39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
File Reference: 39YA 0003 / 39 XA 0001
Proposed Development: River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme, Bray County Wicklow.
Inspector: Daniel O’Connor.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
RIVER DARGLE FLOOD DEFENCE SCHEME, BRAY
COUNTY WICKLOW
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction page 3
2.0 Site Location and Context page 5
3.0 Proposed Development page 6
4.0 Environmental Impact Statement page 7
5.0 Oral Hearing page 14
6.0 Assessment page 136
7.0 Compulsory Purchase Order page 148
8.0 Conclusion CPO page 153
9.0 Conclusion EIS page 153
10.0 Recommendation CPO page 154
11.0 Recommendation- EIS page 154
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Reference: 39 YA 0003 / XA 0001
Proposed Development: River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme, Bray County Wicklow.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Approval is sought by Bray Town Council to undertake the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme. The application, made under Section 175 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, was submitted to An Bord Pleanala by letter dated 2nd August 2007, received on 7th August July 2007.
1.2 In a separate application, Bray Town Council applied to An Bord Pleanala for confirmation of a Compulsory Purchase Order in respect of lands required for the proposed Flood Defence Scheme, dated 27th July 2007.
1.3 The proposed development as described in the newspaper notice consists of river works, flood defence walls, embankments and necessary ancillary and consequential associated works over a length of 2.75 kms from the Railway Bridge to the N11 Bridge.
1.4 An EIS was submitted to the Board on 2nd August 2007. This was made available for inspection and for purchase during office hours at the offices of Bray Town Council, Civic Offices, Main Street, Bray, County Wicklow from 25th July to 10th September 2007. The EIS was referred to in a public notice in the Irish Independent dated 25th July 2007 and also in the Wicklow People of 25th July 2007.
It is stated that the EIS was circulated to the following prescribed bodies on 31st July 2007:
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (Planning Department)
Fáilte Ireland
Dept of Transport and the Marine
Wicklow County Council (Planning Dept)
National Roads Authority
An Taisce
Eastern Regional Fisheries Board
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Railway Procurement Agency
The Heritage Council
An Comhairle Ealaíon
Córas Iompair Eireann
Dublin Transportation Office
Environmental Protection Agency
1.5 An application for confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order was received from Bray Town Council on 30th July 2007 in respect of Bray Town Council Compulsory Purchase (River Dargle Flood Defence) No.1 Order, 2007 dated 20th June 2004. The area for acquisition totals 19.2 hectares from twenty-five landowners and the application is supported by certificates in relation to conformity with the Wicklow County Development Plan 2004 – 2010 and the Bray own Development Plan 2005.
1.6 A copy of the Section 85 Agreement under the Local Government Act 2001 between Wicklow County Council and Bray Town Council is attached which agreed that Bray Town Council would exercise and perform the statutory powers, functions and duties. A copy of Managers Order G 32 / 2007 is also appended together with a certificate of postage for the orders issued in respect of the individual land ownerships.
1.7 A copy of notice sent to Department of Transport and the Marine in accordance with Section 227 (5) of the Planning and Development Act is also attached to the documentation
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
2.0 SCHEME LOCATION AND CONTEXT
2.1 The scheme covers approximately 3.5 kilometres in length from the N11 to bray Harbour. The length given in the newspaper notice is 2.75 kms.
2.2 Works include in-stream works and defence works along the banks of the river and specifically includes an additional channel in Bray Bridge running under Castle Street with a channel returning to the main river downstream of the bridge.
2.3 The total land acquisition totals 19.2 hectares which includes considerable areas of land including open space acquired from Bray Town Council and Wicklow County Council. Excluding land in the ownership of the Local Authorities and the Department of Transport and the Marine and portions of the existing river, the CPO covers approximately 3.8 hectares of land involving over 20 landowners, both individuals and companies.
2.4 The study area was divided into 5 areas: Area 1 Harbour Bridge to Bray Bridge Area 2 Bray Bridge Area 3 Bray Bridge to Western end of People’s Park Area 4 People’s Park through Slang to La Valée Area 5 La Valée to N11 Bridge
2.5 The proposed works are listed by area in the EIS.
2.6 Examination of Alternatives forms a significant chapter in the EIS, together with details of the public consultation carried out and the emergence of the chosen scheme and scheme philosophy.
2.7 The flooding history of Bray is chronicled in the EIS and was referred to in detail at the oral Hearing.
2.8 The Scheme is proposed by bray Town Council as a stand-alone scheme, not dependant on any other development proposals. Reference was made at the oral Hearing to the make–up of the EIS team and many of the submissions made referred to the implications arising from the possible future development of the Golf Club Lands.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The proposed development is set out in Chapter 2 of the EIS and was outlined in detail at the Oral Hearing (section 5.0 of this report)
3.2 Chapter 2 of the EIS describes the character of the 5 areas along the river where works are proposed and also describes the works. (see also in particular Mr Healy’s evidence at the Hearing section 5.3.3 of this report) Specific areas are numbered from the sea upstream and a summary of main works is set out in the following paragraphs.
3.3 Area 1. Harbour Bridge to Bray Bridge :- Deepening and widening of river with defences being constructed – Golf club lands / Ravenswell Road on left bank, Abbatoir (disused) Seapoint Court on right bank.
3.4 Area 2. Bray Bridge :- Underpinning of bridge, deepening of river bed locally and construction of additional culvert in left bank of cross section 7.4 x 4.0 metres across Castle Street with a total length of 80 metres.
3.5 Area 3. Bray Bridge to western end of People’s Park:- Secant pile wall on left bank adjacent to Park increased by 0.5 m from existing with a boardwalk towards Bray Bridge, regarding of riverbed, new wall on right bank at the Maltings. Also widening of the river channel at Glenwood by 20 metres.
3.6 Area 4. Western End of People’s Park through the Slang / Rehills Land to La Valee.:- Extensive river regarding and excavation with enhancement and addition to defences. New sheetpile wall at Coburg on left bank, 1200mm pipe through embankment to take County brook in same area on same side of river. New sheetpile on right bank at Killarney Glen and widening of channel at Rehills Land to provide tiered profile for flood flows with construction of debris trap.
3.7 Area 5. La Valee to N11 Bridge :- Deepening and widening channel to increase flow capacity. On right bank, trees to be removed which pose a risk. Combination of works on both banks is described as re-profiling. .
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
4.0 EIS AND IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS
4.1 The Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by for Bray Town Council and is dated July 2007. A summary is included in this section and is elaborated on in the next section (5.0), which covers the Oral Hearing.
The EIS is in a single volume and includes :-
Non-technical summary
Main Text of EIS – in 6 main chapters
1. Introduction – need for EIS, Nature of Scheme
(pages1-16)
2. Description of proposed Scheme (pages 17-40)
3. Alternatives Considered (pages 41-109)
4. Planning & Development Context (p 110-117)
5. Aspects of the Environment Considered (pages
118 – 287 plus plates) – 9 sub-sections
6. Interactions. Followed by appendices
4.2 In relation to the consideration of alternatives which is set out in chapter 3 of the EIS, the report on the oral Hearing covering the direct evidence of Mr Paul Healy and Dr John O’Sullivan is considered to cover the main issues relating to the evaluation of alternatives. In the EIS, drawings indicating the layout and location of the possible upstream storage options are included and additional detail is given in relation to impacts on the Golf Club Lands arising from the need to gain hydraulic capacity increase in the river channel approaching Bray Harbour. Similarly impacts on People’s Park arising from channel widening are illustrated in the EIS.
4.3 Chapter 4 of the EIS deals with the Planning and Development Context. It notes that the Scheme area lies within the urban area of Bray and that the north bank of the river at the N11 is in the Wicklow County Council Administrative area.
The Planning context is set out in relation to National, Regional, County and down to Local Area plans. The following documents are referred to in the EIS:-
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
1. Making Ireland’s Development Sustainable 2002.
2. National Spatial Strategy 2002
3. National Development Plan 2007 – 2014. Reference is also made to the Government’s National Biodiversity Plan. There is reference in the NDP to Flood risk assessment and management studies and other flood related studies.
4. Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004 – 2016. there is a comment that the indicative population range for a town like Bray cannot be achieved due to risk of flooding.
5. Wicklow County Council Development Plan. In addition to overall development issues, Policy W7 in Chapter 9 is referred to which deals with minimisation of flood risks generally.
6. Bray Development Plan 2005-2011. This plan is referred to in overall terms in relation to population growth, housing and economic development. In relation to Recreation and Open Space, it quotes section 9.4.1 (which was referred to extensively at the Oral Hearing) in relation to the promotion of the Dargle from La Valee to the Harbour as a leisure and amenity area. The EIS states that the proposed Flood Defence Scheme includes the provision of walkways along the river Dargle, in accordance with Development Plan Policy. Chapter 10 of the Development Plan is referred to which covers the issue of flooding and Section 10.4.5 is specifically mentioned in relation to the involvement of OPW in respect of proposed developments in proximity to watercourses and also the need to comply with the requirements set out in publications of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS 2005)
7. Bray Golf Club Action Area Plan . This sets specific requirements in relation to development which must be met before development is permitted and specifically refers to OPW approval.
8. Bray Harbour and North Beach Area Action Plan. This refers to mixed use development and linkages to bray Golf Club lands.
9. Rehills Land Area Action Plan. This plan states that all development proposals must include measures for protection of the riverbank and also a flood impact assessment.
4.4 Aspects of the Environment considered and Main Impacts identified.
The largest chapter of the EIS is divided into 9 separate topics as follows:
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Human Beings Terrestrial Ecology Aquatic Ecology Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Water Air and Noise Landscape and Visual Material Assets Cultural Heritage incorporating Archaeology, Architectural Heritage and Local History The impacts identified in the EIS are described in the following sections:-
4.4.1 The impacts on human beings relate to amenities, land-use intensification, and access or use of properties. The EIS lists the engineering measures in each of the 5 sectors of the river identified and gives a summary of the construction and operational phase impacts both positive and negative, without identifying individual properties. It is noted that the promotion of the use of the riverbank and the provision of a Dargle River Walk is referred to in respect of a number of the sections.
The Scheme is described as a mitigation measure and estimates of likely damage arising from a 1:100 year flood or 1:200 year tide in a do-nothing scenario are given.
4.4.2 Section 5.2 of the EIS is concerned with terrestrial ecology. This section of the EIS was the responsibility of BES and Dr Brian Madden of BES gave direct evidence on this chapter at the Hearing. (see 5.3.9 of this report). The EIS notes that all the habitats in the study area are highly modified and disturbance has advanced the spread of alien species and the habitats are stated to have low to moderate local value. Specific mention is made of the Greater Yellow Cress which is to be transplanted.
Faunal species include many common species and otters and bats were found to be present while badgers are believed to be present on the south bank of the river. Kingfisher was noted also and the mitigation measures listed include an alternative nesting site.
The residual impacts are predicted to be minor negative and probably neutral in the long term.
4.4.3 Aquatic ecology is dealt with in Section 5.3 of the EIS. At the Hearing Dr O’Grady of the Central Fisheries Board read the brief of evidence of Dr John Brophy into the record. The EIS chapter gives additional detail on methodology used in relation to the assessments carried out in respect of macro-invertebrates, salmonids and water quality sampling . The EIS gives additional details of the kick samples referenced as follows:
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Site DS 1- Upstream of Swan Stream confluence. Rated Q3, moderately polluted, class C water. A nursery area for trout
Site DS 2- Between Coburg and Killarney Glen, Q3, moderately Polluted, juvenile trout seen between DS1 and DS2
Site DS 3 - Upstream of the Slang, Q3, moderately polluted, left bank open and less suitable for trout
Site DS 4 - Adjacent to western end of La Valée, Q3, described as fast flowing and not suitable for spawning.
The EIS notes the presence of otter in the upstream end of the study area. Potential impacts identified arise from erosion, loss of riparian habitat and in-stream habitat. Mitigation measures are included which were also referred to at the Hearing.
Monitoring of macro-invertebrates, otter and salmonids is recommended and a programme of monitoring is outlined in table 5.3.1.
4.4.4 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology were assessed by O’Connor Sutton Cronin Consulting Engineers. The EIS sets out the methodology used and refers to the receiving environment taken in the 5 areas identified along the Scheme length.
Table 5.4.1 gives a review of the OS maps from 1833 to 1909. Table 5.4.2 gives analytical results for soil samples from Bray Bridge, Peoples Park and the Slang area. The EIS states that the soil samples analysed could generally be described as inert.
The EIS describes the bedrock geology and refers to 2 types of bedrock namely Maulin formation (slates) and Bray Head Formation (greywacke sandstones interbedded with massive quartzites).
In relation to hydrogeology the area north of the Dargle is described as a locally important aquifer and south of the river as a poor aquifer.
Section 5.4.4.1 describes impacts of the construction phase and lists the impact of soil and riverbed sediment removal. It states in relation to hydrogeology that the installation (p178 EIS) of sheet pile walls along 35% of the river bank may adversely affect local groundwater flow by acting like an underground dam .
Most of the mitigation measures relate to site management during construction and reference is made to CIRIA publication “Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites”
Monitoring requirements include sampling and chemical analysis of soil /
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
subsoil and groundwater level monitoring in the vicinity of sheetpile walls is also proposed.
4.4.5 Water is dealt with in section 5.5 of the EIS and Dr O’Sullivan’s brief of Evidence at the Hearing covers much of the material in the EIS. The section commences with a description of the history of flooding in Bray and has particular reference to Hurricane Charlie in 1986. Figure 5.5.3 shows the river and its main tributaries. In particular it indicates the location of the Paddock Pond which was discussed at the Hearing in relation to Hurricane Charlie.
Details of chemical and biological water quality are given in two tables and there is a description of the Stormwater Drainage Network. The EIS states that future development in Bray would use infiltration and storage techniques as part of the stormwater drainage system.
The EIS describes the HEC-RAS modelling carried out and indicates the locations of the flow monitoring instruments in Figure 5.5.5. The profile as calibrated for the high flow condition of 29th October 2004 is illustrated in Figure 5.5.6 (for low tide)with the levels shown as approximately 11.5 m OD at the N11 dropping to approximately 1.75m OD at Bray Harbour Bridge.
The requirements of the GDSDS are referred to and the estimation of the relevant design river flows and tide levels is explained. The basis for calculation of variation of tide levels with time is set out as is the approach to climate change and the choice of freeboard allowance. The freeboard allowance is stated to be 0.5 metres where river flows are predominant and 0.76 metres where tidal influences are likely to prevail.
The EIS shows a potential flood map of Bray (Figure 5.5.9) which was extensively referred to at the Hearing and a level of ambiguity or lack of clarity was conceded by the Local Authority. From a fisheries perspective, the low flow depths are important and this is set out for flow ranges of 50 m3/sec down to 2 m3/sec. It notes the incorporation of a low-flow fish channel under the advice of the central and Eastern Regional Fisheries Boards.
Mitigation measures for the construction phase are detailed and emphasise good management practices to avoid pollution.
The ‘do-nothing’ scenario is examined against a n estimated 200 m3/sec channel capacity and it is estimated that 646 residential and 9 commercial properties would flood in a 1 in 100 year fluvial flood.
Monitoring is linked with the tendency for the influence of riparian forestry on slope stability and the need for regular watercourse maintenance is stressed. OPW guidelines of 1.5% of total scheme cost for maintenance is noted and the EIS recommends an integrated catchment management strategy to give long term compliance with the EU Water Framework Directive.
4.4.6 Air and Noise impacts were examined by ANV consultants and Mr Kieran Corcoran gave direct evidence at the Hearing on both issues. A dust
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
minimisation plan is identified as being necessary in relation to the construction phase but the EIS estimates dust generation as being below guideline limits.
In relation to noise, it is estimated that piling noise would cause the 70 dBA limit to be exceeded. Apart from screening of equipment the EIS recommends that residents of nearest sensitive locations be informed in advance of high noise generating works. Similarly vibration monitoring at sensitive locations is also recommended. In the case of vibrations it is stated that ground vibration could be maintained below the 2.5 mm / sec criterion.
4.4.7 Landscape and Visual impacts are described in section 5.7 of the EIS and give additional detail over the evidence given by Mr Gerry Mitchell at the Hearing. On page 240 of the EIS the potential for both negative and positive effects are noted. The positive effects could arise particularly in areas that are at present visually degraded and unmanaged. It notes the positive impact of planting around areas of proposed walls and of proper maintenance of areas accessible to the public. The EIS lists views arising from the various engineering measures and Appendix H contains photomontages of the before and after situation at 8 locations along the scheme. Appendix G contains a tree survey.
4.4.8 The Material Assets chapter in the EIS deals with traffic issues during construction and the impacts of the various measures on properties. A series of tables describes the measures and the mitigation proposed. It also deals with access and rights-of-way which were dealt with at the Hearing.
4.4.9 Cultural Heritage was dealt with by Mr Martin Byrne at the Hearing and is described in more detail in section 5.9 of the EIS. It sets out the history of the town from the 2nd century AD, with reference to the Anglo-Norman period and 14th century battles associated with the Dargle river. Considerable detail is given in relation to 17th to 19th century development around the river. Sites and zones of Archaeological potential are described and these were referred to at the Hearing. Mitigation measures (p284,EIS) are listed which were also set out at the Hearing. The section includes 4 plates concentrated on Bray Bridge, a number of old maps and an aerial photograph with the archaeological interest sites indicated. (CH 2 – 12)
4.4.10 Interactions are dealt with in section 6.0 of the EIS and lists 45 potential interaction impacts, many of which are considered not to be likely to occur.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
4.4.11 Appendices in the EIS include: Appendix A Public consultation Appendix B Terrestrial Ecology Appendix C Aquatic Ecology Appendix D Fisheries Impact Assessment, including extracts from Dr O’Grady’s book “Channels and Challenges , the Enhancement of Salmonid Rivers” Appendix E Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Appendix F Noise and Vibration Appendix G Tree Survey Appendix H Photomontages
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.0 ORAL HEARING
5.1 Introduction
The hearing opened at 11am on Tuesday 11th December 2007, in the Ramada Hotel, Southern Cross Road, Bray, County Wicklow. The hearing concluded on Thursday 13th December 2007.
The Inspector explained that the oral hearing was in respect of objections received against the application of Bray Town Council to An Bord Pleanála for approval of the proposed River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme and involved two separate proposals, one being the scheme itself for which an EIS had been submitted and the second for confirmation of a compulsory purchase order in respect of the proposed development. The Flood Defence Scheme covers a length of approximately 3.5 kilometres from the N11 Bridge to the harbour.
The Inspector stated that Dr. Michael Bruen, Consultant Hydrologist was retained by the Board for expert input into the assessment of the scheme in relation hydrological aspects.
5.2 Appearances
5.2.1 On behalf of Bray Town Council (LCC): -
Mr Esmonde Keane Senior Counsel, representing Bray Town Council.
Mr. Paul Healy Project Manager, O’Connor Sutton Cronin Consulting Engineers
Dr. John O’Sullivan UCD, consultant on Hydrology.
Mr Stephen Fox Bray Town Council –Planning
Mr Tim Joyce OPW
Mr Kieran Corcoran AWN Consulting – noise aspects
Mr Colin Mc Gill Mc Gill Consulting – Planning impacts
Dr Martin O’Grady Central Fisheries Board
Dr Brian Madden Terrestrial Ecology
Mr Martin Byrne Archaeological Impacts
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr Gerry Mitchell Landscape and Visual Impacts
Mr Des O’Brien Wicklow County Council Planning evidence.
.
5.2.2 Persons or organisations which had made submissions in relation to the Flood Defence Scheme and who were present / represented at the start of the Hearing
SWAP Mr.Adrian Mc Kenna and Ms Noeleen Mc Manus Ms Ailbhe de Buitléir represented by Mr John O’Sullivan Bray and District Chamber of Commerce Green Party – represented by Cllr O Brien Seapoint Court Residents Association—represented by Ms Emer Woodfull Ms Polly Power Pizarro Developments Cosgrave Developments Thomas and Val Mc Mullen Hugh and Anna Carney represented by Kieran O’Malley &Co.Ltd.
5.2.3 Persons who had objected to the CPO not listed under 5.2.2 above.
Richard Barrett James and Briget O’Leary Ruairí de Buitléir, represented by Ms. Carey Ms. Marion Gaule, represented by Mr.Brian Foley instructed by Hanahoe solicitors Paul and Edel Flynn Alan and Nicola Ralph, represented by Kieran O’Malley John Kelly Fank O’Hare Ms. Audrey Collins on behalf of Bernard and Elizabeth Collins. The inspector explained that persons not present would be heard and that the list of appearances taken did not preclude an objector from speaking during the Hearing.
Experts to be called by objectors: -
Mr. Kenneth Barr Civil Engineer with speciality in hydrology.
The Inspector outlined the proposed conduct of the hearing, which was to hear the complete case of Bray Town Council in the first instance, then take
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
questions and complete with submissions by objectors and then a closing submission by the proposers, Bray Town Council.
5.3 Local Authority Case
Mr. Keane stated that he appeared with Mr. David Sweetman, Solicitor for Bray Town Council who are the promoters of the scheme pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wicklow County Council and Bray Town Council. He said Bray Town Council and Wicklow County Council are the Sanitary Authorities for the areas in question and that a small section of the scheme falls within the functional area of Wicklow County Council. He said the scheme was being proposed by Bray Town Council pursuant to an agreement entered into between the respective local authorities pursuant to the provisions of Section 85 of the Local Government Act of 2001. He said the acquisition of the land was proposed to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act 1966 as amended by the Local Government Act 1960 and as amended in turn by the Planning and Development Acts of 2002 – 2006.
5.3.3 Mr. Paul Healy gave direct evidence to the hearing as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 10 – 49)
Mr. Healy stated that he would read his brief of evidence, but would augment the presentation with some slides. A copy of the slides were submitted and these are tabbed LA01.
Mr. Healy said he was Director with O’Connor, Sutton, Cronin, Consulting Engineers who were appointed by Bray Town Council in late 2005 to design a flood defence scheme for River Dargle extending from the harbour bridge to the N11 Bridge. He noted the steering committee consisted of the Town Council, the Consultants, Dr. John O’Sullivan, Consultant Hydrologist and the Office of Public Works. He said the design team consisted of O’Connor, Sutton, Cronin, and Dr. John O’Sullivan, Mitchell and Associates, Landscape Architects, Magill Planning Consultants, the Central Fisheries Board and Mulcahy- McDonagh, Quantity Surveyors. He said that on the advice of the OPW, Royal Haskoning were appointed to review the EIS process and BCM Hanby Wallace Solicitors were appointed to carry out a legal search and title to adjoining lands.
Dealing with the need for the scheme, Mr. Healy noted that the catchment, including its tributary catchments were located in Hydrometric Area No. 10 of the Irish River Network System and totalled approximately 133 square kilometres. He described the gradient as steep with falls from an elevation of 530 metres over a length of approximately 20 kilometres. He said this represented an average gradient of approximately 2.7%. He said the lower portion of the catchment included the area known as the Slang, Bray Commons and Little Bray. The GSI indicated that the catchment is
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
surrounded by granite mountains to the south and west, interspersed without crops of sandstone and slate.
