winter period. The reports etc. refer to erection of screening to permit this. But the Bord Planeala conditions appear more onerous and only allow very limited works over winter period if any??

So everyone downs tools tomorrow or will they be allowed with getting on with the other utilities and surfacing works?

Squeaksoutloud · 11-11-2015 11:37pm

And what happens with the wall height?! Seems to have got lost in all the hubris over planning conditions but most of the councillors seemed satisfied with the engineering behind it all.

Crazy council plan for clontarf.

Comments