In describing the River Dargle Network, the major tributaries are noted as the Glencree and Glencullen Rivers and the minor tributaries are the Kilmacanogue, Swan Stream and the County Brook which entered the Dargle in the flatter lower-lying catchment closer to Bray. Mr. Healy described the catchment of the Glencree River and notes that after the confluence of the Glencree and the Dargle that the river flows for approximately 6 kilometres to Kilcroney where it is joined by the Glencullen River. He noted that from Kilcroney to the sea, the Dargle drains to catchment of what becomes progressively narrower and flatter towards the east and includes the Kilmacanogue and Swan Streams to the south and the County Brook to the north. He said with the exception of development in and around Bray Town, the land is primarily agricultural.
He said the Swan River has its primary source in a pond on the grounds of the Kilruddery Estate and takes run-off from the Little Sugarloaf, but also takes run-off from residential developments in the vicinity of the Boghall Road and further into Bray.
Mr. Healy said the profile of the River Dargle through the upland areas is characterised by a narrow channel with considerable degrees of meandering. In the latter reaches towards Bray he said the Dargle becomes increasingly canalised. Downstream of Bray Bridge he said what was once a braided channel in an inter-tidal zone and extended into the Bray Golf Club has been replaced by a canalised river contained between the walls along Ravenswell Road and the higher grounds on the south bank of the river. He said canalisation of this type is characteristic of many rivers through towns and cities where urbanised areas almost extend to the riverbanks.
Mr. Healy said natural rivers can typically cater for low to moderate flows and he noted the major flood events in Bray in 1905, 1931, 1965 and 1986. He also noted two less significant floods in 1947 and 1958. Based on the events, he said flooding occurs at an approximate frequency of once in every 25-30 years. Mr. Healy said the 1986 flood resulted from the storm known as Hurricane Charlie and flooding from that event had occurred from upstream of the area in Bray Commons known as the Slang or Rehills land to its outfall at Bray harbour. He said the main channel discharge capacity in the lower reach of the Dargle is lower than it is further upstream. The area most affected by floods is the area known as Little Bray located on the north bank of the river and west of Bray Bridge. He said during the storm of 1986, the lower tier of the golf club lands and Ravenswell Road adjacent to the north bank of the river along with Dwyer Park and Seapoint Housing Estate on the south bank were flooded.
Mr. Healy said while information on the earlier floods was scarce, the flood discharge from Hurricane Charlie in 1986 had an estimated peak of 285 cubic metres per second, while the flood peak in the 1965 flood was estimated to be approximately 200 cubic metres per second. Mr. Healy noted that two
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
contracts were to be undertaken post 1986, the first one to reinstate the channel to the condition existing prior to 1986 which was carried out and the second contract which was to increase the channel capacity to accommodate flood flow generated by Hurricane Charlie was not undertaken.
Mr. Healy referred to defence scheme standards and referred to the Greater Dublin Strategic Study, otherwise known as the GDSDS 2005. He noted the background and design flow requirements would be dealt with by Dr. John O’Sullivan, Consultant Hydrologist.
In relation to defence scheme implementation, Mr. Healy said the OPW suggested three approaches namely: -
Sensitivity guided design – defence schemes are designed to historic data, but no allowance is made for climate change.
Design for enhancement – design is for predicted climate change, but on the basis that levels of defences can be raised at a future date if predicted climate change scenarios materialise.
Design for climate change – an approach where containing levels of defence at the time of construction are sufficiently high to accommodate future climate change predictions.
Mr. Healy said the flood defences where the design tide levels in Bray Harbour generate the dominant defence levels are in line with a climate change approach. He said where the fluvial flows are dominant the proposed approach to implementing the Bray Flood Defence Scheme is for design for enhancement. He said that was totally in line with the OPW policy.
Mr. Healy described the design process and referred to the production of a Constraints Report. He said this report identified the environmental issues associated with the flood defence scheme covering issues including flora and fauna, habitats, fisheries, angling, tourism, water quality, archaeology, architectural and cultural heritage, landscape and visual amenity and socio economic issues. He noted that the report included input from specialist sub- consultants and information obtained from the public at a public consultation day on the 10th April 2006 in Bray Town Hall.
Mr. Healy said the second stage of the process was to carry out a full topographical survey and to generate a computer model using HECRAS which would be referred to by Dr. John O’Sullivan in his brief of evidence. Mr. Healy said the iterative process involved in the modelling produced six combinations of engineering measures or options and he would describe those as follows: -
(1) Option 1 – do nothing – evaluated the impact of a one in one-hundred year river flow combined with a two-hundred year tide and this indicated that the flow generated would exceed the capacity of the channel cross- section in a number of locations and flooding would be predicted at the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Maltings, Seapoint Estate, Coburg, Dwyer Park, La Vallee, Upper Dargle Road, Killarney Glen and Little Bray. He said the recreational areas of People’s Park and the Bray Golf Club would also be predicted to flood.
(2) Option 2 – containment only – this option would require the raising of existing river walls and embankments and would include: -
Vertical defences at La Vallee.
Build-up of existing masonry wall at the Slang on the north bank.
Replace railings at the rear of River Vale apartments with reinforced concrete wall.
New embankment to the rear of residences on Lower Dargle Road.
New sheet pile wall to the rear of residences at Killarney Glen.
New sheet pile wall at the rear of the Coburg Estate.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at People’s Park.
Existing gabion limestone wall at the Maltings, to be rebuilt and raised.
New embankment on the southern back at the Glenwood.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at Ravenswell Road.
New reinforced earth embankment to Seapoint Court.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at the rear of the former abattoir site.
Mr. Healy said that option required the construction of many walls and embankments which may create an unwanted barrier between the residents of Bray and the River Dargle.
(3) Option 3 – containment and river works – involves widening and deepening of the river channel and the construction of walls and embankments which would be considerably lower than for Option 2. Work involved in the option would include: -
Regrading of the riverbank upstream of La Vallee.
Excavation of the north bank at La Vallee.
Regrading of the riverbed at the Slang.
Excavation of the south bank at the Slang.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Regrading of the riverbed from the Slang through People’s Park.
New embankment to the rear of the most eastern residences along Lower Dargle Road.
New sheet pile wall at the rear of residences at Killarney Glen.
New sheet pile wall for the western half of People’s Park and ground to be regraded on the south-facing bank.
Excavation of the riverbank and construction of new embankment at Glenwood.
Rebuilding existing gabion lined wall at the Maltings.
Regrading of riverbed from midway through People’s Park to downstream of Bray Bridge.
Bypass culvert to be constructed under the road on the northern side of Bray Bridge – this to include the excavation of the southern bank immediately downstream of Bray Bridge.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall along Ravenswell Road.
New embankment with sheet piling along Seapoint Estate.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall up to the rear of the former abattoir site.
Regrading upstream of the railway bridge.
Mr. Healy said the containment and river works option requires a relatively large amount of work to be undertaken in the riverbed. He said the works were unavoidable if the height of the river walls and embankments are to be maintained at acceptable levels.
(4) Option 4 – upstream storage – suitable locations for storage was identified after a feasibility study in the area of Charleville Demesne, Newtown and Tinnehinch Townlands approximately 4 kilometres to the south-west of Bray. The option involves the construction of a dam across the river valley with periodic flooding of the area upstream. Mr. Healy said that during times of normal flow the dam would ineffective and the flow would be permitted to pass downstream unhindered. The dam would be 17 metres high and would be gently sloped back to existing ground level so the dam could be used as an amenity during low flow times. In an extreme storm event up to 2 million cubic metres of water would be stored covering a plan area of approximately 74 hectares over a length of 2.75
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
kilometres. This option will still require the following works to be undertaken, including: -
Sheet piling for the wall at Coburg.
Rebuilding of the wall along the Maltings.
Reinforced concrete retaining wall along the golf club lands.
Reinforced concrete retaining wall at the rear of the abattoir site.
Sheet piling and embankment along by Seapoint Estate.
(5) Option 5 – partial storage and containment – this option is based on a storage area of approximately 25 hectares over a length one kilometre capable of storing 500,000 m3 of water and would require the construction of a 9 metre high engineered dam, together with defence wall to a number of properties in the area. Mr. Healy said a number of measures would need to be undertaken along the river as follows: -
Building up the existing masonry wall along the Slang on the north bank.
Replacing railings at the rear of the Rivervale apartments with reinforced concrete wall.
New embankment to be constructed to the rear of residences on Lower Dargle Road.
New sheet pile wall at the rear of residences at Killarney Glen.
New sheet pile wall at the Coburg Estate.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at People’s Park.
New embankment on the southern bank at Glenwood.
Rebuild gabion lined stone wall at the Maltings.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at Ravenswell Road.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at the rear of the former abattoir site.
New reinforced embankment to Seapoint Estate.
Mr. Healy said the types of works were broadly as per Option 2, but would be constructed at a lower level of the flow towards the river would be reduced.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
(6) Option 6 – partial storage with containment and river works – a combination of Options 3 and 4. Involves widening and re-grading of channel coupled with storage area of the order of 25 hectares and a 9- metre dam. The works involved in addition to the dam are given: -
Re-grading of the riverbed upstream of La Vallee.
Excavation of the north bank at La Vallee.
Re-grading of the riverbed at the Slang.
Excavation of the south bank of the Slang.
Re-grading of the riverbed from the Slang through People’s Park.
New embankment of the rear of the most eastern residences along Lower Dargle Road.
New sheet pile wall at the rear of residences at Killarney Glen.
New sheet pile wall and embankment at the western half of People’s Park involving ground to be re-graded at the slope of 1 and 5 on the south-facing bank along the eastern half of People’s Park.
Excavation of the riverbank and construction of a new embankment at Glenwood.
Re-build existing gabion-lined wall at the Maltings.
Re-grading of riverbed from People’s Park to downstream of Bray Bridge.
Bypass culvert to be constructed under the road on the northern side of Bray Bridge.
Southern bank be excavated immediately downstream of Bray Bridge.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at Ravenswell Road.
New reinforced concrete retaining wall at the former abattoir site.
New embankment with sheet piling along the Seapoint Estate.
Re-grading upstream of the railway bridge.
Mr. Healy stated that six options were compared and contrasted and evaluated taking account of public opinion, environmental and visual impacts, health and safety issues, costs, socio-economic concerns and potential climate change
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
scenarios. He said a number of public consultations to took place and these consisted of three informal discussion sessions in October and November 2006 in Bray Town Hall. He said this was followed by a formal public consultation day held in the Royal Hotel, Bray on 6th November 2006. Mr. Healy said the informal discussion sessions were aimed at the riparian owners and stakeholders to the scheme who could be potentially most affected by the implementation of any flood defence option.
Mr. Healy noted that there were 23 responses from more than 100 questionnaires distributed at the public consultation day. He said the comments listed that provides a summary of the feedback from all respondents supporting and objecting the options. He said the majority of the 23 respondents expressed the preference for Option 3 or Option 6 with requirements for some variations. He said consequently Option 3 and 6 were re-examined with alterations: -
Omission of proposed re-grading of People’s Park.
Removal of river walk along south bank.
Examination of options into the excavation of the golf club lands immediately upstream of the railway bridge.
Mr. Healy said the revisions led to Variation E of both Option 3 and Option 6. He said public concerns about the potential for dam failure if upstream storage alone were contributing to the provision of one in one hundred year defence standard from a health and safety viewpoint were also highlighted. He said it was agreed that an approach of two phases would provide the optimum solution to protecting the low-lying areas of Bray while addressing the primary concerns of local residents. Phase 1 would involve the implementation of Option 3, Variation E to provide flood defences against the one in one hundred year flood event. Phase 2 would involve further study and implementation of upstream storage by the OPW to provide a higher level of defence which would provide approximately one in three hundred year defence level.
Mr. Healy gave a description of the proposed development. He said the five areas comprised: -
Area 1 from the Harbour Bridge to Bray Bridge.
Area 2 is the area around Bray Bridge.
Area 3 – Bray Bridge to the western end of People's Park.
Area 4 – western end of People's Park through the Slang / Rehills Land to La Vallee.
Area 5 - La Vallee to the N11 Bridge.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Healy described the works to be undertaken including the following: -
Area 1 - Harbour Bridge to Bray Bridge.
Measure A4 – Golf Club lands protected by a wall falling from 4.95 metres at Bray Bridge to 4.29 metres at the railway bridge. Retaining wall and embankment to cut into the golf club lands for 12 metres in width and 150 metres in length. Provision to be made for the protection of the golf club land by a flood escape route. The escape route to provide a connectivity between the area of Little Bray and the harbour by which flood waters overtopping the defence upstream of Bray Bridge could be safely conveyed back into the river downstream of the bridge.
Measure A5 Seapoint Estate defences – reinforced earthen embankment to a level of 5 metres that exceeds the minimum required defence level. The increased level to be provided is at the specific request of the residents of Seapoint Court. This measure includes widening of the river channel at the foot of the new embankment.
Measure A6 abattoir defences – reinforced concrete wall 110 metres long at 4.56 metres OD top level.
Measure R5 re-grading of the river at Seapoint Estate by an average of 0.35 metres over a length of approximately 80 metres upstream of the railway bridge.
Area 2 works at Bray Bridge to include: -
Measure B2 – deepening of riverbed at the bridge by up to 1 metre. Extensive underpinning required which will involve board mini pile walls.
Measure B3 – new culvert at Bray Bridge. 7.4 metres wide and 4 metres deep by approximately 80 metres long. This concrete culvert to be on the northern side of Bray Bridge and act as fourth arch for the bridge. Culvert to be formed by constructing a line of concrete secant piles on either side of the culvert.
Area 3 – Bray Bridge to the western end of People's Park.
Measure C1 – People's Park. Approximately 1,690 square metres area to be excavated and a pedestrian boardwalk provided at a high level. Existing stone/concrete wall on the boundary of the park to be replaced with a new sheet pile wall 1 metre above existing ground level.
Measure C4 – excavate bank at Maltings Housing Estate. Noted that the estate is relatively low-lying and the existing strip of land is 5 metres to 15 metres wide between the main river channel and the existing wall.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Measure C5 – upstream of Maltings – excavation of the bank for 80 metres up to the Swan stream involving widening by 20 metres.
Measure C7 – Glenwood – excavation and widening of channel by up to 20 metres for a distance of approximately 250 metres just upstream of the swan.
Measure R4 – river re-grading from upstream of Bray Bridge to Seapoint Estate. This requires lowering the existing bed level by an average of 0.6 metres over a length of 850 metres starting 380 metres upstream of Bray Bridge. Also involved removal of the existing weir approximately 170 metres downstream of Bray Bridge. Noted that consultation with the Central and Eastern Regional Fisheries Board and local interested parties, the fisheries measures proposed upstream of Bray Bridge provide the required conditions for fish passage in low flow.
Area 4 – western end of People's Park to La Vallee.
Measure D1 – Coburg Estate wall – new sheet pile wall on the riverside of the existing wall with increased height to 6.5/6.9 metres OD and to be timber clad above ground level. Also includes widening of the river channel to the line of the sheet pile wall.
Measure D2 – County Brook – involves a new length of approximately 10 metres of 1,200-millimetre diameter pipe. – This stream discharges into a holding tank before discharging to the River Dargle at the Slang. A combination of pipes and overflow is involved in this arrangement and it is noted that in a high flood event, a hydraulic head is present at the holding tank to drive the discharge water into the main channel.
Measure D3 – Upper Dargle Road residents’ embankment – the most eastern residences upstream of Coburg would require an engineered embankment to a level of 6.95/7.0 metres OD and would be landscaped sympathetically to details with the residents.
Measure R3 – river re-grading 3 – section at the Slang/Killarney Glen/People's Park – river re-grading involving lowering the bed level by an average of 0.6 metres and up to 1.5 metres at the Coburg Estate over a length of approximately 1,000 metres.
Measure D5 – Slang northern bank – retention of existing gabion baskets with damage to be repaired and would involve local underpinning.
Measure D7 – Killarney Glen – new sheet pile wall for a length of approximately 160 metres to a height of 7 metres OD averaging approximately 0.5 metres above existing ground level. New sheet pile
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
wall to tie in with existing wall constructed post Hurricane Charlie at the west end of the Glenwood excavation.
Measure D8 – Rehills land – south bank excavation. Widening of the southern bank over its entire length is proposed. This would create a tiered profile consisting of a low flow fisheries channel and channels for regular river flow and for flood flows.
Measure D9 – debris trap – the purpose of the trap is stated to be to stop large trees from travelling downstream to Bray Bridge and this trap would consist of a number of concrete piers placed 4.5 metres apart extending above the flood water level. It notes that a second channel would be provided at the debris trap to accommodate the flood flow in the eventuality of the debris trap becoming partially blocked.
Measure R2 – river re-grading – the Slang – this re-grading would involve lowering the bed level by an average of 0.6 metres over a length of approximately 100 metres upstream end of the Slang. It notes that local underpinning would be required to the existing low- level wall along Upper Dargle Road and to the gabion baskets.
Area 5 – La Vallee to N11 Bridge
Mr. Healy listed the following measures in this area: -
Measure E2 – excavation of south bank – involves 15 metres width over a length of approximately 200 metres to tie in with the excavation at Rehills land. Trees identified as posing a risk to eroding ground would be felled. Engineering works to be undertaken upstream of the excavations to improve stability of the southern embankment which would involve localised re-profiling of sections of the southern embankment. Re-profiling would involve excavations over approximately 120 metres tapering from a maximum width of 3 metres to zero.
Measure R1 – river re-grading – upstream of La Vallee – involves lowering the bed level by an average of 0.5 metres over a length of 450 metres. It notes a portion of this re-grading would require the excavation of local outcrops of bedrock within the river channel.
Mr. Healy made reference to fisheries measures on which Dr. Martin O’Grady of the Central Fisheries Board would further elaborate and these were noted as being: -
Maintenance of low flow channel at all times during the works.
The provision of secondary channel in areas of river widening.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Removal and temporary storage of the top 300 millimetres of riverbed sand and gravel during excavations to be replaced upon completion of the works.
In relation to traffic and construction, Mr. Healy gave details of the location of the main compounds which would be at the Slang/Rehills land, two compounds at People's Park and one at the golf club lands. He noted the access to the compounds at the Slang being off the N11 at the Fassaroe Interchange, while the Upper Dargle Road and the access to the compounds at People's Park would be similarly off the N11/M11 along the Upper Dargle Road and down River Lane or Lower Dargle Road. He noted that the access to the golf club lands would be gained by vehicles travelling along Castle Street and onto Ravenswell Road. Mr. Healy said an access point in the river would be formed from each compound and temporary tracks will be provided along the river to allow vehicles to travel to areas where works are required. He said the key feature of the proposed works is the re-grading and widening of the existing channel with the consequent removal of riverbed material.
He said approximately 160,000 m3 of soil and riverbed sediment would be removed from the river. He said the material excavated from the Slang/Rehills land, Killarney Glen and La Vallee would be re-used to raise the ground profile of the lands at the Slang. He said the remainder of the material would be removed off-site to suitably licensed disposal facility. He said it was also envisaged that approximately 40,000 m3 of materials would be removed through the golf club lands with 40,000m3 being removed through People's Park over a six-month period. He said this would result on average 64 truck movements or 32 truckloads per day on Castle Street. He said the majority of movements would originate from the western compound in People's Park and would minimise the impact along the area fronting People's Park.
Mr. Healy referred to the CPO and said that the current ownership is complex for areas of the river with ownership shared amongst many riparian owners. He said as part of the defence proposals, both in-stream and out of bank engineering measures are necessary to provide for the increased capacity of the channel. He referred to the legislative provisions which had also been referred to by Mr. Keane.
In conclusion, Mr. Healy drew attention to the review by Royal Haskoning that stated that technically the document was sufficient and its presentation was appropriate in providing sufficient and clear information for the determination of a supporting application. It also stated there are not significant omissions within the EIS. Mr. Healy said he was satisfied that the defence levels and the type of defences incorporated are appropriate for the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme and that the engineering measures are appropriate for the required design standard. He said he confirmed that the extent of the lands contained in the CPO are necessary for the full implementation of the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme and to provide certainty to access for future management and maintenance of the scheme.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.3.2 Dr. John O’Sullivan gave direct evidence to the Hearing as follows: - (Transcript Day 1, Pages 49 – 71)
Dr. O'Sullivan said he was lecturer of hydraulics in the School of Architecture, Landscape and Civil Engineering at UCD and his phd research focused on conveyance estimation in river channels with flood plains. He said over the last six years he had worked with a number of engineering consultants that were involved in the design, development and implementation over river works that mitigated against the occurrence of flooding.
Dr. O'Sullivan described the behaviour of natural rivers and referred to the four major floods that occurred in Bray in 1905, 1931, 1965 and 1986. The said the flood risk in Bray is exacerbated by the characteristics of the Dargle catchment. He said the lack of vegetation in the upper catchment combined with the steep gradient and the lower retentive capacity of the glacial drift and underlying bedrock results in a catchment that responds rapidly through rainfall. He said in the 1986 flood, over 350 residential and commercial properties in the Coburg, Little Bray, Dwyer Park and Seapoint areas of Bray were inundated. He referred to a slide being shown at that particular point (slides are tabbed LA02).
Dr. O'Sullivan said that the steel bridge at Lithographic Universal Limited to the south bank of the Dargle was demolished during the storm and he noted that a large number of bridges had been demolished by that particular flood in various locations, both on the River Dargle (Valcusa and Ballinagee Bridges) and throughout County Wicklow. He noted damage at Annamoe Bridge, Avoca Bridge and also the destruction of the Lion’s Arch Bridge at Castlehoward and the Sallygap Bridge. He said elsewhere, there were over 50 houses flooded from Milltown to Ballsbridge on the River Dodder and Ballyward Bridge upstream of the Blessington Lakes collapsed in early September 1986 as a consequence of damage sustained during the storm.
Dr. O'Sullivan described the rainfall patterns during the storm and noted that Met Eireann described Hurricane Charlie rainfall as remarkable. He noted that recorded rainfall in the Dargle catchment in 24 hours range from in excess of 80 millimetres to at least 250 millimetres in the highest areas. He gave details of recording stations in the general vicinity and noted that there was an estimated return period of between 50 and 100 years and that at Glenasmole, rainfall had an estimated return period in excess of 100 years. He said that given the annual rainfall amounts for the lower and upper Dargle catchments of 1,000 and 2,000 millimetres, the rainfall from 09:00 a.m. on the 25th August to 09:00 a.m. 26th August 1986 was approximately 10% of the annual total. He said that based on the data, an average intensity of 14.3 millimetre per hour was determined in the J. B. Barry River Dargle Flood Study.
Dr. O'Sullivan referred to High Court Proceedings taken following the storm where expert evidence was given and one estimation by Professor Conleth Cunnane was to the average percentage run-off would have been at least 70% and a value of 80% would not be ruled out.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Dr. O'Sullivan gave some comparison with the 1965 and 1905 floods and noted that the 1905 flood also occurred on August 25th.
Dr. O'Sullivan referred to future climate change and said that flood defences would likely become more urgent, as increase in winter rainfall and decreases in summer rainfall are predicted. He said the GDSDS suggested for the year 2100, winter rainfall depths would have increased by 20% with corresponding decreases in summer rainfall depths of between 35 – 45%.
He said in December 2005, he had been appointed by Bray Town Council to a technical steering group to investigate flood defence options for Bray. He said the Town Council were represented by Mr. Des O’Brien, Mr. Sean O’Neill and Mr. Liam Burke and that Mr. Tim Joyce and Mr. Tom Sherlock represented the OPW, while Mr. Paul Healy and Mr. Ian Crehan from O’Connor, Sutton, Cronin were the lead consultants in the project. Dr. O'Sullivan said his main role was to undertake the hydraulic analysis of all flood defence options that were considered.
He said the major part of the hydraulic analysis in both constructing a robust computer assisted river model representing the furthest most downstream reach of the river which was approximately 3.9 kilometres from upstream of the Enniskerry Road Bridge to the river outfall in Bray Harbour. This stretch includes the Slang, Bray Commons, People's Park, golf club lands and the Seapoint Court Housing Estate.
Dr. O'Sullivan said the model was constructed using HECRAS River Modelling Software. He said HECRAS was an abbreviation for Hydraulic Engineering Centre River Analysis System and is a 1-dimensional link and node model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. He said the model is internationally accepted as the industry standard and is used extensively by the OPW and the UK Environment Agency. He said the river model is based on accurate representation of the main channel river geometry and the topography of the floodplains and surrounding lands. In excess of 150 measured cross-sections of the River Dargle and its tributary network were obtained as were details of all hydraulic structures in river reach under investigation. Dr. O’Sullivan said the model facilitated assessments and sensitivity analysis of any changes in the river flow and a composite hydraulic resistance profile in terms of Manning’s values was fitted to each of the cross- sections and was included in the model.
Dr. O’Sullivan said as part of the assessment six continuously recording stations were established for water levelling monitoring in the region under investigation and one single station was established for recording flow discharge. The stations were located as follows:-
Station 1 at Bray Harbour Bridge.
Station 2 upstream of the angled weir at the entrance to the Old Bray Golf Club.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Station 3 on the south bank of the river at the downstream end of Peoples Park (station access from the Maltings residential development).
Station 4 located at the upstream end of Peoples Park.
Station 5 located mid-way between the Slang and Peoples Park and this station also contains a Doppler flow discharge recorder.
Station 6 located downstream of La Valllee Development.
Dr. O’Sullivan said that the highest peak flow recorded since monitoring has been ongoing was on 29th October 2004 and this gave a figure of 67 cubic metres per second. He said the tide level in Bray Harbour at the time was (minus) –0.81 metres OD and the event was used for a high flow and low tide model calibration. He said on the 29th October the high tide occurred at 12 p.m. and was recorded 1.69 metres OD. The flow at that time had receded to 27m3/sec and that event was used for a medium flow / high tide model calibration.
Dr. O’Sullivan described the correlation of measured levels with the predicted levels and referred to the model assimilations carried out. He said that it was necessary to consider the possibilities of joint occurrence of critical tidal and river flooding events and noted that the GDSDS recommended designing for the most severe of three event combinations:-
100 year river flood with mean high water spring MHWS tide.
1 year river flood coinciding with five year tide.
5 year river flood coinciding with a 1 year tide.
He said the OPW recommended two further more stringent joint probability combinations and these were:-
50 year flood when it coincides with a five year tide.
Five year flood coinciding with a 50 year tide.
Dr. O’Sullivan said the above criteria allowed for a development of an envelope of five profiles. He said the River Dargle has and remains to be ungauged by the State Agencies involved with river management. Consequently he said no historical flow data exists with which to estimate peak design flows. He said the method used to quantify peak discharge included an application of the 1975 flood studies report to the Dargle Catchment and an assessment of the likely flow based on the volume of rainfall.
Dr. O’Sullivan said arising from evidence at the High Court proceedings following Hurricane Charlie the estimated peak flow could have varied
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
between 233.52/sec to 310m3/sec and Justice Laffoy in summing up stated she was satisfied that the peak flow was at least 285m3/sec. He said that flow is considered to have a return period in the order of 100 years. He referred to the contribution, if any, from the paddock pond flood waters. Dr. O’Sullivan explained that the paddock pond was a reservoir in the upland catchment that discharged to the River Dargle and it had failed in a sudden and catastrophic manner on 25th August 1986 during Hurricane Charlie. He noted the evidence in relation to the collapse of the dam and said it was likely that the paddock pond flood augmented to some degree the natural flood in the River Dargle through Bray but he said it was probable that the volume of water required to inundate Bray was available in the natural flood without being added to by the waters from the paddock pond.
Dr. O’Sullivan outlined the hydrological strategies investigated to determine the more suitable design flow to utilise in the analysis:-
Determination of the mean annual flood from catchment characteristics.
Derivation of a unit hydrograph.
Use of a nearby gauged catchment with similar characteristics e.g. River Dodder. Method used is outlined in Flood Studies Supplementary Report No. 13.
Dr. O’Sullivan said the analysis indicates that the first two methods significantly underestimate the 100 year design flow and the analysis used the River Dodder yielded a 100 year design flow of 288m3/sec and that correlates closely with the estimated peak flow during Hurricane Charlie.
Dr. O’Sullivan said for the purposes of the EIS a flow of 286m3/sec was taken to represent the 1986 one hundred year flow and the 1 year, 5 year and 50 year design flows were those determined using the catchment characteristic methodology when modified from observed data from the River Dodder. He said the flow entering the upstream end of the river was increased to allow for flows from both the County Brook and Swan stream. He said the contribution to total flow from the urban portion of the swan catchment was determined from an application of the Dublin Stormwater Management Policy Guidelines.
He noted the Glencullen River and Kilmacanogue Streams were outside the upstream extent of the study and their contributing flows were included in the main River Dargle at the N11 bridge. He said the overall flow was augmented to allow for non-attenuated stormwater run-off from the development in the Dargle Catchment that was constructed since 1986. He said the various factors combined resulted in a final 100-year design flow in the River Dargle of approximately 300m3/sec.
Relating to tides, Dr. O’Sullivan said no historical typed level data exists for Bray Harbour but a tide gauge had now been included at the Bray Harbour
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Railway Bridge. He noted the closest tide gauge to Bray Harbour where historical records exist is located in Dublin Port at Alexandra Quay. He said annual and maximum tidal levels from 1923 to 2002 were obtained from the Dublin Port Company and a frequency analysis of the data set estimated the 100 and 200 year tide levels to be 2.79 metres OD Malin and 2.89 metres OD.
Dr O’Sullivan said the highest report at tide level in Dublin Port was 2.95 metres OD Malin recorded in February 2002 and the GDSDS recommended that this should be equivalent to the current 200 year tide. Based on findings from the UK Climate Impacts Programme, the GDSDS suggested climate change would result in sea level rises of between 300 and 400mm for the period 2080 to 2100. He said that the GDSDS report indicates that the UK model under-predicts easterly winds in the Irish Sea and suggests that a sea level rise of 480mm be used for more extreme predictions of sea level over the period. Dr. O’Sullivan noted also the fact that Dublin Region is believed to be falling. This would amount to a combined effect of the three components of a 200 year tide level of approximately 3.5 metres OD Malin. It is a mean high water spring tide in Dublin at 1.59 metres OD Malin.
Dr. O’Sullivan said the design parameters using the various methodologies described resulted in the flood defence options 1-6 as outlined by Mr. Paul Healy. He said the process followed in selecting Option 3 Variation E was described in detail by Mr. Healy and the comparison of the design flood profiles for that option was that obtained for a defence scheme based on containing flood waters shows that the river works and engineering measures reduce the level of the required defences significantly. He said the reduction in flood defence levels is of the order of 1.3 metres upstream of Bray Bridge and 1 metre downstream of the bridge. Dr. O’Sullivan referred to a slide and noted that the difference at the various locations between Option 2 (containment only) and Option 3 (river works plus containment) was significant. He said at the Slang the water levels from the containment option are reduced by 1.04 metres in Option 3 on the Upper Dargle Road they were 1.2 metres lower, in Upper Peoples Park about 1.25 metres and downstream they were about 1.44 metres while Seapoint Court Housing Estate they were approaching 1 metre.
Dr. O’Sullivan said in conclusion that a rigorous approach now analysing a variety of engineering measures for six flood defence options, all of which offered the required standard of protection was undertaken. He said he was satisfied that methods of analysis used in the study are appropriate and are in line with best practice.
5.3.3 Mr Stephen Fox gave direct evidence to the hearing in relation to planning matters as follows:- (Transcript Day 1, Pages 72-79).
Mr. Fox stated his role was to represent Bray Town Council in its role as Planning Authority. He noted the context of Bray in relation to Dublin, Wicklow and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown stated that the population of the town and its environs as recorded in the Census of 2002 was 30,951.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Fox referred to the National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004 to 2016. They noted that the Regional Planning Guidelines provided for the consolidation of development within the area and to increase overall densities. It is noted that the guidelines also refer to the Water Framework Directive and this approach taken to water resource management.
This included the requirement to protect watercourses in urban and rural areas and ensure they are maintained in order to encourage biological diversity and assist drainage and flood storage. It also provided for the support, protection, management and the development of flood defences to protect areas vulnerable to tidal changes or river flooding. He said the Bray Town Council Development Plan 2005-2011 was prepared in accordance with the National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines and adopted in May 2005.
Mr. Fox referred to Section 2.1.2 of the Plan which stated that the Council in consultation with the Office of Public Works would identify those areas of the town prone to flooding which must be reserved for flood protection. Only developments which are consistent with that function will be permitted in those areas. Mr. Fox said that the proposed flood defence scheme was in accordance with the National Development Plan 2007-2011. He said the proposed works were in accordance with the GDSDS which was adopted in Section 10.4.5 of the Development Plan.
Mr. Fox referred to the Development Plan which he stated sets out a strategic division for the development of Bray in Section 2.1.1 and he referred to the lands adjoining the proposed site as being comprising of seven distinct zonings as follows:
A1 – primarily residential.
B1 – primarily town centre use – to provide for the development and improvement of appropriate town centre uses.
E1 – solely open space.
F1 – Bray Golf Club lands. This is described as providing for mixed use development in accordance with the Bray Golf Clubs lands Area Action Plan.
F2 – Mixed use development – to provide for appropriate business and commercial use in a landscape setting.
F4 - Golf Club lands – to provide for mixed use development including tourist / hotel, leisure, recreational, office, open space and residential land uses.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
F5 – Bray Harbour and North Beach – to provide appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Bray Harbour and North Beach Action Area Plan.
Mr. Fox said the sustainability of any development located within the above lands was contingent upon it not being put at an increased risk of potential flooding. He quoted Section 10.4.5 of the Plan which stated it was the policy of the Council to ensure that no development would be permitted at any location unless the Council and the OPW were entirely satisfied that all lands throughout the town that are located in proximity to watercourses are not put at a new or increased risk from potential flooding.
Mr. Fox referred to policies and objectives which related to lands within the site including the provision of a proposed river walk as detailed in Section 9.4.1 of the Plan. He said this stated that it was the policy of the Council to promote the use of the Dargle Riverbank, between La Vallee and Bray Harbour, as a natural amenity area through the development of a Dargle River walk. He said the objective was to be achieved through consultation with relevant authorities and interest groups and members of the public. He said to date no design work had taken place regarding a prepared route/layout and that the route shown on the Development Plan was indicative and subject to change pending the outcome of the consultation process.
Mr. Fox referred to views and prospects to be preserved and these were set out in Section 8.4.3 of the Development Plan and included the prospects towards the River Dargle, its floodplain and adjoining steep sided wooded slopes from the N11 and also the view from the harbour bridge and the Maltings in the former power station chimney. He said he did not consider that the proposed works would significantly impinge on those views and prospects. They said it was noted that the proposals would not involve works to any of the protected structures contained within Table 8.3 of the Plan. In relation to Section 8.4.4 of the Development Plan dealing with natural heritage, Mr. Fox said that while the works on the scale proposed would inevitably involve a certain level of disturbance of the natural environment, he was satisfied that an acceptable balance had been struck between the impacts as identified and mitigated in the EIS and the requirements provide for a flood defence scheme. He said in summary of his opinion that the proposed Flood Defence Scheme was consistent with the Bray Town Development Plan 2005-2011 and with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
5.3.4 Mr. Tim Joyce gave direct evidence to the hearing as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 79-81).
Mr. Joyce stated he was the engineer in charge of the flood relief design section within the Office of Public Works (OPW). He said that section under direction of government either directly designed flood relief schemes or employed consultants to carry out the design and supervised the work to ensure that the standards and processes are adhered to. He said those
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
standards help to ensure good engineering, economic and environmental content in the design.
Mr. Joyce said his role was the same as if he was supervising consultants directly to ensure that the OPW standards and processes are adhered to and he was happy that this was the case.
Mr. Joyce referred to the question of climate change and noted that there have been several reports that aimed to quantify the change and that the estimates varied. He said that the design standard is based on data and methodologies to give the best estimate for the existing climate conditions and the climate change value is estimated so the risks associated with it may be addressed. He stated that a defence wall or embankment is designed so that it could be easily changed in the future. Where economic and environmental costs of changing in the future would be prohibitive for example in the case of a culvert this would be designed to accommodate the expected climate change and in this respect he pointed to the (additional) culvert at Bray Bridge. He said those works involving flood walls have been designed to allow for enhancement in the future. He said also the option of offsetting possible climate change increases by upstream storage is available and being held open.
5.3.5 Mr. Kieran Corcoran gave direct evidence in relation to noise and vibration impacts to the hearing as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 85-95).
Mr. Corcoran stated that ANV Technology was appointed to carry out a noise and vibration impact assessment on the proposed scheme. They said the scope of the work included a baseline noise survey to determine existing conditions and to carry out an assessment and specification of mitigation measures during construction.
Mr. Corcoran outlined his qualifications and experience and described the methodology used in the noise surveys.
In relation to his summary of assessment, he noted the baseline noise survey was undertaken in May 2006. He said it was determined that noise impacts would only occur during the construction of phases of the scheme.
Mr. Corcoran said that it was considered appropriate to apply the NRA Construction Noise Criteria which had a weekday - daytime limit of 70 dB(A) at residential locations. He stated that calculated construction noise levels were found to be likely to exceed the construction noise level of 70 dB(A) for houses within approximately 70 metres of piling works. He said the predicted impact was termed significant for works of relatively short duration and potentially severe for works of prolonged duration in the order of weeks. He said that during excavation the noise levels could exceed the construction noise limit for sensitive locations within 30 metres of excavation works. He said that impact was deemed to be slight to moderate as works are anticipated to be of relatively short duration.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Corcoran said the NRA Guidelines do not include limits for works between the hours of 2200 hours and 0700 hours. He said for such necessary night-time works it would be reasonable to assign a limit of 45 dB(A) LAeq which is the EPA Guideline Industrial Noise Limit. Mr. Corcoran said it was proposed to undertake some construction of the proposed culvert at Bray Bridge at night-time and he said it was the understanding the secant piling associated with that culvert would be carried out during the day.
In relation to vibration impacts, Mr. Corcoran said that the ground vibration levels in accordance with BS5228 would be maintained within the accepted limits of 8 millimetres per second for the prevention of cosmetic damage to use of low vibration techniques. He noted that the NRA Guidelines mentioned 2.5 millimetres per second as the vibration levels that may be considered tolerable due to piling. He said that that level could possibly be exceeded for houses immediately adjacent to the site works which would lead to a significant vibration nuisance. He said for locations in excess of 20 metres of the works it could reasonably be expected that ground vibrations could be maintained below the 2.5 millimetres per second at criterion.
Mr. Corcoran described mitigation measures and stated that in the EIS the noise aspects of the project should be managed in accordance with BS5228. He said that should be explicitly stated in project contracts. He said any necessary night-time works should be considered carefully and special consideration should be given when undertaking piling works near sensitive locations with predicted noise levels in excess of 80 dB(A). He said the affected residents should be notified to inform them of the duration and timing of the works and a work schedule formulated.
Mr. Corcoran said that low vibration methods of pilings should be used and that continuous noise and ground vibration monitoring was recommended at houses adjacent to high vibration activities.
Mr. Corcoran referred to air quality impacts and said these would be of limited duration and only during the construction phase. He said the existing air quality environment was considered to be good and the potential impacts were the generation of dust and the creation of air borne pollutants due to the associated traffic, plant and equipment. He said nuisance from dust deposition could include deposition on surfaces, cars, windows of properties and vegetation. He said the source of that dust is often material deposited on the haul routes. He said the impact from airborne dust is predicted to be negligible as it was expected to be very comfortably within the guideline limit value of 350 milligrams per m2/day set by the EPA.
Mr. Corcoran said the impact on air quality of airborne pollutants was assessed in comparison with the requirements of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 AI 281/02. He said the predicted increase from pollutants was negligible in comparison with air quality limit values.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
In relation to dust mitigation measures, Mr. Corcoran said the soiling of roads could be minimised by the use of truck wheel washes and by the covering of trucks carrying fine materials. He said active management by the contractor is required to monitor and minimise the generation of dust. He said water sprays may be required during prolonged trial periods.
In conclusion, Mr. Corcoran said the noise aspects of the scheme had been assessed and it was concluded that daytime works could proceed subject to appropriate mitigation measures. He said that it was predicted there would be significant residual impact on some residences adjacent to high noise works. He said any night-time works should be considered carefully to ensure compliance with the proposed night-time noise limit.
Mr. Corcoran said vibration levels of houses within 20 metres of piling may exceed the NRA Guideline Nuisance Levels of 2.5 millimetres per second. He said however all the works are likely to be well below the NRA vibration limits for the protection of buildings against cosmetic damage. He said noise and vibration monitoring are recommended for the project. He said in terms of air quality, active management would be required by the contractor which would minimise dust deposition giving negligible residual impact.
5.3.6 Mr. Colin McGill gave direct evidence in relation to the planning aspects of the EIS as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 95-101).
Mr. McGill said that they were responsible for assembling a professional team to produce levels of expertise in various fields having regard to the guidelines produced by the EPA in relation to preparation of an EIS. He stated that an EIS was to predict and assess impact on what would be deemed to be the major impacts. He outlined the major headings of an EIS including human beings, land based and water based ecology, soils, geology and hydrogeology, water, noise, material assets and cultural heritage.
He said the socio-economic impacts that the EIS considered itself with reference to human beings and material assets in the main which is what he was responsible for as well as for co-ordinating the EIS. He said the methodology employed had reference to the design parameters outlined by Mr. Healy and Dr. O’Sullivan in that it showed the five sections of the scheme along various sections of the river and analysed them under the various headings.
Mr. McGill said the likely significant impacts were summarised in the non- technical summary which he said was to summarise the main findings of the EIS. He said the EIS could be quite technical and that the non-technical summary was meant to be included so that people requiring further information could be directed to the relevant parts of the main document which can be quite difficult to get through.
Mr. McGill said the conclusion was that the major impacts would by and large be during the construction period and that the most important impact would be
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
noise. He said temporary traffic disruption due to construction would have to be managed both daytime and night-time in line with the activities being undertaken. He said with regard to material assets there would be some general short-term disruptions to the river channel but in the longer term it was deemed to have significantly positive impacts. He said the scheme would protect the sensitive areas in the existing floodplain from future flooding and in doing so also provide and improve amenities to the River Dargle banks in accordance with the policies of the Bray Town Council Development Plan. He referred to Pages 10-12 of the non-technical summary for mitigation measures and he said that given the nature of the scheme he considered it in itself a mitigation measure to a current problem.
Mr. McGill said the Town Council would require to monitor and maintain the works which had been put in place during the scheme to ensure they are fit for purpose on an ongoing and future basis. He said in relation to material assets, the short-term impacts would be during construction particularly with deliveries to and from the various compounds and sites. He said it was possible that there could be temporary closures of some carriageways and the appointed contractor would have to negotiate with the Town Council to implement the plan to ensure minimum disruption with the impacts in mind.
He said that once the flood defence scheme was constructed rigorous monitoring means would be required by the Town Council to ensure the works remain in good order and standing. He said there would have to be an emergency procedure which would be operated to cover the particular potentiality if a flood incident did occur before the scheme was completed.
He said the interactions were examined and he referred to Section 6 of the EIS where he said the interactions would be deemed to be short-term during the construction period. He said that in the longer term he felt that by the very nature of the scheme that the impacts would be positive.
Mr. McGill said in terms of visual amenity of the scheme the enhanced benefits to general health and the use of lands contained in the Development Plan having regard to the various zonings and the potential use of land and retail use of buildings during flooding incidences and the general improvement both to and along the banks of the Dargle River would be a major objective. He said in terms of ecology there would be disturbance to water quality and habitats but they would not be so significant as to prevent the re-establishment of the habitats in the river subsequent to the implementation of the scheme.
Mr. McGill concluded that the most significant impacts would be during construction and these would be to human beings on the negative side during construction but on the positive side in the longer term. He said once operational the flood defence scheme would have a positive impact on the general needs of the town and the known potential development of the existing and future use of the lands arising from the implementation of the Flood Defence Works Scheme.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.3.7 Dr. Martin O’Grady (Central Fisheries Board) gave evidence in relation to Fisheries as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 102-107).
Dr. O’Grady said he was a fishery biologist employed by the Central Fisheries Board and he had particular expertise in the area of designing enhancement programmes for salmonid riverine channels which had been altered physically by one or more land management practices. He referred to a book he published in 2006 entitled “Channels and Challenges” which is published by the Central Fisheries Board, Swords Business Campus, Swords, County Dublin (www.cfb.ie).
Dr. O’Grady said his involvement came about as a result of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (ERFB) requesting his technical assistance to assess the impact of the proposed Dargle Flood Relief Scheme on salmonid stocks as it was part of the Central Fisheries Board’s (CFB) duties to service the technical requirements of all seven regional fisheries boards. He said secondly the Bray Town Council requested him to generate a fishery element as part of the flood relief scheme to ensure there would be no net loss to the existing fishery and where possible that the fishery resources would be enhanced. He said he made several site visits and examined the likely consequences of the proposed flood relief scheme. He said the input he had made would be found in Section 5 of the EIS and they could be summarised as follows:
Works should commence in the most upstream region and proceed downstream.
A temporary deep (channel) at least 1 metre deep and 2-3 metres wide should always be open at the works stage to allow the free passage of migratory fish in both upstream and downstream directions.
River bed material in the top 300 millimetres (Zones 1-4) should be set aside and replaced on the new river bed following the scheme.
Two stage channel should be constructed where channel widening is proposed to ensure that the summer wetted width of the channel is no wider than at present.
The construction of alternating deflectors and/or stone weirs and the placement of boulders is proposed for specific reaches within the overall zone.
The ERFB should have the option of making minor modifications at the works stage.
Monitoring of the status of fish stocks in the zones should take place prior to and following the implementation of the scheme.
Dr. O’Grady said in the longer term he would expect the channel reach of the Dargle following implementation of the scheme would be at least as productive in salmonid terms as it is today. He said currently that reach of the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Dargle is an artificial channel and it was clear that the reach through People’s Park and downstream of Bray Bridge had been canalised. He said the reach at the Slang had also been artificially widened to function as a gravel trap. He said there was generally throughout the reach a lack of defined pool areas. Dr. O’Grady said the incorporation of the fishery enhancement proposals would create a summer channel closer in morphological form to a natural channel than the existing one. He said the concept of constructing a two-stage channel that is fish friendly is now a well established practice which is has been shown to be very effective. He referred to slides which were available.
Dr. O’Grady said an aquatic macro-invertebrate study of the lower Dargle had been carried out by ECS Limited and they found that Q values in the reach were at Level 3. He said since then values calculated by the CFB in September 2007 indicates improvements to Q3/4 status. He said in September 2007 the CFB also carried out a fish stock survey of the Lower Dragle and found the presence of significant salmon parr stocks and a modest one year plus brown trout population. He said the presence of a large sea trout stock of finnock was noted and a few larger individual sea trout were also present.
Dr. O’Grady said that Q values are probably more often in the Q3/4 to Q4 range in that section of the river. He said the proposed morphological changes to the channel in fishery enhancement terms within the context of the proposed scheme would allow the re-establishment of a diverse macro-invertebrate community post scheme provided there is not a decline in the water quality status of the channel.
5.3.8 Evidence of Dr. John Brophy, Ecoserve, read by Dr. O’Grady in relation to Ecological Impact Assessment:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 107-113).
Dr. O’Grady read the evidence of Dr. Brophy and stated that Ecoserve was contracted to conduct an assessment of the freshwater ecology of the River Dargle with respect to the proposed flood defence scheme. The methodology included a constraints report, options appraisal report and ecological impact assessment. The brief of evidence stated that the field survey involved kick sampling at four locations to investigate the benthic macro-invertebrate population, an aquatic macrophyte survey, standard water quality parameters, salmonid habitat survey, estuarine habitat survey and otter survey.
The EPA monitoring of the River Dargle recorded a Q3 in the year 2000 and it was noted that the banks of the River Dargle had been replaced by walls and other erosion defence measures at a number of sites along the river section. Low water levels occur in the river at times of low rainfall. The presence of the weir between Bray Bridge and the railway bridge was noted.
The brief of evidence states that the River Dargle within the study area is not subject to designation as an SAC or NHA but is designated as salmonid water under European Communities (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988 which enacts the EU Freshwater Fish Directive.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
The macro-invertebrate community of the River Dargle continues to be classed as Q3 which is moderately polluted. The larvae of the true fly families dominated the samples at all four sites and all sites showed moderate to good species richness. The brief of evidence describes the aquatic macrophyte community as extremely sparse while the water quality parameters were stated to be within the normal range expected. It notes that the River Dargle is a sea trout river and the survey of salmonid habitat concluded that areas of the Dargle within the study area are suitable to fulfil the necessary requirements of juvenile trout and that the deeper waters can support adult trout. It also notes evidence of otter activity.
The flora and fauna of the Dargle Estuary was stated to be very limited with green algae and brown algae recorded. In relation to potential impacts construction activities would give rise to:-
Erosion and siltation. Loss or alteration of riparian habitat. Loss or alteration of in-stream habitat. Pollution. Disturbance to otters. Possible spread of Japanese Knotweed. (Japanese Knotweed is stated to be an invasive species).
At an operational level the impact is stated to be:-
Loss or alteration of riparian habitat. Loss or alteration of in-stream habitat. Impact on otters.
The mitigation measures mentioned in the brief of evidence in relation to aquatic ecology include reduction in the release of sediment, protection of the river from potential pollutants, minimising disturbance to habitats and species, reinstatement of riverbed materials and the removal of Japanese Knotweed. It notes that the ERFB requirements for the protection of fishery habitat during construction and development works form the basis of the mitigation measures.
The evidence of Dr. Brophy lists residual impacts for the construction phase:-
Erosion and siltation would be significant, short-term negative impact. Loss or alteration of riparian habitat – moderate negative impact of short- term to permanent duration. Loss or alteration of in-stream habitat – significant, short-term negative impact. Disturbance to otters would be temporary and negative in nature. Japanese Knotweed removal – significant positive impact.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
At the operational level the residual impacts are listed:-
Loss or alteration of riparian habitat – permanent negative impact. Loss/alteration of in-stream habitat – moderate medium term negative impact with positive permanent impact arising from the removal of the weir. Impact on otters – slight negative impact.
The brief of evidence describes the do-nothing scenario in which case flood events would result in negative impacts through the release of pollutants. It describes a worse case scenario which would involve failure to implement recommended mitigation measures or the failure of the river to rapidly revert to more natural state post construction. Positive impacts are described as removal of the weir and the control of flood waters that would pollute the river in the do-nothing scenario. The reinstatement of the surface layer on the river bed which is to be removed in the course of construction works is also noted and the requirement to carry out monitoring as described in EIS Section 5.3.11 is stated to be an important part of the process.
5.3.9 Dr. Brian Madden gave direct evidence in relation to terrestrial ecology as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 113-128).
Dr. Madden stated that since 1994 he had worked full-time as an ecological consultant and his consultancy Biosphere Environmental Services (BES) were contracted by McGill Planning to carry out surveys of terrestrial ecological interests for the purposes of the Flood Defence Scheme. He said the assessment was to establish existing baseline ecological conditions and he stated BES had carried out the constraints study for the scheme as well as the option appraisal study.
Dr. Madden said that baseline field surveys were carried out for habitats and flora, nesting birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles in May and July of 2006. He said emphasis was placed on otters and bats and the survey included an evening bat survey.
Dr. Madden said the nearest NHA was approximately 500 metres upstream from the N11 bridge. He said the Dargle River would be termed a spate river which floods regularly. Protection measures in the past included replacement of riverbanks by walls, the siting of gabion cages filled with stones at strategic areas and the removal of weirs. He said all of the works had significant impacts on the habitats and flora within the study area and very little of the original wild vegetation of plants remained. He said a consequence of past disturbance was that alien and weedy species are a feature of the study area. He said the river bed is stony and lacks fine muds and clays which precludes the development of diverse flora and vegetation. Dr. Madden said the most natural stretch of habitat and vegetation occurs along the banks of the river between the western end of Peoples Park and La Vallee. He said parts of the banks are lined by riparian woodland dominated by alder and willows. He said also occurring was scrub and mixed broadleaved woodland with some tall – herb swamp vegetation. He said one notable plant species called the greater
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
yellow cress occurred adjacent to Seapoint Court towards the harbour. He said the habitats in the study area have been compromised by past disturbance and the existing habitats are not considered of any particular conservation value. He said at most they would have low to moderate local value.
In relation to birds, Dr. Madden said the highest conservation importance would be the Kingfisher which is a species listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive. He said that it was certain that one pair nested successfully in the low clay cliffs on the south side of the river just downstream of the La Vallee. He listed other typical nesting riverine birds including dipper, mallard, mute swan, moorhen, grey heron and grey wagtail. He said black-headed gulls could be found regularly during winter along the stretch of river towards the harbour. He said in recent years an important flock of mute swans had built up within Bray Harbour. Dr. Madden said the wooded stretch at the western end of the survey corridor supports a diversity of woodland birds including black cap and jay.
Dr. Madden said the study areas supported a range of mammal species including badger, pigmy shrew, Irish stoat, hedgehog and various bats. He said of particular conservation importance is the occurrence of the otter and he said otters use all of the Dargle River and while no holts or dwellings were found it was considered that one or more holts may be present along the river or its small tributary streams.
Dr. Madden said bat activity during the evening survey was high and he noted the recording of the common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bat. He said the existing river walls and town bridges were investigated for potential as bat roosting sites but they were considered to offer limited potential. He noted that all Irish bat species are protected under the Wildlife Acts and listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive.
Dealing with the impacts of the proposed development, Dr. Madden said that the proposed works would be highly disruptive to existing habitats with the complete clearing of vegetation along substantial stretches of the river corridor. He said this would be considered a negative impact of minor significance as the habitats study area are not of any particular conservation value. He said with appropriate reinstatement the impact could be reduced to neutral in the medium to long run.
He said that it would appear that the population of a greater yellow cress at Seapoint Court would be lost and without mitigation this would be considered a negative impact of moderate significance. In relation to birds he said the principal concern was the impact on the Kingfisher and sedimentation of the river by construction works could cause temporary reduction in fish stocks and the prey items for Kingfishers. He said the in-stream works between Bray Bridge and the Harbour would remove aquatic weed on which the herd of mute swans feed but he noted that swans have a range of other food items available. He said provided mitigation measures are successfully implemented the impact of the proposed scheme on the Kingfisher population and other birds is likely to be minor.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
He said in relation to otters the works would cause disturbance to otters foraging along the river and he noted that otters require free access along the river and its tributaries. He said culverts at Bray Bridge and the other tributary streams would need to be otter passable. In relation to bats he stated that removal of vegetation along the river would reduce foraging habitats for bats in the short to medium term. He said mitigation would be required to replace the vegetation. He said mitigation measures would also be required to minimise impacts on potential bat roosts in trees.
Dr. Madden described the mitigation measures in relation to habitats and flora and stated that these would comprise of:
Advice from an ecologist on the suitability of certain planting combinations proposed for landscaping.
Mitigation measures in construction areas to protect from disturbance of mature trees remaining in situ.
Trees in poor health would be replaced.
Minimisation of invasion of noxious weeds and the removal of Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed, Travellers Joy and Butterfly Bush species.
Translocation of the greater yellow cress population from its current location along the south bank of the river. (Advice from a plant ecologist familiar with the species would be retained to oversee the programme).
Monitoring of measures to retain the presence of Greater Yellow Cress along the Dargle.
Avoidance of removal of uncultivated vegetation as far as possible during the bird nesting season. Likely that some vegetation would need to be removed during the summer because of fishery season restrictions – advice of NPWS be sought in this instance.
Survey of river sections to establish Kingfisher nesting.
Alternative site for Kingfisher nest to be provided. (Artificial nest sites have been successfully use by Kingfishers elsewhere).
Existing riparian vegetation to be retained where feasible.
Monitoring of mitigation measures for Kingfishers (especially the provision of alternative nest sites, to be assessed over a period of several years).
Pre construction survey for otter holts to be conducted.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
If necessary construction of artificial otter holts to replace loss of natural holts.
Adequate bridges and culverts to be provided at crossing points to allow otters have unrestricted access along all parts of the river. (May entail insertion of otter ledges).
Long-term water quality to be secured as reduction in fish stocks reduces the prey for otters.
Trees to be removed to be assessed for likely bat roosting before felling.
Bat box scheme to be put in place.
Referring to residual impacts Dr. Madden said taking account of the existing low conservation status of the habitats and assuming the mitigation measures are successfully implemented, it was considered that the residual impacts arising from the Scheme will be at most minor negative and probably neutral in the medium to long term. In relation to fauna he said fauna species should re-establish populations in the study area after construction provided the recommended mitigation measures are successfully implemented. He said it was considered that the residual impacts on fauna species including the Kingfisher and otters would be minor negative and probably neutral in the long-term. Dr. Madden said it was considered that the works could not have any impacts on ecological interest in the nearby River Dargle Valley pNHA as this was at least 500 metres upstream of the western end of the works.
5.3.10 Mr. Martin Byrne gave direct evidence in relation to archaeological impacts as follows: (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 128-141).
Mr. Byrne said he was a partner in Byrne Mullins & Associates Archaeological Consultants. He said the cultural heritage assessment included local history, archaeology and architectural heritage and was included in Section 5.9 of the EIS. Mr. Byrne said cultural heritage is assumed to include all humanly created features on the landscape including portable artefacts which might reflect the pre-historic, historic and / or social history of the area. Mr. Byrne said the cultural heritage components of the study comprise the results of a survey and evaluation of selected sites of interest and potential within the subject study area. He said work consisted of results of a paper study in consultation with the National Monuments Section of the Heritage and Planning Division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government together with field inspections.
He said the paper survey consisted of a documentary and cartographic search which included:-
Record of Monuments and Places for County Wicklow.
Archives of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Records of the National Museum of Ireland.
National Inventory of Architectural Heritage County Wicklow.
Annual archaeological excavation bulletins up to 2003.
Stereoscopic photographic coverage by the GSI.
Sources in Bray Town Library.
Bray Town Council Development Plan 2005-2011.
Wicklow County Development Plan 2004-2010.
Mr. Byrne referred to the field survey and the consultation with Mr. Chris Corlett, Archaeologist of the National Monuments Section in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Mr. Byrne outlined the local history and noted that the River Dargle was harnessed to power a range of mills from the late 12th century until the end of the 19th century. He said it led to the formation of what in effect was an island on the southern side of the river extending upriver from the ford which is the later location of Bray Bridge. He described the history of People’s Park and the brewery and malting buildings on the southern bank of the river. He noted that the original Bray Bridge was a four arch structure constructed in 1741 which was replaced by the present bridge constructed in 1855-6. He noted also that a single arch bridge was subsequently constructed at the northern end of the bridge linking Castle Street to Ravenswell Road which presumably was in 1861 when Ravenswell Road was laid out and the adjacent riverside retaining wall was constructed.
Mr. Byrne noted that the section of the river downstream of Bray Bridge is tidal and the area upstream is subject to flooding. He noted the record of a history of Bray which referred to the November 1965 floods and stated that work involved the lowering of the riverbed and rebuilding walls.
Dealing with archaeology Mr. Byrne said this was covered in Section 5.9.3.2 of the EIS. He said the archaeological zone included a number of individual sites of which three were included within the defined study area. Site CH-1A the church and graveyard, Site CH-1C a fording point / bridge. Mr. Byrne said given the locations of Site CH-1A church and CH-1B - the mill which are to the south of the river, it was not considered likely that they would have the ability to be impacted on. He noted that site CH-1C comprised the remains of a former bridge protruding from the existing riverbed at Bray Bridge. He said it was not known the depth to which the remains extend in the existing riverbed. Although such works would result in a general negative significant and permanent direct impact, Mr. Byrne said the cumulative character of such can be lessened by the adoption of a suitable and specific mitigation strategy. Mr. Byrne said there was the possibility for the discovery
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
of subsurface features, deposits or artefacts along the existing riverbanks particularly along the northern section of Area 1 - Bray Golf Course, the southern side of Area 3 which is the Maltings and Glenwood areas, the northern and southern sides of Area 4 and the southern bank of Area 5. Mr. Byrne said those areas were all located in the traditional and mostly undisturbed floodplain of the Dargle and had the added potential for the recovery of archaeological artefacts. He said the soil spread across the surface of the area as a result of dredging processes adds to the potential for the recovery for archaeological material. He said in general terms that it was considered that a medium probability for the discovery of previously unrecorded subsurface features and artefacts existed and suitable mitigation strategies would be required.
Mr. Byrne said there was the potential for the recovery of artefacts and for the discovery of archaeological features from the River Dargle. He said while it was evident that the River Dargle partially re-routed in the late 18th century and the river had been dredged in relatively recent times there was a possibility that archaeological artefacts may have been deposited on the riverbed and that such deposition may be part of an ongoing process.
Mr. Byrne listed mitigation measures which he said conformed to the best standard practices as follows:-
1. A programme of archaeological investigations / excavations to be undertaken with respect to the bridge piers / foundations of the former bridge at Bray Bridge.
2. A pre-development wading and metal detecting survey of the existing river channel within the zone of archaeological potential at the confluence of the Swan and County Brook streams and in the area of engineering measure D9, debris trap should be undertaken in advance of the commencement of works.
3. A pre-development metal detecting survey should be undertaken on the existing riverbank where it is proposed to undertake ground reduction/excavation works. These are located at the southern side of Area 3, northern and southern sides of Area 4 and the southern bank of Area 5.
4. All topsoil stripping / general ground reduction works as well as all works within the zone of archaeological potential in Bray Golf Course lands should be monitored by an archaeologist.
5. Removal of the top 400-500 millimetres of riverbed material from all of the area upstream of Bray Bridge should be monitored by an archaeologist.
6. The advice of the National Monuments Section to be sought in the event of archaeological features being uncovered.
Mr. Byrne stated that reports describing the results of the works should be submitted to the relevant authorities on completion of the works and funds
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
should be made available for report publication if required. He said that in terms of archaeological heritage the implementation of the mitigation strategy would result in a long-term positive impact.
Mr. Byrne referred to architectural heritage and stated this was covered in Section 5.9.3.4 of the EIS. He said there were a total of nine structures or groups of structures listed for protection in the Bray Town Development Plan but all of the sites as illustrated in Figure 5.9.6 of the EIS are located at sufficient distances to ensure that no direct visual impacts will occur with respect to the settings of the individual properties.
Mr. Byrne said the present Bray Bridge was not a Protected Structure but is considered to be of regional interest in the NIAH of County Wicklow and Measure B2 has the ability to impact on the present structure. He said the proposal was to undertake underpinning works and subsequently tie the walls together by means of anchors and while the works are considered to be of a long-term or permanent duration, Mr. Byrne said it would be of positive character.
Referring to the Ravenswell Road Bridge of 1861 he said this was not a Protected Structure but considered to be of regional interest. He said works associated with engineering Measure B3 (box culvert) would result in the demolition of the greater part of the bridge whereby only the southern façade to the river would remain extant. Such proposed works would have a significant long-term negative and permanent impact on the bridge but Mr. Byrne said such impacts must be viewed in the context of the benefits derived from the overall scheme. He stated that mitigation measures were required as follows:-
1. Extreme care to be taken during underpinning works at Bray Bridge to avoid damage to the structure/fabric of the bridge.
2. Consideration should be given to the removal of vegetation on the façades of Bray Bridge and carrying out of remedial works such as re-pointing.
3. Full architectural survey of Ravenswell Road Bridge should be undertaken to allow for the feature to be preserved by record. A section / profile plan of the bridge should be undertaken during construction works and copies of the survey deposited with the NIAH, Irish Architectural Archive and Bray Town Library for future study. In addition the stonework of the northern façade should be numbered and recorded on the survey plans and consideration should be given to the reinstatement of this façade upon completion of the box culvert.
Mr. Byrne said in terms of architectural heritage the implementation of the mitigation strategy particularly with respect to Ravenswell Road Bridge would result in a largely positive long-term impact and the retention of the riverside façade would mean that the form and function of the feature would not be lost to future generations. He said the positive impacts of the scheme would largely outweigh the partial loss of the Ravenswell Road Bridge side.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.3.11 Mr. Gerry Mitchell gave direct evidence in relation to landscape and visual impacts as follows: (Transcript Day 1 Pages 141 to 151)
Mr. Mitchell stated he represented the firm of Mitchell and Associates who were commissioned to carry out a visual landscape assessment together with a tree survey as part of the EIS document and the methodology used was based on the EPA guidelines and advice notes.
Mr. Mitchell said that the subject site consisted of a linear river corridor approximately 3.5 kilometres in length extending on a north-east to south-west axis within the Bray urban area. He said the western end had a semi-urban landscape character which became more urbanised as the river corridor approaches the town centre. He noted some areas of high visual amenity and recreational amenity particularly at People’s Park, the Golf Course lands and also along the river corridor itself. He said there were also areas of low visual amenity and visual degradation located primarily in the eastern urban portion of the study area.
Mr. Mitchell said his assessment of Area 1 from the harbour bridge to Bray Bridge was that the primary visual elements were the linear feature of the stone river wall on the north bank of the river and the triple vaulted stone bridge linking the north primarily residential area in Bray with the town’s main street. He referred to the two bridges at the mouth of the river, namely the railway bridge and a vehicular bridge linking the south harbour area to the north beach. Views are stated to be primarily to the north-east over the golf course and to the south they were generally obstructed by the elevated buildings and tree planting along the Seapoint road.
Area 2 is Bray Bridge and this was described as being the primary visual feature and the Royal Hotel dominates views in the area.
The visual analysis for Area 3, refers to Bray Bridge to People’s Park and was described by Mr. Mitchell as having views towards the river from the southern edge of the park. He also noted there were views of the river corridor from the upper levels of the residences in the Maltings and from an informal walkway along the southern embankment. He noted some visual degradation towards the eastern end of the park near Bray Bridge due to anti-social behaviour and littering etc.
Mr. Mitchell described the visual analysis for Area 4 which is the area from People’s Park to the Slang / Rehills land. He said views towards the river corridor on the north side were from the Upper Dargle Road and the Rivervale Apartments. He said there were also views from the upper levels of the Diamond Valley Apartments. Mr. Mitchell said some of the views from the Dargle Road towards the river corridor are obstructed by the houses located along the river edge. He said views from the rear of houses are intruded upon by the tree planting along the riverbank. Mr. Mitchell said the majority of views from the south are obscured by the woodland planting but there are glimpses towards the river corridor from the Killarney Glen estate.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Mitchell referred to the visual analysis of Area 5 which is from La Vallee to the N11 bridge and stated that the views of the river corridor are confined to the La Vallee Apartments. He noted that views from the south are obscured by the woodland planting in this area.
Mr. Mitchell referred to the tree stock and stated that the trees in People’s Park were likely to date from 1883 with a small number dating from an earlier period of land use. He said the trees within the survey area of the park are located on the southern boundary of the park with the predominant species being horse chestnut and sycamore. He said the condition of the mature trees is generally good but a number were unsuitable for retention due to their condition and location within the park. He noted the impact of vandalism on the trees. In relation to trees to the east of Bray Bridge, Mr. Mitchell said they were situated on a sloping southern bank of the Dargle River adjacent to Seapoint Road. He said the species mix was predominantly sycamore with occasional beech and spruce.
He described it as a well-structured woodland with a high proportion of juvenile to early mature trees. Mr. Mitchell said these trees were in relatively good condition despite their urban location and also despite the use of the area for dumping and anti-social behaviour. Mr. Mitchell said there were scattered pockets of riparian vegetation along the river from the western edge at People’s Park to La Vallee. The main native tree species are willow and alder but he said there had been extensive tree planting within private gardens and this included birch, ash, cherry and Monterey pine. Mr. Mitchell said a large number of mature trees are located on the lands above the river at La Vallee and the species present include Sycamore, Beech and Scots Pine.
Mr. Mitchell said in overall terms the subject site presents as a series of five discrete landscape compartments of varying visual character. He said the former pristine nature of the river valley had been extensively modified over time by the expansion of Bray.
Dealing with impact assessment, Mr. Mitchell said the proposed development consisted of the insertion of a series of flood control measures into the river valley. He said in addition to works on the channel there would also be sporadic consequential tree removal throughout the subject site. He noted the construction measures would have a temporary visual impact and this would also include all roads, storage areas, site huts, temporary protection works and spoil storage.
Mr. Mitchell said in terms of the potential impact the development would impact in varying degrees as follows:
The perceived character of the area. The existing views. Visual and recreational amenity.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
In terms of the impact on the perceived character of the area, Mr. Mitchell said the development would have a slight and neutral impact. He said the works would be seen as a necessary modification to the existing configuration of the river valley.
In terms of the impact on views, he said the development would have a moderate and neutral impact in overall terms. He said the scale of the works when viewed against the overall large-scale of the valley’s landscape, would be easily accommodated within the existing landscape structure.
Mr. Mitchell said a series of computer generated photomontages presented with the EIS provided an adequate indication of the predicted visual impact and in terms of the overall impact on visual recreational amenity the development would have a moderate and positive impact given the stability the works would bring to the river valley with improved access.
Mr. Mitchell said the visual impact would be mitigated as follows:
Through the introduction of significant planted areas.
Through the implementation of a landscape maintenance regime.
Through the upkeep of all areas open to the public to ensure their viability and safe access on an ongoing basis.
Through the utilisation of high quality materials such as stone cladding to assist in the visual integration of the various elements into the landscape.
Mr. Mitchell summarised that the proposed development would be located within a section of the river valley which has been encroached on by extensive urbanisation over a long period of time. He said in overall terms the visual and landscape impact would be moderate and neutral and he said the civil engineering works would be viewed against the background of the river valley and also against the extensive urbanisation in its hinterland.
5.3.12 Mr. Des O’Brien gave evidence in relation to planning issues as follows: (Transcript Day 1, Pages 151 to 155)
Mr. O’Brien stated he was the Director of Services for Planning with Wicklow County Council and he was deputising at the Hearing for the Chief Planning Officer.
He said there was no specific plan objective for a flood defence scheme for Bray but he said there were key parts of the plan that would indirectly refer to it.
Mr. O’Brien referred to Chapter 2 of the (County) Development Plan entitled Overall Strategy and at sub-paragraph 4 he noted the objective to encourage and facilitate the provision of infrastructure services to meet the demands for the development of future population needs in a sustainable manner. He said
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
sub-paragraph 6 is to promote the sustainable development of the built and natural environment and he said in the part of the scheme in County Wicklow between the N11 bridge and the boundary it was really a little bit of cleaning up of banks and there were no walls or impacts at that level. He said Chapter 3 entitled The Population and Settlement Strategy referred to the two settlement areas described as the metropolitan area (paragraph 4.1.2) one of which is Bray. He said Chapter 9 of the Plan is the chapter on infrastructure and Section 2 of that chapter under Vision states that the policy was to protect and enhance the built environment through the provision of a range of high quality water drainage and that would be directly applicable in this case.
Mr. O’Brien said the strategy in relation to infrastructure services was to promote and facilitate the issue of the necessary infrastructure to fully accommodate the population. He said in Section 5.4 of the Plan it was the stated aim of the Council to protect and enhance the environment and to provide high quality drainage and waste management facilities.
Mr. O’Brien said that a Bray Environs Plan was in the course of preparation and was at public consultation stage but as matters stood they were still working with the Rathdown No. 2 District Plan from 1999. He said the policy was to protect the scenic and rural amenities of the Rathdown No. 2 rural district. He said the non-radical nature of the works within the County Wicklow area complies with that. He stated that there were no listed views or prospects looking into the site and it was not a Natural Heritage Area or a European site. He said while there would be some tree loss below the waterline there was also ongoing maintenance. He said a person walking along the road might notice some impact but it would be fairly insignificant.
Mr. O’Brien confirmed to Mr. Keane that the works proposed in County Wicklow were totally consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the county.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.4 Questions put to Representatives of the Local Authority.
Questions were put to Mr. Healy, Project Manager by the Inspector and by Dr. Bruen and also by objectors. Questions were put at various times during all three days of the hearing.
5.4.1 The Inspector asked questions of Mr. Healy as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 107-114)
A number of questions had been put by the Inspector at the end of Day 2 of the hearing and Mr. Healy had responses as follows:-
Drawing No. 112 covering Seapoint Court has a series of levels indicated on the road and the two roads at the lowest level being 1.78 metres OD which is on the most easterly turning point.
At the Malting Drawings 115, 116 and 117 the lowest road level in the area is 3.6 metres OD. Drawing No. 115 indicates that level at property No. 23 – general levels would be approximately 4 metres OD – Section 019 indicates the flood defence at that point.
5.4.2 Dr. Bruen asked questions of Mr. Healy, Dr. O’Sullivan and Mr. Joyce as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 215-217).
Mr. Healy confirmed to Dr. Bruen that the present scheme provided the national level of (flood) protection without upstream storage. Dr. Bruen asked about the purpose of considering upstream storage and to future proof it against an adverse result in climate change. Mr. Joyce said that he saw it as two separate things and that the area originally identified as upstream storage solution was very large. He said because they needed much less storage they could technically look at half the area as a means of converting the scheme to a 300 year standard and he confirmed that the option of future proofing by raising walls is still there.
Dr. Bruen asked if there were no works in the river done at all and upstream storage alone was provided would that be sufficient to protect against 200 year tide. Dr. O’Sullivan said there would be still works required in the river particularly between Bray Bridge and Bray Harbour. He said the reason for that was that the 200 year tide had an estimated or predicted level of 3.5 metres OD and existing levels at the Ravenswell Road wall had some locations or less than that. He said in the absence of river works there would still be a risk to residents particularly in Dwyer Park if there was a 3.5 metre tide. Dr. Bruen asked about upstream of Bray Bridge and Dr. O’Sullivan said that upstream of Bray Bridge would not be a problem. He referred to the gabion wall at Coburg and said it was permeable so that water would flow through the wall although the height of the wall might be sufficient.
Dr. Bruen asked about the design configurations and had these been based on the GDSDS. Dr. O’Sullivan said these had been and also to the OPW
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
requirements. Dr. Bruen referred to the provision in the GDSDS where for critical infrastructure a 4-metre tide level was used. He said he understood that was intended for the centre of Dublin and was it appropriate in this case. Dr. O’Sullivan said he didn’t think so that 4 metres on the south bank would cater for a tide level essentially of 4.25 metres and they were settling for a 3.5 metre tide level.
5.4.3 Mr. Foley asked Mr. Healy questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 166 to 179)
Mr. Foley stated his client was Ms. Marion Gaule and he wished to speak specifically about Deposit Map Sheet 3 of 6 Ref. B237-PO3. Mr. Foley was joined by Mr. John Lauder, Consulting Engineer. Mr. Foley stated that the CPO as against Ms. Gaule required that her property to be acquired was Plot 18a. He said he wished to point out that Ms. Gaule also owned the land directly following Plot 18a through Plot O2g and halfway across the river being half of the river described as Plot 02i. Mr. Foley confirmed to Mr. Keane that his client was not claiming any portion of 16b.
Mr. Foley asked Mr. Healy to comment on the fact that he said that Contract 1 was completed in the months following Hurricane Charlie but Contract 2 was never implemented. He said he had to put it to Mr. Healy that between 1989 and 1990 the Local Authority actually with Ms Gaule’s consent, entered upon the land, cut away a very significant portion to effectively create a very good flood defence wall. Mr. Healy said they were not aware of the works referred to until the submission was made. He said the important thing from the point of view of the flood assessment and the hydraulic impact is that a detailed topographical survey was carried out and that identified the land profile as it is today.
Mr. Foley said none of the reports had any cross-referencing to the EIS but he drew attention to pages 123 and 124 of the EIS. He said in describing Measure D it implied that the land provides sufficient protection at the moment. Mr. Healy agreed and stated that they were not proposing to carry out works on the plot of land being referred to Mr. Foley asked why was it proposed to take the land and Mr. Healy said because the lands as identified are necessary to provide the conveyance capacity of the channel. He said the cross-sectional profile required is required by the extent of lands included within the CPO. On a further question for Mr. Foley, Mr. Healy said that they were not proposing to carry out any works in the lands but the land was important for the full capacity of the channel to be reached in that area. He said the adequacy of the channel of a river relies on cross-sectional area with other factors associated as well but in the particular case the existing profile needs to include the lands contained within the CPO.
Mr. Foley stated that Mr. Healy had already said that the cross-section on Plot 18a is sufficient and that the purpose of the CPO is for river works and containment measures. Mr. Healy said that the need for the land arises to
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
maintain the cross-section capacity of the channel. At this point Mr. Lauder, Engineer for Ms. Gaule, referred to Drawing B237-132 to be taken along with Drawing B237-P03. The Inspector asked was the same point being made for adjacent sites, for instance Plot 19a. Ms. Eithne Carey stated her father Ruairi de Buitléar lived two doors down and the plots in that case were 14a and 14b. She said that there were no retaining walls at that point and it didn’t flood in the last flood because the house was built after 1965 and was 18 inches above the previous flood level. Ms. Carey asked why the CPO and why does the Council have to own it instead of the residents.
Mr. Foley said he wished to ask why was Ms. Gaule’s land required which included lands running from Plot 18a through her portion of Plot O2g and to O2i. Mr. Foley said that the best answer he had heard to date was that there was a maintenance requirement. He said that if there was a maintenance requirement his client was perfectly happy granting access for that maintenance. The point was put to Mr. Healy again and he said the land was required to maintain the cross-section. He said if the cross-section was to be affected in any way or for whatever reason in the future then the capacity of the channel in that instance could be affected and therefore impact on the potential for flooding. He said there was a requirement to actually secure the corridor to ensure the channel maintained its capacity over the entire extent of the flood defences.
Mr. Foley asked if consistent monitoring of the channel since 1989 had indicated any degradation in close to 20 years. Mr. Healy said he couldn’t quite comment on that because he didn’t have an exact profile going back 20 years. Mr. Foley stated that Plot 18a runs back past the chain link fence installed by the Council at the top of the embankment which they built some 5 or 6 metres into the back garden. He said if the existing cross-section was being maintained why is it necessary to take that much of the back garden to keep what is already there in place.
Mr. Healy said it was the extent of the profile in that garden that is needed to be maintained. He said on surveying the property in question they found that there was a bunding arrangement or a side embankment. Mr. Foley asked why it was necessary to go further back. While Mr. Healy was checking the matter the question of Plot 17z was raised which is listed as a temporary acquisition. Mr. Healy said that he would need to check the profiles to see why that was a temporary take and not a permanent take.
Mr. Foley said the CPO went into Ms. Gaule’s back garden about 5 metres behind the chain link fence. He said either the profile provides sufficient protection that you want to maintain or you want in the future to do something completely different. Mr. Healy said that there was a requirement for future maintenance of the existing profile. Mr. Foley said the Council put the cross- section into effect in 1989 and he wished to know why land behind the cross- section is required. Mr. Healy said there would be a need for a maintenance strip where there is an embankment of that nature.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Foley asked why it could not be accessed from the riverbank and he referred to the photographs produced. Mr. Healy said it was a steep embankment. Mr. Foley replied that he wondered why it was necessary to take someone’s back garden to work down instead of not taking the back garden and walking across the bank and working up. Mr. Healy said it was because there was a need to get access for future maintenance. Mr. Healy said the reason for not doing any works in the area is because the current cross- sectional profile is sufficient and if that cross-sectional profile changed in any way it could have a significant impact on the capacity of the channel.
Mr. Keane confirmed that he would not require formal proof of the photographs being submitted by Mr. Foley. (Photographs submitted are tabbed SUB 01)
Mr. Foley asked what works would be relevant towards maintenance. Mr. Healy stated that there would be clearing of vegetation which would involve the potential impact for some of the vegetation which could interfere with flows at a later stage. Mr. Foley stated there was a geo-textile membrane installed on the embankment by the Local Authority and asked was that taken into account when it was decided to compulsory purchase his clients land. Mr. Healy said that until he received Mr. Foley’s submission he wasn’t aware of works that were carried out.
5.4.3(a)Mr. Lauder asked Mr. Healy questions in relation to Ms. Gaule’s property as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 179 to 185)
Mr. Lauder asked Mr. Healy questions in relation to Section 006 on Drawing B237-132 and pointed out that at the request of the County Council in 1989 Ms. Gaule permitted them to cut back approximately 13 metres to give a vastly larger profile. He said there was 13 metres width and it was possible to drive a truck down it. He said there would be at least 20 to 25% greater capacity with the additional 13 metres on the same below level riverbank. Mr. Healy said there was 159 sections taken over the entire length. Mr. Lauder said the question was that a different profile which was a much smaller channel than his client’s area appeared to be deemed adequate. He said it would make far more sense to try and work from the riverbank unless there is some other reason as to why the Council are taking the land.
He asked if the future Dargle Walk referred to by both planners was covered. Mr. Healy said the overall capacity of the river could not be calculated or estimated on the basis of individual parts. Mr. Healy said it needed to be taken on the entirety of the length which was the reason for building a 3.9 kilometre model for the river. Mr. Lauder said the particular profile (006) is about 15 metres south of Miss Gaule’s garden. He said all the banks above the garden were reduced in 1989 and there didn’t seem to be a logical reason why they would take the land on the CPO. Mr. Healy said he wished to repeat it was based on the overall entirety and to look at one cross-section would be inappropriate.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
By way of clarification the Inspector, Mr. Lauder said that he estimated the top of the bank at Ms. Gaule’s garden to be at minus 21 metres on Section 006. He said on that particular section the bank would start at minus 21 metres (horizontally from the centreline) and go down to maybe 20 or 19 metres quite steeply. He clarified that the estimation was that at the flood defence level of 6.95 metres OD, the water level would intersect the bank at minus 20 metres from the centre line. Mr. Lauder said the chainlink fence would be between 21 and 22 metres and he said the acquisition being sought was between 5 and 6 metres beyond that.
Mr Lauder said that the Council claim to own the lower piece is incorrect and his point was that the Council were seeking to take a piece of land they didn’t need in the first place.
The Inspector sought clarification in relation to the CPO and Mr. Healy said that he would first of all acknowledge that the land in question within plots 02b and 02i may well lie within the ownership of Ms. Gaule. This was acknowledged in the CPO as referring to owner / reputed owner. He said Bray Town Council would be happy to rectify the schedule on that basis. He said also that Bray Town Council would be more than happy having acquired the land to enter into an agreement with individual owners that they would maintain all the rights that they enjoy at the moment in other words that access would not be impacted upon but the Bray Town Council would retain ownership of the land.
5.4.3(b)Mr. Foley asked Mr. Healy further questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 185 – 193).
Mr. Foley had asked the question of Mr. Healy in relation to Plot 02g, 02i and 18a. Mr. Healy stated all three plots would be required to be secured under the CPO. He said if the landowners were willing to enter into agreements at all plots of land identified the enjoyment of the amenities as currently exists to the riparian owners could be continued. Mr Foley asked about the nature of the maintenance carried out at present and what was needed in the future. Mr. Healy said the maintenance would be general landscaping and ensuring there was nothing interfered with on the piece of land that could potentially interfere with the flood capacity at a later stage. Mr. Foley asked why 5 metres was required into the back garden to maintain an embankment. Mr. Healy said maintenance may not always imply physical work and cited that planting could weaken the embankment but that Bray Town Council who are disposed to agreeing an appropriate level of landscaping to all the riparian owners along the way. He said for instance works could be carried out to the low level embankment that could actually weaken or disablise the embankment and therefore affect the adequacy of the channel.
By way of clarification following questions from the Inspector, Mr. Healy stated that where physical works were required a different type of access may be required and land was being secured differently in these cases.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Lauder drew attention to the photographs and also to his report which is on file XA 0001. He explained that on Page 3 of 6 of his report dated 7th September 2007, a panoramic view of the river looking downstream indicated a 1 metre high garden wall at the top of the bank and a geotextile lining running to the lower level beside the river. He stated that in other gardens there were stone gabions and given the works that were carried out on what was called Contract 2 he was surprised that the Local Authority had no record of works. The locations of Plots 02g and 02i were explained by Mr. Foley. Mr. Keane has stated that the boundaries would be corrected and ownership adjusted on the schedule for the CPO.
5.4.3(c)Mr. Lauder commented (Transcript Day 1 – Page 202/3) that in Profile 006 it was important to state the original profile in 1986 did not overflow and the flooding was as a result the bridge being blocked but that the original profile was adequate to take the flow of water before any remedial works or widening took place and he considered that was extremely important.
5.4.4 Ms. Carey asked questions of Mr. Healy in relation to Plots 14c and 14d as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 193-194).
Ms. Carey stated cross-section 006 previously referred to was taken exactly at her father’s property (Mr. Ruairi de Buitléar). She said the explanation given was that some small trees were being removed and that the compulsory purchase line went between 6 and 8 metres further than the required flood defence level. Ms. Carey said the third and fourth generation were now using the river as an amenity and she wished to know why the Town Council needed to own the land. She stated that there was no chain link fence at her father’s garden and no work was carried out except deepening the centre of the river after the last flood. Ms. Carey said her father had cultivated and landscaped the garden now right down to the river.
5.4.5 Mr. John O’Sullivan asked questions of Mr. Healy in relation to Plot 14a as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 194-195)
Mr. O’Sullivan has stated he was representing Ms. Ailbhe de Buitléar and the issue was similar to the previous questions. He said he would be showing some photographs later in evidence but wished to have it mentioned at that point.
5.4.6 Mr. Dermot Collins, Killarney Glen asked questions in relation to Plot 16a and 16b as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 195-203)
Mr. Dermot Collins stated he was representing Bernard Collins. He said he noted that the Council seriously wanted to keep the river available to the people of Bray and he wished to ask why they saw it fit to take away a right- of-way which the Collins family had across the river. Mr. Collins explained to the Inspector that that was the old bridge across the river which collapsed in
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
the flood of 1986. He said it would adjoin parts of Plots 16b to Plot 21a. Mr. Keane asked was that an access track going across Plot 16a. Mr. Collins said that was correct and 16a would contain the bridge abutment on the south side of the riverbank. Mr. Keane said from a legal point of view if the bridge collapsed for the last 21 years a right-of-way would collapse with it. Mr. Collins said that the right-of-way is used. He said they walked it in summer when the levels were low and they walked across the river. He said they wished to keep it open. Mr. Collins said it was the right-of-way to the river and to the Dargle Road. Mr. Collins said that Mr Healy had said that he wanted people to have the amenity but they were being denied as the right-of- way was being taken away. By reply Mr. Keane said there was no actual proposal to extinguish any right-of-way and he stated all the rights-of-way which were being extinguished where in the vicinity of Bray Bridge.
The Inspector clarified that what Mr. Collins was saying that there existed a right-of-way in addition to the ownership of the land at the particular point (16a, b) Mr. Collins said originally the Lower Dargle Road was the entrance to the property across the old bridge which passed by the Dargle/Bray laundry. He said they currently had services along that line namely ESB and water.
Mr. Keane said there was no proposal to extinguish a right-of-way at that location. He said that was not to say that it was accepted whether the right-of- way exists but they were not seeking to extinguish any right-of-way at that location.
Mr. Healy referred to Drawing B237-120 and also B237-132. He said the works in the area on what was called a south bank was shown in cross-section on Drawing 132. He said Section 005 was the relevant section and this involved a large amount of excavation on the south side of the river on Mr. Collins property side. He said there is an existing retaining wall on the north side. Mr. Keane added at this point that the excavation would include the old approach that would have been to the bridge. Mr. Collins said the access lane from Dargle Road along the side of what is now Riverdale to a bridge abutment on the north side. He said the bridge abutment was accompanied by a corresponding abutment on the south side which is shown where the excavation marks are on the map.
Mr. Collins confirmed to the Inspector that without a bridge the route would have to avoid the abutment. Mr. Collins said they used it regularly for maintenance purposes and accessed it beside Riverdale. He noted that on the south bank it was proposed to infill the Rehills field with tailings from the river which would raise the field by 1 metre in height. Mr. Healy said that the profile on the north side was such that there is a significant retaining wall extending into the bridge abutment. He said the bridge abutment is a significant drop and it would be of the order of over 3 metres. He said to use the existing right-of-way that is there requires the accessing to the abutment dropping down the 3 ½ metres and then wading across.
5.4.7 S.W.A.P. asked questions of Mr. Healy as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 204-214).
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Noeleen McManus of the organisation S.W.A.P said she had a few questions to ask before she introduced Mr. Barr who had come over from Glasgow. She said he had come to do an independent survey of the flood proposals and protection works because of concerns that were expressed many times that this was not a truly independent survey of the river as it was designed more with the protection of a future development than with the community in mind. Ms. McManus said they were very much in favour of flood protection works and had been asking for them for 21 years.
Ms. McManus stated she wished to ask a number of questions as a lay person. She referred to the first public consultation day of October of 2005 when there was effectively no consultation and no information given. She said the second question related to the questionnaires on which the argument for the expressed preference for Option 3 was being made and not for the flood protection upstream. She said because information was not being adequately given they did not understand the importance of the dam upstream and they were learning about it as they went along.
Ms. McManus said it was finally understood how important it was when Mr. Joyce and Mr. Sherlock of the OPW addressed a public meeting and they were able to ask questions about exactly what was involved. She said they went away happiest when it was clear that there was a proposal to put a dam and culvert upstream because if that happened then the water wouldn’t come down to them and not go through the houses and gardens and lands. Ms. McManus asked why there was a sheet-pile wall along the golf club lands to stop water seeping from the river into the golf club lands. Mr. Healy said the purpose of the sheet-pile wall was to cut off seepage of water into the area as there was a connectivity between the tide and the ground in the golf club lands. Ms. McManus said they wanted the water to go from the river into the golf club lands because if it wasn’t able to it would come into their homes, either in Seapoint Court or in the Maltings or in the Little Bray. She asked why were the golf club lands being protected when there was no building on it.
Mr. Healy said the water was not water from over pumping of the river but actually water that would come in and that could potentially seep into the golf club lands. Ms. McManus said that Mr. Glynn had referred to a sponge effect in the golf club lands and she said if the water didn’t go there the water had to go somewhere else. Ms. McManus asked why the land was being protected that had no permission to be built on and by so doing endangering the communities further. Mr. Healy said the golf club lands are zoned for development and just like all other areas of Bray they are entitled to full protection as well. He said they were providing sheet-piling to the opposite bank for very same reason which was lateral seepage and the same need arose there. Ms. McManus referred to the issue of floodplains and said that Dr. John O’Sullivan had stated that it was a floodplain.
Ms. McManus asked why the golf club lands were being protected when there was no protection to the Slang where there are no houses. Mr. Healy said the defences at the Slang are contained within the channel cross-section profiles
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
that are being proposed. He said they were not proposing the water could flow out from the Slang. On a further question from Ms. McManus, Mr. Healy said the flood defence scheme required a protection of areas from the N11 bridge down to the harbour. Ms. McManus said they only needed protection if permission was given to build on the floodplain. Mr. Healy said it would be normal practice for a flood defence scheme is being implemented where lands are zoned for development within that reach that the appropriate flood defences would be provided within the scheme and that is why they were providing it.
5.4.7(a)Mr. Kenneth Barr asked questions of the Local Authority witnesses on behalf of S.W.A.P as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 218-233).
Mr. Barr stated he was a Chartered Engineer based in Glasgow. He referred firstly to Page 4 on Mr. Healy’s submission referring to the production of a Constraints Report and was there a consideration of the geomorphology of the catchment and the sediment generated. Mr. Healy said that as part of the Constraints Report issues were identified that might become constraints. He said later on they investigated what work the Local Authority may have done on maintenance at excavation to get some historical knowledge of sediment deposits in the catchment over a number of years. He said records of Local Authority excavations at the Slang area were referred to and this area is a sediment trap. At this point Dr. O’Sullivan added that generally a geomorphology analysis was undertaken on the catchment which endeavoured to examine all the engineering measures involving regarding to ensure that the existing channel gradient as it existed was maintained. He said the existing channel gradient had shown over the years that there is not a huge build up of sediment.
He referred to the sediment trap at the Slang and this was emptied every year but there is no evidence to suggest that there are huge sediments settling out. He said any sediment does settle out would suggest that there is a reconfiguring flow which washes it out to the harbour. He said sediments moving in a channel would be considered to be reasonably positive from an environment prospective. He said they were trying the keep the gradient the same and also trying to keep the average velocity the same but they were also conscious of the fishery measures referred to by Dr. O’Grady in his evidence. He said in the context of all the measures a decision was taken by the technical steering group that the detailed geomorphological analysis would be required to be undertaken at the detailed assigned stage for the process.
Mr. Barr asked a question of the existing situation and it was confirmed to him that there was an existing sediment trap at the Slang from which sediment is removed. He asked was that actually quantified in relation to the volume of sediment other than what has been taken out of the sediment trap. Dr. O’Sullivan said the detailed geomorphological analysis would look at the overall sediment of the entire catchment and the potential there would be put into it at a storm event.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Barr asked a question in relation to retaining the existing gradient of the channel and the differences between areas. Dr. O’Sullivan said that for particular sections of the channel the gradient was maintained although at a lower absolute level and that was what was endeavoured to be done in the reaches of the river proposed for works. Mr. Barr asked was the enhancement referred to referring to the upstream storage in the second phase or was it the raising of defences. Mr. Joyce said that the structure levels for defence walls were stipulated in that the foundations and the reinforcing to the wall would be sufficient to take not only the increased height in the wall but the increased pressure from an increased water level. Dr. O’Sullivan added that urbanisation tends to encroach quite close to the channel at many points and the scope does not exist for very large works outside that area.
Mr. Barr said he wished to ask questions on the options selection process and asked would a flood defence scheme in two phases be difficult to justify because the second phase does not provide an incremental cost benefit analysis over the first phase. He said that experience in other jurisdictions appeared to suggest that. Mr. Joyce said he did not see a difficulty in that case because the primary concern was the potential loss of life. He said the project was started to design to the Irish National Standards. The risk in Bray was found to be particularly acute and the choice was then to delay the whole process to make a submission to alter the standards to accommodate it or to run with the process to produce the scheme to the design standards and then look at a second scheme. He said that there may be some element of increased cost in that but he believes it is easily justified based on bringing the scheme ahead of the delayed scenario.
Mr. Barr asked were there other places in the state which has a flood protection standard less than the national standard and how would the second phase of a scheme for Bray be prioritised against other locations. Mr. Joyce said there were a number of obvious indicators including the rate to which the river rises which gives an indication of how much time people have to react. He also noted that the depths that houses flood is another indicator and the fact that in Little Bray there are a number of one storey houses which are potentially more dangerous than two-storey houses. he said the fact that it was in something like a bowl, the speed at which it could flood and the energy of the water makes Bray quite different to most other locations.
Mr. Barr referred to page 9 of Mr. Healy’s submission and the finally selected Option 3, Variation E. He noted that it had the second lowest cost benefit ratio and the reply was that the considerations such as loss of life was put over and above cost. Option 2 is stated to have a more negative impact than other options from a visual and amenity point of view. Mr. Joyce stated that for the preferred option the flood levels are relatively low in comparison to other options. He said for containment only it could be cheaper but if the depths of the flooding was a metre or a metre and a half higher the natural failure would basically set up a serious risk of loss of life.
Mr. Barr noted that what was being talked about was the residual risk after the defences are built because of the risk involved in failing. He though that that
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
did not really come out in the EIS but he would agree it was a very important point. He asked was it normal practice to protect land zoned for development but not yet developed. Mr. Healy said that was the case and the protection to be provided is through the entirety of Bray and it was a requirement that all lands in lower Bray would be protected. Mr. Barr said he was struggling to understand the need to protect something that doesn’t exist yet and Mr. Healy said the lands were zoned for future development so there was a need arising from that to protect future development.
In relation to a further question on the need for this provision, Mr. Healy said what was actually been done is while not formalising the channel you could loose efficiency in the capacity of the channel. He said that by being able to protect along a line of the channel at this time they were able to identify what the capacity of the channel would be. He said there could be greater energy losses in the area if the golf club lands were not protected. Dr. O’Sullivan added that the storage component of the floodplain is bounded on the eastside by the railway embankment, on the north by a high ridge and on the west at an elevated level compared with the grounds of the floodplain itself. He said that if the water did make its way into the floodplain it has to come back through the bridge.
Mr. Barr said apart from hydraulics was it considered not protecting the area. Dr. O’Sullivan said it became apparent in the analysis that shutting off a significant portion of the floodplain because it wasn’t contributing much in the volumetric attenuation of the peak improved the energy of the flow as it passed into Bray Harbour. Dr. O’Sullivan said also that the land was zoned for town centre meant that its value was at a premium in terms of the cost of it. This impacted in the cost benefit analysis.
Mr. Barr asked had an allowance been made in cost benefit assessment for damage to something that doesn’t exist. Dr. O’Sullivan said he was saying that if the land were to be used for storage it would have happened in the CPO process. Mr. Joyce stated that he had discussions with Dr. O’Sullivan in relation to the water energy situation. He said there was a peculiar position leading into the bridge in that any waters making their way back to the river from the golf club land would actually interfere with the efficiency of the river at that location. He said he had practical physical example of this happening in another location where water coming across a low flood plain reduced the energy in the river to such a degree that the resistance values were very high in the channel to explain it. He said in the 1965 flood the energy was so low that it built up a significant amount of gravels upstream. Mr. Joyce described the sequence of events in a typical flood and the impact of storage. He said that the impact from the storage viewpoint would be millimetres and his opinion was that conveyance-wise if it was left open conveyance would be worsened.
Mr. Barr asked how the loss of energy caused by the connection between a floodplain and the river was evaluated. The reply was that the HECRAS model was allowing an exchange of fluid above the level of the existing Ravenswell Road wall. The water coming from a width which was contracting into the bridge was a higher water level than when water got
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
conveyed down the channel in the approach channel. Dr. O’Sullivan said that the portion of the floodplain below Ravenswell Road was represented as storage and above Ravenswell Road as conveyance. He said they considered that in times of peak flow the Dargle River within the catchment would probably have a very high-energy flow and the water in the floodplain would be a much lower energy. He said he though it behaved very similar to a vertical barrier at the interface between Ravenswell Road that separates the main channel and the floodplain. He said that the difference in water level wasn’t hugely significant but it was measurable. In reply to further questions from Mr. Barr, Dr. O’Sullivan said that one of the issues was with the Railway Bridge and it would be something that would be problematic to change.
Mr. Barr asked about the drag effect of the flow and the possibility of causing eddies and Dr. O’Sullivan said that that necessarily wouldn’t be a likely scenario by the velocity gradient between the floodplain that is storing water and the channel conveying water. He said the HECRAS modelling would not be taking account of those energy losses in the scheme as it was a one- dimensional model. Mr. Joyce added that the calculation could be actually be worse than the one which was performed. Mr. Joyce said if one sees it as potentially having a flow that comes in and then access at the river again just upstream of the bridge there is another 32 or 35 degrees skew to the bridge. He said its energy however small, impacts the energy in the river and reduces its efficiency. He said either way it is miniscule. He said the objective was to achieve the 100 year standard with some combination of the engineering measures. He said they had achieved the 100 year standard.
5.4.7(b) Mr. Barr asked further questions to Mr. Healy, Dr. O’Sullivan and Mr. Joyce as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 16 to 37)
Mr. Barr said that based on previous questions the concern was that the flow of the golf club lands will interfere with the flow passing through the Bridge. Dr. O’Sullivan said that the difference was not huge but was observable and that it was something in the order of 0.1 metres. Mr. Barr asked how was that represented in a one-dimensional model and Dr. O’Sullivan said the preliminary work was done when the impact of the storage effects from the golf course lands were assessed. The difference in water levels in the reach from Bray Bridge to Bray Harbour was of the order of 10 millimetres. In reply to further questions from Mr. Barr, Dr. O’Sullivan said that a more sophisticated model would be useful for looking at floodplain attenuation effects and the results presented in the EIS would be proved by a physical model to provide certainty in the areas where a one-dimensional model provided uncertainties. He confirmed to Mr. Barr that physical modelling is to go ahead as part of the detail of the design.
Mr. Barr asked was the effect on storage on the golf club lands assessed by looking at the hydrograph as opposed to running a model in dynamic mode. Dr. O’Sullivan said it was based on hydrograph analysis.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Barr referred to Measure A5 for Seapoint estate defences and asked about the level involved. Mr. Healy confirmed that this was 5 metres at the specific request of the residents of Seapoint Court. Mr. Barr dew attention to Section 034 which is also shown on Drawing No. 0112 and the section of which is on Drawing No. 141. He noted that the end of the 5 metre embankment linked with a wall on Section 033 at 4.4 metres. Mr. Barr noted that if the river did rise to a level between 4.34 and 5 metres it would overtop the defences upstream at Seapoint Court and the water would then pass into Seapoint Court. Mr. Healy said the 5 metre level is not what is actually needed and was as a result of a specific request.
Mr. Barr asked about the series of different conjunctive probability events and asked which was the critical event at Seapoint Court and the golf club lands. Dr. O’Sullivan said the tidal condition of 3.5 metres is the dominant factor. He said the change point was very close to the harbour.
Mr. Barr referred to the EIS and Figure 5.5.9 on page 203. Following a number of questions from Mr. Barr, Dr. O’Sullivan explained the difference in the shading between the impacts of the river and tidal flooding and accepted that the diagram was confusing. Mr. Barr referred it to the escape route for water passing through Little Bray in the Hurricane Charlie event (EIS pages 200/201) and asked how the flow rate had been determined. Dr. O’Sullivan said that the dynamics of the flood were complex and uncertainties did exist in trying to piece together events which occurred some time ago. He said the HECRAS model of Little Bray and its flow paths into the golf club lands was constructed and they tried to calibrate that model to the eyewitness observations of the water levels. Dr. O’Sullivan described the approach taken and agreed with Mr. Barr that this was tied into the eyewitness accounts. Mr. Barr asked a question regarding the flow route through Little Bray and the flow channel being provided through the golf club lands. He noted it was not presented in the drawings at that time.
Dr. O’Sullivan said the flow rate to be discharged would have to be proved through the physical modelling exercise and would have to be done at detailed design stage. Mr. Healy added that there was one big difference between an actual failure after the scheme and the condition that occurred during Hurricane Charlie. He said Bray Bridge is a serious obstruction and water levels are quite a bit higher upstream of it than downstream of it. He said it was a natural failure condition when the scheme is in place and a flood bigger than the design flood comes down then the level would obviously be smaller than the same flood coming down now without the scheme. He said he was careful to ensure that when looking for a physical model that they were looking for a number of things in relation to the issues including estimates of the flow that run through under present conditions.
Mr. Barr stated that of greater importance to SWAP was the escape route as it saved them from a worse flood in 1986. Mr. Joyce said that walls were designed to engineering standards to ensure they did not fail and a natural failure condition represented by a flood significantly larger than the design flood is being looked at or will be looked at in the physical model that has
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
been specified. He said he agreed with people in Little Bray that their flood level was lowered by the fact that the mechanisms exist. Mr. Joyce said going to a post scheme condition that running defences upstream and along by the park does not defend Little Bray and you have to have defences downstream of Castle Street. He said to ensure a clean left side of the flow channel and because of the very small impact of storage, they were running the defence straight down.
Mr. Barr said he would agree that the problem would exist whatever the alignment is and the escape route and flood valves were essential. He said what he was trying to clarify were the concerns that the residents have if the route was not sufficient. Mr. Joyce said the ability for Little Bray itself to let the flow go through is one of the governing factors and the amount of water that can get over Castle Street is also a governing factor. He said the intention was to ensure that the culverts that are being put in will not be the restrictive part of the mechanism. He said OPW were careful to ensure that it would not be the weak link.
Mr. Barr asked about return period. Mr. Joyce said that rather than talking in terms of return period it would depend whether it occurred before or after the second scheme got designed and built. He said under the present circumstances you would be looking at something in the order of 300 years if you did not have an upstream storage shutting it down. If the scheme itself was in place you would be looking at a 300 year flood. He said it was designed for 100 year and a significantly larger flood would run through it. Mr. Joyce said the flow value would be a much higher return period in the future with the second scheme designed and constructed.
Mr. Barr referred to the removal of 160,000m3 of soil referred to on page 16 of Mr. Healy’s brief of evidence and asked was there an estimate of the volume of material to be removed on an ongoing basis. Mr. Healy said there was not at present. Mr. Barr asked about the silt and debris traps referred to on page 200 of the EIS and the maintenance of these. Mr. Healy confirmed that Bray Town Council would be responsible and that a 1.5% estimate of the total scheme cost for annual maintenance was following discussions on costings and future costings and maintenance.
Mr. Barr referred to the impact of the European Community Water Framework Directive (WFD) he expressed surprise that the EIS had very little reference to the WFD. Mr. Joyce said there was a lot of legislation under water framework issues both European and Irish and he considered that health and safety legislation is paramount so that under health and safety the recognition that maintenance is essential to ensure the standard of scheme is one which you can justify maintenance.
Mr. Barr asked about the reference to a freeboard level of 0.5 metres on page 200 of the EIS. Dr. O’Sullivan said that that related to the OPW standards and that that should be applied to what was called soft defences and a figure of 0.3 would be applied to hard defences. He said the OPW had a number of figures for freeboard for coastal conditions which were 2.5 feet or 0.76 metres. Mr.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Joyce said that in Bray 0.76 metres applies to coastal with significant wind direction and is a different issue.
5.4.8 Ms. Woodfull asked questions to Mr. Healy as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 57-79)
Ms. Woodfull said she wished to ask questions about the right-of-way issue. She asked Mr. Healy who owned the land that are the abattoir lands. Mr. Healy said he believed that these were owned by Pizarro. There was some discussion about the relevance of a planning application for an apartment development on this site. Mr. Keane said he thought it was not relevant to the scheme. He said the position of the Council was that the Council could not concede the existence of a right of way over someone else’s land. He said the Council could not provide access for members of the public to go through Pizarro’s land at the abattoir site in the absence of any evidence. He stated that the function of the Board could not also determine that the right exists.
It was established by Mr. Keane that the right of way was along by the river and that the right of way been spoken about was separate. Ms Woodfull said that based on the evidence of Mrs. Morris and Ms. Tunney would involve starting on the walkway and drop across the abattoir lands. Ms. Woodfull quoted cases included Hamden -v- Musgrove and Ray -v- Elmbrook Park. She said that in addition to knowing that the path had been used for at least 20 years, people had told her stating that it was used years ago well before that point. She said the CPO order refers to the extinguishment of three rights of way when in fact there are four. Ms. Woodfull said she was asking the question as to who benefited from the extinguishment of the right of way and that Pizarro would actually get a site that was free of a right of way.
Ms. Woodfull asked was there a public roadway on part of the right of way which crosses at the last section of Milton Terrace. Mr. Healy said that he was not sure if you would define it as a roadway but there was certainly an access which was quite steep. Ms. Woodfull said there was a small cottage which backs onto the right of way which had a previous entrance along the roadway. Mr. Healy said he had never noted one way or the other whether the walkway was publicly used.
Mr. Keane questioned the relevance of the question and Ms. Woodfull quoted McDermot and Wolfe (Page 234) which referred to the requirement that any alternative methods of meeting community needs had to have been considered but were not available. She asked how the Council had complied with that requirement in terms of consultation in relation to the issue. Mr. Healy said he was party to the public presentation of the scheme on the 1st August 2007. He said at that point that they presented the entire scheme and there were slides in terms of the CPO issues. He said that there were some questions asked but he could not recall if there were any asked about right of way issues.
Ms. Woodfull asked if the existing right of way from Seapoint Court to Seapoint Road would be maintained by the new walkway. Mr. Healy said that if there was an established right of way and the agreement of existing
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
landowners, the scheme would not prevent the possibility of right of way being incorporated. He said he was aware there was a form of access way and that it could be opened to vehicular use.
It was clarified to the Inspector that Drawing B237-01 was being used as a reference that the pathway used went across lands where there were two structures and these were the abattoir lands. Ms. Woodfull said that with the Councils proposals, people would no longer be physically able to turn left because of the construction of a wall and new design. At this point Mr. Keane said that there was a gap between the boundary of house No. 18 and the edge of the CPO. He said that if there was a right of way there appeared to be ample space to continue unimpeded by any works proposed as part of the scheme. He said the Council works would be confined to the CPO boundary. It was also confirmed that Sections 033 and 034 were either side of the abattoir site. There was some discussion as to the levels involved and the possibility of going from the river walk to the land adjacent. It was established that properties between 03y and 03b are listed as being properties of Pizarro Developments.
Mr. Keane said that the Council would provide steps or otherwise inside the Councils lands if a new right of way were conceded by Pizarro Limited.
The matter was suspended at this point of the Hearing to allow discussion take place outside of the hearing between the Seapoint Court Residents and the Local Authority.
5.4.8 (Continued) Ms. Woodfull asked a further question of Mr. Healy as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 115-117)
Ms. Woodfull asked would there be increased flooding in Seapoint Court from the impermeable wall as it was low lying. Mr. Healy said there would not be increased flooding but that the tidal impact of 2.5 metres OD at the outfall would prevent water getting out during heavy rainfall and there was a potential for flooding to remain due to rainfall flooding. Ms. Woodfull asked that in addition to not building on the floodplain could Bray Town Council be conditioned to carry out the necessary works to minimise the effect of increased predicted flooding from rainfall at Seapoint Court. Mr. Healy said the basis on which the study was carried out was on fluvial and tidal flooding and the rainfall was part of the M. C. O’Sullivan study. He said the situation was no worse than the situation that pertained at that time. Ms. Woodfull said she was not aware that there had been significant flooding from rainfall and Mr. Healy said the reason that the back flap valve was put in was to prevent backflow of water coming in. He said it was the local authority informed them that there were a number of complaints.
5.4.9 Mr. John O’Sullivan, on behalf of Ms. De Buitléar asked questions of Dr. O’Sullivan as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 77-82)
Mr. O’Sullivan asked Dr. O’Sullivan about the continuously recording stations mentioned in his brief on Page 6, Dr. O’Sullivan confirmed that these were in
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
place for more than two and a half years and recommendations would be that historical records should extend beyond 10 years. He said that the flood studies report takes account of the fact that there are a significant number of catchments throughout the country that are ungauged and other methods on which to make an estimate of flow are given. He said in the EIS they had applied all of the appropriate hydrological restriction methods including an application of the data on the River Dodder because it satisfies what they call similar criteria. He said they had taken account of the standard in the flood studies report and all of the analyses combined to give a figure of 300m3/sec for a 100 year flood. In reply to a further question, Dr. O’Sullivan said the idea of equipping a site in an upstream and in a downstream reach would be very unusual but it had been recognised in that project that model calibration was a very important process. He said the process was established from a calibration prospective as opposed to a hydrological prospective. He agreed with Mr. O’Sullivan that it was a valid point to note that post 1986 the river had not been gauged.
Mr. O’Sullivan asked about the significance of Paddock Pond which was referred to in Page 8 of Dr. O’Sullivans brief of evidence. He asked if Dr. O’Sullivan had further thoughts having heard Ms. Power from Dargle Vale House during the hearing. Following further questions from Mr. O’Sullivan he said the impact of Paddock Pond was inconclusive. He quoted the statement made by Justice Lefoy in the court case following the flood and noted also that it would not be unusual to get sudden fluctuations of flood water arriving at the height of the natural flood.
In relation to a question on tidal information, Dr. O’Sullivan said that there was a gauge installed in the recent past in Bray Harbour and it was linked with the historical record taken at Alexander Quay in Dublin Port which extends back to before 1923 but was considered accurate from 1923. He said that enabled a comparison of the fluctuations in the tides to be compared with those in Dublin Port. He said there was an amphidromic point in Castletownsend in Cork. He said moving along the coast the peak in the tide decreases and the differences between the high and low point decrease and moving north of Dublin an increase would be expected. He said the tide occurring in Bray appears to be slightly lower in the peak than was occurring in Dublin.
5.4.10 Ms. Woodfull asked further questions of Mr. Healy and Dr. O’Sullivan as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 82-90)
Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Healy questions in relation to non-return valves and referred to Page 201 of the EIS. She noted the north side levels as 4.5metres OD and the south side being 5metres OD. Mr. Healy said that a question asked on the previous day of what happens with the existing outfall points to the river was relevant. He said historically there had been a problem with surcharging and in October 2006, the town council fitted a non-return valve to the outfall from Seapoint Court. He said he did not know if it had been fitted for one or two of the high tides expected at that time but it was in place for one
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
of them he understood. Ms. Woodfull asked would it be important there would be one in place to balance off and Mr. Healy said it would.
In relation to golf club lands after a number of questions from Ms. Woodfull Mr. Healy confirmed that the analysis was based on the golf club lands being a vacant site. He said it was protected on the basis of the zoning of the lands and no other known development.
Mr. Keane said that Pizarro Limited could suggest whatever they wished but any suggestion in relation to their development of the golf club lands would be the subject of a separate planning application which could involve and may well involve an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Mr. Healy confirmed to Ms. Woodfull that he worked for O’Connor Sutton Cronin. Ms. Woodfull said that she considered that the elephant in the room had stood up that day. She said she was simply asking a question which had been raised in a submission and it should be discounted as indeed should Mr. Jason Cooke’s submission which is well beyond the CPO on the Bray Defence Scheme. Ms. Woodfull asked was the scenario presented (by Pizarro) quite different to the scenario made in the assessment and in the EIS. Mr. Healy said what he had presented in the EIS involved the lands to be defended on the basis of being zoned for development. Ms. Woodfull asked why the use of the golf club lands was not reflected in the EIS or any of the options. Mr. Healy said it was included and that while the EIS clarifies how Option 3, Variation E was reached, Variation E included a number of variations A to E. Ms. Woodfull said she found the answer totally unsatisfactory.
Asking questions of Dr. O’Sullivan, Ms. Woodfull referred to Page 58 and Map 3.4 of the EIS and asked was the flooding indicated fluvial and tidal. Dr. O’Sullivan said one colour was blocking out another and maybe the drawing could have improved. He said what they were trying to do was identify the maximum area of flooding that could result.
Ms. Woodfull asked questions about upstream storage and Dr. O’Sullivan said the upstream storage works alone which was Option 4 if a sufficiently high dam was constructed could potentially fail. In option 4 the existing river downstream would be subject only to light maintenance.
Dr. O’Sullivan on a further question from Ms. Woodfull said that the analysis that was completed indicated that the storage potential of the lower tier of the golf club was not significant in terms of volume of water that was going to flood. He said there was an issue with the approach channel to Bray Bridge and there is a significant skew on the Harbour Bridge with respect to the flood direction as it comes down the existing channel. He said the golf club lands obviously provide conductivity from Little Bray into the river to circumvent Bray Bridge and the analysis undertaken was involved in attaining that conductivity and is an integral part of any development. If development were to happen on the golf club lands that conductivity would have to be maintained. He said he was not familiar with the submission of Pizarro.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.4 Questions were put to Dr O’Sullivan :
While Dr O’Sullivan answered quite a number of questions which were asked generally of the questions there were a number of questions specifically addressed to him.
5.5.1 Dr. Bruen asked Dr. O’Sullivan questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 206 and 207)
Dr. Bruen asked, given the erosive nature was the widening necessary for the protection of the site or for protection upstream. Dr. O’Sullivan said it was necessary for the protection of the site itself and as one went further upstream the level of the banks north and south increases further and the floodwater is contained within those banks.
5.5.1 (Continued) Dr. Bruen asked further questions of Dr. O’Sullivan as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 115 and 117 to 122)
Dr. Bruen asked Dr. O’Sullivan a question in relation to the HECRAS model and the effect of lowering the bed of the river by a metre. Dr. O’Sullivan said they compared pre and post scheme velocities to the river and they were found to be comparable. Dr. Bruen asked if the velocity increased would there be impacts on in stream ecology. Dr. O’Sullivan said that was discussed with the Central Fisheries Board and it was something they would be dealing with when they got to detailed design.
Dr. Bruen asked further questions in relation to the tide and the sediment deposition and Dr. O’Sullivan confirmed that they were aware that the current channel had a sediment trap which occurred naturally in the area of Rehills land or the Slang from where the velocity decreases and sediment settles out. He said they would anticipate the sediment trap would remain but in the redesigned configuration. He said the geomorphology would be dealt with in the detailed design stage when those components of the scheme are finalised.
In relation to hydrogeology, Dr. Bruen asked questions about the variation of water in the boreholes and the relationship with the level of water in the river. Mr. Healy said the information on the boreholes was that when the water rose in the river it rose in the boreholes and there was a conductivity between the two. Dr. Bruen asked about the possible impact of lowering the local groundwater level and subsidence impact. Mr. Healy referred to the conductivity between the borehole levels and the levels in the river.
Dr. Bruen asked Dr. O’Sullivan a question about the HECRAS model and the typical range of the factor n of Manning’s formula. Dr. O’Sullivan said the typical main channel value was 0.038 and he explained the variations in the assumption based on seasonal vegetative characteristics of the banks. He said the value varied up to 0.1 or further as far as 0.15.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Dr. Bruen asked questions about the HECRAS model as it applied through the golf club lands. Dr. O’Sullivan said it involved a culverted loop and involved the splitting of the water and the natural energy.
Dr. Bruen asked about a warning system that would trigger an emergency plan with particular reference to ongoing works when a flood occurred and Mr. Healy said the contractor would be conditioned that at no point would the risk of flooding be any greater than currently prevailed. In relation to the potential openings than machinery in the river, Mr. Healy said the intention was that the contractor will have to carry out in such a manner that he could not allow a potential risk. He said there would be measures in place such as temporarily demountable equipment to have some protection.
5.6 Questions were put to Mr Joyce:
Mr Joyce answered questions in relation to the scheme together with Mr Healy and Mr O’Sullivan but was asked specific questions also with particular reference to the OPW.
5.6.1 S.W.A.P asked questions of Mr. Joyce, OPW as follows:- (Transcript Day 1 –Pages 209-214)
Ms. McManus asked Mr. Joyce about the statement he made that in addition the option of offsetting possible climate change increases by upstream storage is also available and is being held open. She said they were promised a two stage flood protection in 1986 and stage 2 never happened. Mr. Joyce said there were two other aspects of the study and that at the moment the scheme as proposed was to the national standard which is a 100 year for river floods and 200 year for tidal and also a number of very strict combined occurrences. He said at present they had another project looking at the use of upstream storage to increase the defences further for Bray. He said there is a third aspect in relation to climate change and he had to point out that there are changes in expert reports over short periods.
He said there are significant differences in relation to what is predicted and that is recognised that climate change is occurring but it is not clear what the actual effect will be. He said a scheme needs to be robust in an engineering way, be economically acceptable and also environmentally acceptable. He said if walls were 0.5 of a metre higher this would have lines of sight implication and there was a requirement to minimise impacts. He said OPW had a number of approaches and the two primary ones relate to measures that can be easily changed in the future when it is known what climate change is going to be. He said for the south-east side of the country it is quite contentious in relation to climate change and the report carried out by Maynooth University for the Department of the Environment says in the south-east of the country we are going to have significant increases in frequency in duration of drought and consequently smaller floods.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
He said the prediction was that for the north-west of the country there would be likely to be more severe floods than in the rest of the country. He said these were uncertainties.
Ms. McManus said that what had been agreed by Mr. Joyce was that if nothing is done with the river people would die and very vulnerable people in the community would die. She said why not put in place first the thing that might happen and might stop the water ever reaching them which was the upstream protection. She asked why it was first of all done principally next to a golf club land that is zoned for development. She said the flood protection being offered gives at least equal protection to a piece of land which had not been zoned while upstream the option of it never reaching the town is being ignored.
Mr. Joyce said that they had looked at a number of options one of which was storage and the one that won was on an environmental basis. He said they were going with a scheme that is to existing national standards and if they were to delay the process to look at even going beyond the existing standards one is actually continuing the risk longer. He said it is no less a scheme than they would roll out anywhere else and he considered it sensible to now examine the potential of increasing that standard beyond the national standard by hooking it up in storage and that reduces the period of time at which people are at risk.
Ms. McManus referred to public meaning and said that the upstream storage was part of the original scheme. Mr. Joyce said that the scheme being looked at now was not the same as what would have been seen as the storage option. It is the storage option as a complete option at a massive task of building an embankment somewhere in the order of 17 or 19 metres. What was being looked at for example a 300 year flood what they wanted to do was to store enough to convert a 300 year flood into a 100 year flood so it could be safely handled in the town. It is a very different study to looking at upstream storage on its own.
5.6.2 Councillor O’Brien asked questions of Mr. Joyce and others as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 53-56)
Councillor Kieran O’Brien of Bray Town Council asked questions in relation to the maintenance of a scheme which he understood was up to 2.5 million euros per annum. Mr. Joyce stated that irrespective of how the scheme was funded the likelihood is that part of the contribution of the OPW would be the taking over of maintenance. He said it was not just a question of removal of gravel but the environmental impact has to be evaluated and they have experience in doing that.
Councillor O’Brien said he was pleased to hear that as the Bray budget was €11 million and maintenance would represent almost 25% of the total town budget. Mr. Joyce said that when a scheme was carried out the window for maintenance of about 50 years needs to be taken into consideration. He said
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
the cost of the scheme included an allowance for ongoing maintenance over the window of time. Councillor O’Brien asked a further question about maintenance and Mr. Joyce stated that the OPW had constructed quite a number of flood relief schemes and they were maintaining them and he stated the history of the organisation would indicate that they would maintain it.
Councillor O’Brien asked questions about rights of way which were answered by Mr. Keane and Mr. Healy. In relation to the right of way from Bray Bridge to Seapoint Court it was confirmed that this would be reinstated and in relation to a right of way at Ravenswell Road Mr. Healy said that was being widened into a bellowing kind of effect and it would be reinstated behind the widening. In relation to the right of way from Seapoint Road into the abattoir Mr. Healy said it had been discussed at the hearing and would be discussed later on.
5.6.3 Ms. Woodfull asked questions of Mr. Joyce as follows:- (Transcript Day 2- Pages 79-90)
Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Joyce about the options in relation to the use or non- use of floodplains. Mr. Joyce said that that was not only discussed but that they carried out calculations especially at the early stages because it was necessary to decide what type of model would be used. He said if there were very significant floodplains they would need to go for a dynamic model. He said the calculations carried out showed that the impact is only small which allowed them to make the decision of what type of model was used. Because the concerns of people in Bray were clear there was also a decision made at the steering level to ensure there would be a physical model if for no other purpose than to allay concerns.
Ms. Woodfull referred to the changes possible in the design in relation in particular to global warming. Mr. Joyce explained the philosophy which was the design flood being based on existing climate. He said it did not make good economic sense to spend exchequer money on a possibility or an “if”. He said they generally looked for a type of scheme that should climate change occur, it could be accommodated in a fashion that is economically and environmentally easy to so do.
Ms. Woodfull asked about the site which is shown empty at present and on which was an application before Bray Town Council for development. Mr. Joyce said he was aware that there was a plan for development but he had not examined it because it was not of interest. Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Joyce was he aware of previous application on the lands (golf club lands) and Mr. Joyce said he was. He agreed with Ms. Woodfull that at present it was being discussed as an empty site. He also stated that he understood the proposals had a large footprint.
Ms. Woodfull stated that the last development had a much higher level of building on the golf club lands side as opposed to the south side of the river. She asked was the integration of flood protection being done in the context of an empty space. Mr. Joyce said that was correct. Ms. Woodfull stated that the Pizarro submission raised the suggestion that the flood protection was not
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
going to happen unless they got permission. She quoted the part of the submission which stated “in this regard we note the proposed embankment in form will no longer be required once the golf club lands are redeveloped as this area will be incorporated into any future development of the golf club lands”. Mr. Joyce said that the scheme as proposed had a defence along the face of it. He said should the local authority agree with the owner of the land to swap that style of defence for a different one the two things that would matter would be firstly that it did not reduce the conveyance and that secondly during construction there were no unattended breaches left.
Ms. Woodfull asked would a development on the land affect the conveyance of water and Mr. Joyce said as the scheme was shown at the moment he did not believe so. He said if changes were such that it interfered with conveyance the proposers would be leaving themselves open to impacting the scheme which had flooding and risk of loss of life implications. He said this could not be done unless they could confirm to the satisfaction of the authorities that they would not be worsening the condition that would be created through the scheme.
Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Joyce if the scheme could change fundamentally. Mr. Joyce said it was not the flood relief scheme that would change. He said if any proposed developments occur or impacted what has been guaranteed by the change there would not be a right to make that change. He said that the scheme could easily be changed to account for climate change.
Regarding a question on funding, Mr. Keane said the calculations and negotiations were commercially sensitive and most importantly he considered they were outside the scope of the environmental impact assessment. Mr. Keane added that the flood defences alongside the existing golf club lands would be constructed on land which was subject to CPO by the Council and accordingly no third party would have any right to come in and change those. He said if an adjoining landowner such as Pizarro was to propose to construct something which is better and which at the very least provides exactly the same level of cover than that was something that might be considered by the Council. He said no third party, Pizarro or anyone else had any right or entitlement to change the flood defences.
Ms. Woodfull said the environmental impact specifically in relation to Seapoint Court was that changes could have implications and it could be different and may need to be changed if there is a different situation pertaining to this.
Ms. Woodfull asked a question in relation to the discussions about the floodplain. Mr. Joyce said it was discussed over a considerable length of time and he was happy with the discussions. Ms. Woodfull asked had the option of not building on the floodplain been examined. Mr. Keane said the do-nothing scenario had been considered and the do-nothing scenario includes the golf club lands as they currently are.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.6.4 Mr. Matthews asked Mr. Joyce questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 - Pages 90-91)
Mr. Steve Matthews asked Mr. Joyce about maintenance of the project. Mr. Joyce said there was a possibility that the works would actually be carried out by OPW but that the elements that are required to maintain it would be covered by the OPW.
5.6.6 Mr. O’Hare asked questions of Mr. Joyce as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 92-96)
Mr. O’Hare stated he did not have his objection lodged in time and it related to Plots 08b and 08a. He said he bought his house five years previously and spent a considerable amount of money and effort in creating a garden that is terraced in different levels to prevent the possibility of flooding. He stated that the previous day a member of the Council when looking at the map said the house would be flooded which he found hard to believe. He said there was no mention of coastal erosion in the evidence given in relation to the Bray Golf Club lands. He referred to the Pat Kenny radio programme and the reference to giving planning permission to build a shopping centre one and a half times the size of Dundrum Town Centre on a natural floodplain.
Mr. O’Hare asked Mr. Joyce about the rainfall levels in particular that in October / November of 2007 there was the lowest rainfall in thirty years. Mr. Joyce said that uncertainties were one of the biggest issues in relation to climate change but that predictions made in 1998 were actually changed four years later. He said they would like if it was a situation that they did not have to go back in the future to increase the defences and while they were uncertain they needed to keep the possibility open to increase the conveyance to maintain the 100 year standard. He said the references that were given were studies by Maynooth University for the Department of the Environment and Mr. Joyce said he was aware that the Home Reports in the UK had a different expectation as to what happens in the south-east of Ireland. Mr. O’Hare said he strongly objected to the proposal that any part of his land was being sacrificed not for the saving of lives but for the building of a disaster waiting to happen which is the town centre and the golf club lands.
5.6.6 Mr. John O’Sullivan, on behalf of Ms. Ailbhe de Buitléar asked Mr. Joyce questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 96-98)
Mr. John O’Sullivan asked Mr. Joyce was there no gauge on the Dargle prior to 2004. Mr. Joyce said after 1986 a gauge was not put in but he could not comment. He said two stations would have to be left in now on a permanent basis. In relation to their location he said that one would give a record of what was happening on the tidal side and the other one further upstream in a location that was already used because that was preferable to starting a brand new one a little bit away from it. In relation to resources for Phase 2 of any works, Mr. Joyce said this section was a flood relief design section and this was one of a series of national schemes he was working on. In relation to
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
minutes of the steering committee, Mr. Keane stated he did not propose to provide these.
Mr. Joyce stated that he would have discussion specifically with Dr. O’Sullivan in relation to hydrology and hydraulics because it was his role to ensure standards.
5.6.7 Mr. Foley (on behalf of Ms. Gaule) asked Mr. Joyce questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 98-99)
Mr. Foley asked Mr. Joyce was he taking a worst-case scenario in the future and was he taking a long-term view. Mr. Joyce stated that one designs for what is known by way of existing information but you also run your best estimates of what the expected flow would be and the expected tidal conditions. Dr. O’Sullivan added that the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS) recommended a level of 4 metres be taken as the design tide level.
5.7 Questions were put to Dr O’Grady of the Central Fisheries Board- The questions put to Dr O Grady by a number of persons related specifically to fisheries issues.
5.7.1 Dr. Bruen put questions to Dr. O’Grady (Central Fisheries Board) as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 100-103)
Dr. Bruen asked Dr. O’Grady about the width of the channel and its adequacy. Dr. O’Grady said in the case of one section of the Slang they had asked that that be narrowed from the present width. In relation to a question on the channel from the Railway Bridge upstream which is artificial, Dr. O’Grady said that he had discussed it with Dr. O’Sullivan and he did not think it would be a problem to make it a little bit narrower in terms of the wet width for the summer channel. He said electric fishing had indicated that the section at Peoples Park had very large numbers of sea trout and further up at the higher gradient above the Slang the stocks were completely dominated by young salmon who like boulders through a rough sort of territory.
Dr. Bruen asked about the ability of the channel to keep cleaning itself. Dr. O’Grady said he though it was something that could be designed around and he though that the Council would need to retain a functional gravel trap at the Slang. He said if the silt built up on the berm which would be dry in summer time it could be removed to a particular level as long as it was above summer water height. He said he did not see it a significant problem that boulders might be placed within the summer channel.
Dr. Bruen asked about the removal of the small weir between Bray Bridge and the Railway Bridge. Dr. O’Grady said that did not concern him in the sense that it might make this passage easier. He said if they came in at the tail end
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
of a tide and found that the water was very low, they would simply tail back to the harbour and beyond to wait for a next rising tide or a flood to bring them through the section. He cited experience in the Galway fishery below the weir in Galway City.
Dr. Bruen asked about the limit of seawater coming in during tides and if that were to change following the development. Dr. O’Grady said it would probably not be an issue but it would have an effect. He said he thought that if the tidal effect was to extend further upstream the fish would respond to that by simply moving further up into the fresh zone as they did not seem to like to stay in brackish water for any length of time. He said he did not see it hindering their passage.
5.7.1 (Continued) Dr. Bruen asked a further question of Dr. O’Grady as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Page 107)
Dr. Bruen asked about the importance of the summer channel meandering within the course of the current channel. Dr. O’Grady said it was importantly firstly that the actual channel is a sinuous line of deep flow which is called a Talweg and it tends to meander towards one bank across towards the opposite bank and is the natural morphological form of a channel. He said secondly with a meandering channel within the main channel it would be longer so that fish productivity will be greater because there is more useful water. Dr. O’Grady handed a manual of which he is the author entitled Channels And Challenges (The Enhancement of Salmonid Rivers) which was launched on 30th May 2006.
5.7.2 The Inspector asked Dr. O’Grady questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 103-106)
Dr. O’Grady clarified the operation of a kick sampling and explained that references can be made to five minute and two minute kick samples. He stated that the spawning grounds were much further upstream and the area of the river covered by the scheme was more nursery water and angling water than actual spawning water.
Dr. O’Grady explained the differences between salmon and sea trout in relation to their ability to pass upstream with the salmon likely to jump and the sea trout passing up along a rocky channel. He said an efficient form of fish pass was the German “rubble mass” which is a very slow ramp from the top of a man-made weir back down. He said these were starting to be built because the stepped pass for salmon can be inefficient at accommodating sea lampreys which are poor swimmers.
5.7.3 Ms. Woodfull asked Dr. O’Grady questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 106-107
Ms. Woodfull asked about the effects of maintenance on aquatic life. Dr. O’Grady said he did not think it would be a difficulty from a fish point of view in that a two stage channel would have the upper stage dry in summer time.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 78 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
He said at a certain point it would be decided by the engineers that the berm was too high and there would be removal of the silt off the dry berm and this would not interfere with the summer wetted width of the channel which is the key to maintaining fish stocks.
5.8 Dr. Brian Madden answered questions on terrestrial Ecology:
5.8.1 Mr. Foley asked Dr. Madden questions regarding flora and fauna as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Page 136)
Dr. Madden confirmed to Mr. Foley that he was responsible for the flora and fauna aspect of the EIS. Mr. Foley asked did he reach any view on what the impact would be of a proposed river walk along the River Dargle and Mr. Madden said it was not part of his brief.
5.8.2 Mr. John O’Sullivan asked Dr. Madden questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 136-138)
Mr. O’Sullivan stated he represented Ms. De Buitléar and asked Dr. Madden his opinion of an area which he had described in his brief as being “the most natural stretch of the habitat and vegetation”. He said accepting that there were no major conservation designations, would Dr. Madden recommend there should be one. Dr. Madden said he did not think so because it was not a very natural river because of previous flood defences and so on. Mr. O’Sullivan confirmed that he was referring to the area between the western end of Peoples Park and La Vallee. Dr. Madden said that there were a host of alien species including sycamore so the merit in conservation designation would not be present. Dr. Madden agreed that the area was relatively closed except there was no public access and that relatively speaking it is the most natural stretch from Bray Harbour to the N11.
5.8.3 Ms. Woodfull asked Dr. Madden questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 138-139)
Ms. Woodfull asked Dr. Madden about the potential effect on terrestrial ecology of maintenance works. Dr. Madden said that ongoing maintenance works would take place and the system is distilled by natural flooding so in some ways it was an unstable system. He said he did not think that routine maintenance would interfere with the intention to create a nesting site for kingfishers. Ms. Woodfull asked about otters and swans and Dr. Madden said maintenance would have to take into account wildlife and during the nesting season for swans it would not be possible to carry out maintenance and so there would be restrictions on what could be done.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 79 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.9 Questions were put to Mr. Kieran Corcoran in relation to Noise and Air quality:
5.9.1 Mr. Kieran Corcoran was asked questions by Mr. Foley:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 139-140)
Mr. Foley referred to Drawing B237-P03 which is Deposit Map Sheet 3 of 6 and he referred specifically to plots in the vicinity of 18a, 19a, 20 and 21a. Mr. Foley said this area was around the upper Dargle Road and he quoted paragraph 4.2 of Mr. Corcoran’s brief which referred to noise impacts occurring only during the construction phase and there would be no noise and vibration that would be associated with the completed scheme. Mr. Foley asked was the noise impact of any proposed river walk assessed. Mr. Corcoran said that he did not and the only impact identified was during the construction phase. Mr. Corcoran confirmed there were no works to be carried out at this location.
5.9.2 Mr. John O’Sullivan asked Mr. Corcoran questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 141-144)
Mr. O’Sullivan referred to Page 3 of Mr. Corcoran’s brief and the level of 70dBA for construction noise. Mr. Corcoran explained that the standard practice for a higher noise limit over and above industrial level of noise is applied to construction works because it is by nature temporary. He said he predicted that the noise would exceed 70dB for bored piling within 30 metres of the works. He said it would be very much dependant on the type of piling equipment that the contractor used. Mr. O’Sullivan said he was concerned about sheet piling at Killarney Glen and bored piling further up. Mr. Corcoran said a limit would be set and the duty was on the contractor to achieve a limit at noise sensitive locations. He said if a contractor was to choose piling it would be more difficult for him to achieve the 70dB(A) limit. He said if bored piling were used it would be possible to achieve the 70dB(A) limit.
He said that in the EIS there was a provision for noise and vibration monitoring but it was difficult at the planning stage to know exactly what type of equipment and how long it would be for. He said the monitoring should be incorporated into the contract. On a further question from Mr. O’Sullivan he said a firm such as his could be used as a kind of watchdog. He said he had previously carried out monitoring for projects. Mr. O’Sullivan said normally someone who might be aggrieved by such works would have to complain to the local authority in the first instance and as the local authority is not quite an independent party what options does a disaffected person have. Mr. Corcoran said he assessed impacts of the mitigation measures and he had given recommendations of what should be done. Mr. O’Sullivan said the EIS talked about sheet piling at Killarney Glen and his client is on the opposite bank. He said at present it is a very quiet area and he asked what indications there were of noise spread arising from sheet piling operations and how far would the 70dB(A) extend. Mr. Corcoran said on a direct line of sight, this would be approximately 70 metres.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 80 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.9.3 Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Corcoran questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 144-147)
Ms. Woodfull said that the EIS indicated there would be excessive noise at some point in relation to works at Seapoint Court. Mr. Corcoran said that for the number of days that sheet piling would be taking place directly outside someone’s house finalised levels ranging from 75 to 80dBA would be expected. He said with further screening this could achieve 7 to 8dB which would bring it down to maybe 74, 75dBA. He said he would recommend further measures such as consulting with the residents and maybe applying secondary screening or secondary glazing to the windows of the effected houses. Mr. Corcoran clarified that 70dBA would be near a busy road and he had recently measured a level of 70 at 10 metres from Castle Street on the Dublin Road in Bray.
He said double-glazing would involve a temporary screen fitted to the face of the window while the activity was happening directly outside. He said that the reduction expected inside the house would be of the order of 28dB so that inside the house the level would be approximately 40dBA. He said that building regulations stated that new housing should have a noise level inside a room below 40dBA.
Mr. Corcoran confirmed to the Inspector that piling would be considered noisy and that the levels quoted are average and described as LAeq. He said bored piling would have a constant type noise and he said a lot had to do with consultation with residents and from his experience of people who are aware of the noise and are informed of the time it is going to happen that would improve their response to the noise. He said sheet piling would be expected to cover approximately 10 metres a day.
In relation to Bray Bridge, Mr. Healy said that underpinning would involve bored mini piles and there would also be piling for the bypass of culvert which would take place during the day. He also said that the work at Seapoint Court would be daytime works.
5.10 Mr Mc Gill answered questions in relation to the EIS: The direct evidence in relation to the preparation and co-ordination of the EIS was given by Mr Colin Mc Gill of Mc Gill Planning
5.10.1 Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. McGill questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 148-149)
Mr. McGill confirmed he was giving evidence on behalf of Bray Town Council and would not be equipped to answer on behalf of Pizarro as to any rights of way. Ms. Woodfull asked about the EIS and the impact on human
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 81 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
beings and what impact would be involved in a right of way. Mr. McGill said the possibility of the right-of-way did not feature because it was not made known to them. He referred to Section 13 of the Planning Act and stated that planning rarely got involved in rights of way issue so the planning application which had been referred to would predate Pizarrro’s ownership of the site from 2004. He said the planning permission had two years left in its life so he would think another proposal might come forward whereby such issues could easily be explored. Mr. McGill confirmed to Ms. Woodfull that his firm McGill Planning acted on behalf of Pizarro in relation to the previous and current applications on the development for the golf club lands.
5.10.1 (Continued) Ms. Woodfull asked a further question of Mr. McGill as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Page 151)
Ms. Woodfull asked about the golf club lands and the assessment carried out. Mr. McGill said the EIS was done on the basis of assessing the proposed scheme and Mr. McGill confirmed that the assessments were done on the basis of the current situation and Ms. Woodfull noted that that was on the basis of an empty site to which Mr. McGill concurred.
5.10.1 (Continued) Ms. Woodfull asked a further question of Mr. McGill:- (Transcript Day 2 – Page 153)
Ms. Woodfull asked if there was no development done on the golf club site was it planned that the proposed scheme would go ahead and explained that she was trying to see if it was a standalone scheme. Mr. McGill said it would and referred to the EIS which described the scheme as a standalone scheme to be built tomorrow if nothing ever happened on the golf club lands.
5.10.2 Mr. O’Sullivan asked Mr. McGill questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 149-150)
Mr. O’Sullivan asked a question about residual impacts and reference has been made to the restriction of direct access to the river for a new Dargle walkway. Mr. McGill stated that this was a general term for the various walkways that are being provided and the instances whereby public access would be provided for along, inside or on top of the flood defence works. He said the right-of- way between Bray Bridge and the Railway Bridge was one, there was the potential to do so along the defence works at People’s Park and also on the top of the bund to Seapoint Court. He confirmed to Mr. O’Sullivan that the sense was where there was an existing public access the Council would endeavour to provide that kind of walkway.
5.10.3 Mr. Foley asked Mr. McGill questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 152-153)
Mr. Foley asked questions about the River Dargle walkways and the reference to which Mr. McGill had made to the Development Plan where he stated it sought to promote the use of the Dargle riverbank for that purpose with the provision through the development of a Dargle River walk. Mr. Foley said he
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 82 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
noted that was in Section 9.4.5 of the Bray Development Plan 2005-2011 and that the Dargle walkway management plan would have to be imposed before that. Mr. McGill said the walkways provided for in the scheme were pursuant to the policy accepted in the Development Plan. He confirmed to Mr. Foley that on the upper Dargle Road there is not a walkway to be provided.
5.11 Questions were put to Mr Martin Byrne in relation to Cultural Heritage:
5.11.1 Mr. Byrne was asked questions by Mr. John O’Sullivan as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 155-156)
Mr. O’Sullivan said he acted for Ms. Ailbhe de Buitléar and he referred to the history and quality of the two bridges. Mr. Byrne said the structures are actually an example of the national history of architectural heritage recommended regional ratings and they had not been recommended that they be protected. Mr. Byrne confirmed to Mr. O’Sullivan they should be handled as carefully as one would handle a Protected Structure in the same context.
5.11.2 The Inspector asked Mr. Byrne questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 172-173)
In reply to question on the Ravenswell Road Bridge, Mr. Byrne stated it dated from 1861 and said the site of Ravenswell Road was reclaimed ground from the floodplain and therefore in order to link up with Castle Street or more importantly the egress coming from Bray Bridge they just put in a bridge but the reason was not clear.
5.12 Questions were put to Mr. Gerry Mitchell in relation to landscape and Visual Impacts:
5.12.1 Mr. Mitchell was questioned by Mr. O’Sullivan as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 156-157)
Mr. O’Sullivan referred to Item 4.1 on page 3 of Mr. Mitchell’s brief of evidence where he referred to areas of high visual and recreational amenity along the corridor and along the river corridor itself. Mr. Mitchell explained that the criteria normally used for assessing recreation and rejuvenation of lands are accessibility to the public so that private lands would not come into it. Mr. O’Sullivan asked questions in relation to Drawing TS105 in relation to trees and Mr. Mitchell referred him to Mr. Keating the consultant Arborist (see Paragraph 5.13.1).
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 83 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.12.2 Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Mitchell questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 160-161)
Mr. Mitchell confirmed to Ms. Woodfull that the scheme as proposed and assessed was within the red line. She asked if there had been a development on the golf club site for example would the visual analysis and landscape analysis been different. Mr. Mitchell said a visual assessment can be quite subjective. He gave the example of the upper reaches of the river which were quite pristine except for the introduction of La Vallee which was a scheme of density and at that location it fundamentally altered his attitude to the whole river because it introduced a big urbanisation element. He said it was no longer a pristine environment. Ms. Woodfull referred back to the golf club lands and noted that Pizarro had said in their evidence that they would incorporate the wall in some way and she asked Mr. Mitchell if the visual assessment would be quite different. Mr. Mitchell agreed and said this would have to be reassessed.
5.13.1 Mr. Keating was asked questions by Mr. O’Sullivan in relation to trees as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 157-159)
Mr. Keating confirmed to Mr. O’Sullivan that he had done the classification on the tree types but this did not include trees in the rear gardens of upper Dargle Road. He said he looked at them on the basis of their location and situation in the whole flood area. Mr. O’Sullivan asked should one endeavour to retain those trees and Mr. Keating said one should endeavour to retain trees whenever possible but it was dependant on what is going on in the area where the trees are growing and in what context.
In response to a question on the impact of the water level, Mr. Keating said a lot of the species were a riparian species so they could take water from time to time and more water than other particular species would. At this point Mr. Mitchell stated that the overall planting list prepared suggested in particular trees such as alder and other riverside species would be used.
He said when the detailed planting plan was produced in consultation with Dr. Madden, they would definitely take cognisance of the locations as otherwise it would not be sustainable in that the trees would not survive. Mr. O’Sullivan asked questions about the level of vegetation and Mr. Mitchell said that what was happening was that one kind of landscape of thickets and woodland would be replaced by more open land but that could still be highly attractive. He said that plants could be used which would bind with the root mat so they would actually help stabilise the bank from a structural point of view.
5.14 Questions were put to Mr Stephen Fox in relation to Planning issues:
Mr Fox gave direct evidence in relation to Planning issues on behalf of bray Town Council.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 84 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.14.1 Mr. Stephen Fox was asked questions by Mr. O’Sullivan as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 161-163)
Mr. O’Sullivan asked Mr. Fox about Section 9.4.1 of the Development Plan and where the walkway referred to was going. Mr. Fox said it had not really been determined and he was aware it had been a concern of the residents that as far as they were concerned it was attracting anti-social behaviour should any walkway be progressed. Mr. Fox added that it may well be the case that it could have to be either shelved or some measures put in place to curtail its extent. He said it was a completely separate issue to the scheme before the Board and the two were not related.
Mr. O’Sullivan asked could he be absolute on that basis as there were significant amounts of land to be compulsorily purchased along the riverbank. He asked would it be a possibility even though it would be a different process that in effect the CPO application having been confirmed would lead to an attempt to endeavour or pursue the walkway objective now that there was more control of the land. Mr. Fox said that any proposed walkway would have to be carried out in accordance with the stated objective of the Development Plan and it would also have to involve local residents and interests groups. He said he presumed that that would mean the OPW, the Council and the Dargle Anglers so that it is a collaborative process. Mr. O’Sullivan asked at this stage of the Development Plan cycle, did Mr. Fox see anything further being done within the remaining period of the Development Plan. Mr. Fox said he honestly did not and he had not heard anything positive by way of feedback about the particular objective.
5.14.2 Ms. Woodfull asked questions of Mr. Fox as follows: - (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 163-168)
Ms. Woodfull asked Mr. Fox about the option of not building on the floodplain and she said she did not mean a do-nothing scenario. Mr. Fox said that his report was based on the option that was arrived at as to whether it would or would not comply with the Development Plan. Ms. Woodfull asked him as a planner did he find it curious that it might have been better at least to have been included as a possible option in the EIS. Mr. Fox replied that he found the arguments put forward by the technical team associated with the project were wholly convincing. Ms. Woodfull asked on the point were Pizarro in their submission point to the application which was before the Council. She stated that the proposed embankment is quoted as being no longer required once the golf club lands are redeveloped, as the area would be incorporated into any future development. She asked was this the Trojan horse by which the grant would happen as it provides for the two being very clearly linked and not a standalone scheme at all. Mr. Fox said he could not comment on that but stated that any development would have to take into account any existing flood defence works.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Woodfull asked would it not seem even a bit odd that the same people were working on behalf of the developer who would benefit from the golf club lands site are also representing the Council on the flood defence scheme and the CPO. Mr. Fox said he could absolutely understand the public perception that such would be the case. He said there was a practical reason to take advantage of the expertise the particular engineering firms would have built up in dealing with plans. Ms. Woodfull asked could there be potentially a conflict of interest and Mr. Fox said he could understand why the public would have seen that. He confirmed to Ms. Woodfull that it was his understanding that all the plans carried out had been based on there being no development on the golf club lands as it was an empty site.
At this point Mr. Keane said he wished to put on the record the relevant section of the letter from Pizarro because he said Ms. Woodfull had quoted one particular sentence in isolation. He said the relevant section was as follows:-
“Pizarro Developments Limited will fully comply with the proposed River Dargle Bray Flood Defence Scheme. We note that the golf club lands are zoned F1 to provide for mixed-use development in accordance with the Bray Golf Club Lands Action Area Plan. Pizarro Developments Limited will therefore incorporate the proposed River Dargle Bray Flood Defence Scheme in the redevelopment of club lands. As stated above the proposed engineering works at this point include the construction of a reinforced concrete wall and sheet pile and an earth embankment along existing boundary between the golf club lands and the Ravenswell Road.”
Mr. Keane drew attention to the sentence which Ms. Woodfull read out which was “in this regard we note that the proposed embankment in the form proposed will no longer be required because the golf club lands are redeveloped in this area and be incorporated in any future development of the club lands etc. Notwithstanding this we note any proposals for the development of the golf club lands will be designed to incorporate those reinforced concrete walls and sheet pile wall along the existing boundary between the golf club lands and Ravenswell Road and the proposed escape route as discussed below. It must be noted that in all of the remaining factors the only variation would be in relation to the earth embankment, and of course that would simply be in the form proposed rather than any replacement of same, but all of the other flood protections have been confirmed and will be provided by Pizarro in their development.”
Mr. Keane said he could confirm once again on behalf of Bray Town Council that the defences would be required and in the event of there being any variation with regard to the embankment, that would require the consent of Bray Town Council on whose land that would be constructed. Ms. Woodfull said that was completely proper she agreed but she was making the point the two are closely connected and she was not saying “may” or “will” but the development will happen and she was just linking them together. Mr. Keane said that Pizarro may well have said “will” but they clearly cannot as it is the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 86 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
subject of approval by the Town Council or An Bord Pleanála and it should be subject to a totally separate assessment.
5.14.3 Ms. McManus on behalf of SWAP asked Mr. Fox questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 168-172)
Ms. McManus referred to the zoning of Bray Golf Club lands, F1 “to provide for mixed use development in accordance with the Bray Golf Club lands Area Action Plan “. It was established following a number of questions that a previous plan, known as the Brady Shipman Martin Plan had required that 8.6 acres of land should be kept free. Mr. Fox said that was not in the current plan.
Ms. McManus asked about the quotation “It is the policy of the Council to promote the use of the Dargle riverbank between La Vallee and Bray Harbour as an active amenity area through the development of the Dargle river walk”. Ms. McManus said there was a river walk including seats and a table which could not be seen. She asked was it going to be maintained. Mr. Fox said the whole process of establishing the Dargle river walk was dependant on a public consultation process in which the Town Council and other affected parties namely the OPW and local residents would have to enter in to in order to decide the most appropriate layout. He referred to the possibility of anti-social behaviour. Ms. McManus said that if the walkway was not maintained it would give rise to the possibility of people falling.
Ms. McManus asked about the use of what was the water storage facility on the golf club lands. Mr. Fox said that the important point he thought was the design standard that had been adopted for the flood defence works was in accordance with recommendations.
Ms. McManus suggested that where the floodwaters would be stored would now be upriver and the area of Dwyer Park would become the flood storage area. Mr. Keane suggested that that was a question for Dr. John O’Sullivan and Ms. McManus said she brought the question up because it had been quoted by the Bray Town Planner.
5.15 Questions were put to Mr. Des O’Brien, Director of Services for Planning Wicklow County Council.
Mr. O’Brien represented the Senior Planner for Wicklow County Council and was not giving evidence in respect of his role as Town Manager, Bray Town Council.
5.15.1 The Inspector asked Mr. O’Brien questions:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 157 to 158)
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 87 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
In response to a question in relation to the Wicklow Development Plan, Mr. O’Brien confirmed that the flood defence scheme was not called up as a specific objective. He confirmed that the aspect of up-stream storage was not being put before the Board. Mr. O’Brien stated that his understanding was that there were alternatives considered. And he stated that there was in his opinion nothing in the Wicklow Plan that would prevent an application being made on the basis of storage. He said it was a mood point whether the current plan would actually have a policy against storage.
5.15.2 Mr. John O’Sullivan, on behalf of Ms. Ailbhe de Buitléar asked questions of Mr. O’Brien:- (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 155 to 157)
Mr. O’Sullivan asked did Bray Town Council accept all the mitigation measures and would they be implemented. Mr. O’Brien said they did stand over the mitigation measures put in the EIS and he said once An Bord Pleanála made a decision on it they would have to abide by it either way. Mr. O’Sullivan asked about the maintenance to be done to make the scheme work and was there a full commitment on the part of the applicant to do that. Mr. O’Brien said that he did not think there was a difficulty on the maintenance end and it mostly involved keeping the silt traps free and keeping the vegetation from growing below the water line.
Mr. Foley on behalf of Ms. Gaule asked at this point was there not an adherent 20% upgrade possibility in the Plan. He said it might be significant if they were being told that there was no future proofing in respect of upstream capacity. He said it could be part for the moment if that was what was being referred to.
5.15.2 (Continued) – (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 162 to 165)
Mr. O’Sullivan asked Mr. O’Brien about the second phase regarding upstream storage. He wished to know the view of Wicklow County Council on the necessity for upstream storage. Mr. O’Brien said that Wicklow County Council would not have a particular view on it because they are not to promote another’s scheme and the views of the Planning Authority is what planning is put before them. Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the plan was before Mr. O’Brien on the basis of the agreement that Mr. Keane referred to earlier. Mr. O’Brien said the scheme before the Board is for a channel deepening and for a containment scheme and an EIS.
He said it did talk about alternatives considered and what would be possible future proposals but that would be for another day. He said to confuse future proofing with the proposal would seem to be naive with how the system works. Mr. O’Sullivan said the issue was that there is an inference in reading the EIS that the ideal solution would be that two phases would be done and Phase 1 was now being proposed. He said he wished to know what Mr. O’Brien’s view on the decide-ability of Phase 2 was.
At this point Mr. Keane replied stating that the scheme had been the subject of a Section 85 agreement and related purely to the River Dargle Flood Defence
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 88 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Scheme as defined in the first schedule of the Section 85 agreement which is to design a flood defence scheme for the River Dargle extending from the Harbour Bridge to the N11. He said therefore the scheme before the hearing was not a two-phased scheme as far as the Council is concerned. He said there was certainly the possibility that storage may occur upstream on the far side of the N11 and that it was something Mr. Joyce could deal with but it was not part of the scheme. He said it was not conditional on that occurring and the view of the Town Council was that the scheme on its own would provide a significant improvement for the protection of Bray in its own right.
5.15.3 Question were asked by SWAP of Mr. O’Brien as follows:- (Transcript Day 1- Pages 159 to 161)
Ms. Noeleen McManus from SWAP asked Mr. O’Brien why there was not an emergency flood plan. Mr. O’Brien stated that the emergency plan was in progress at the time and there was a huge amount of consultation involved but that Ms. McManus was correct that the plan was not complete but there was a lot of work being done on it. Ms. McManus asked why there was still 20 years waiting for an emergency plan although it was raised over a year ago at a previous oral hearing. Mr. O’Brien noted that there had been maintenance of the river and that the silt trap is dredged regularly every couple of years.
Ms. Woodfull on behalf of Seapoint Court said she wished to ask questions about the management end of the planning application in relation to Bray Town Council and Mr. Keane stated that Mr. Healy would be the person to ask the questions of.
5.15.3 (Continued) Mr. McKenna from SWAP asked Mr. O’Brien questions (Transcript Day 1 – Pages 165 to 166)
Mr. McKenna stated that Mr. O’Brien had presented all the facts and figures in relation to his job as Manager of Bray Town Council over the previous two and a quarter years and now he was trying to opt-out.
5.15.4 Ms. Woodfull asked questions of Mr O’Brien: (Page 165).
Ms. Woodfull, on behalf of the Seapoint Court residents asked if Mr. O’Brien could outline what role he had has planner with Bray Town Council in relation to the CPO. She also wished to know what his view as an employee of Wicklow County Council to the fact that the option of not building a floodplain was never consider in any of the proposed developments. Mr. Keane stated that it would be inappropriate for a planning official from one County Council to give evidence on a proposal of a scheme in another one.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 89 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
SUBMISSIONS: Sections 5.16 to 5.36 are the submissions of all objectors and other 3rd parties ending with the closing submission by the Local Authority
5.16 Submission of Dargle Anglers : (Transcript Day 1, pages 81-82)
Mr Shane Cullen made a presentation on behalf of the Dargle Anglers Assoiation. He stated that the angling rights had been leased from Lord Meath fro many decades and at this stage they did not know ,following the CPO would they get fishing rights from bray Town Council. They did not know at that stage where they stood. He stated that the Fisheries Board had taken care of environmental considerations.
Ms. Christine Flood, Town Clerk stated by way of response that there were on- going discussions between the Town Council and Lord Meath. She stated that she hoped there would be finality before the end of the Hearing.
5.17 Submission of Seapoint Court residents:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 1 to 15) – refers to Right of Way only – see section 5.31 for submission on overall scheme.
Ms. Woodfull introduced Mrs. Maurice and Ms. Tunney who spoke in relation to the route used to go to the town. It is noted that the Seapoint Court Residents Association objected to the CPO and also to the scheme. This part of the submission / evidence relates to the proposed extinguishment of a right of way.
Ms. Woodfull, representing Seapoint Court residents asked Mrs. Maurice to explain the route she usually used to go up the town. Mrs. Maurice said she crossed part of the bank way and part of the open space and out onto Milton Terrace eventually onto Railway Road and she had done this every day since 1981 on a twice daily basis. She said she had the second last house on the left hand side which was No. 17. Mrs. Maurice said when she left her house she turned left passed the next door neighbour which was No. 18 and then walked up to the bank for about 16 steps and onto the open space towards the abattoir and up Milton Terrace and onto Seapoint Road. She said that to go the full length of the estate would probably put another half mile and it was a hill halfway up. She told Ms. Woodfull that it was important socially. Drawing No. B237-101 was referred to which indicates an existing right of way from the eastern end of Seapoint Court to Bray Bridge. Mr. Keane said the right of way along the riverbank running parallel with Milton Terrace is to be extinguished but will be replaced.
Ms. Woodfull said the right of way started at the walkway to the river and then they came off the exit and cut up a short cut through the abattoir lands onto Milton Terrace but it was not marked anywhere. She said it was not referred to anywhere in any of the EIS or any of the documentation.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 90 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Woodfull asked Ms. Tunney, who lives in No. 13 Seapoint Court, questions about the use of the pathway. Ms. Tunney said she went straight out of her door and onto the bank and left onto the abattoir lands. She said she went across the abattoir lands and onto Milton Terrace. She said the right of way was very important and it would take at least twice if not three times as long if the longer route along the roadway were to be taken.
In reply to a further question put by Ms. Woodfull she said there was no discussion at the consultation meeting about rights of way except that the riverbank would be extinguished and not any discussion about their right of way. She said the people had been told send their submissions to An Bord Pleanála. At this point Ms. Woodfull said that she had several letters from other residents who were not in the position to be available to set out the position regarding the right of way.
Mr. Keane asked Mrs. Maurice questions in relation to the path taken to the town. Mrs. Maurice said she took up residence in her house in 1981 and recalls the site being used prior to that for circuses. She confirmed that she did not have a formal deed of a right of way and she explained again how she used the pathway. Mr. Keane said that the pathway will continue to be there and to be reinstated. She confirmed that the bank had been raised after the flooding of 1986 and she confirmed that the journey to the town involved climbing up the embankment and then down again into the open space. She said that the walk passed up to the old courthouse.
Mr. Keane confirmed that Milton Terrace splits in two and part of it joins Seapoint Road. Mr. Keane referred to Drawing B237-0141 and Section 034. He explained to Mrs. Maurice that the embankment would be slightly higher but gradient would be the same. He explained that the walkway would continue the whole way up to Bray Bridge. Mrs. Maurice said that she had walked that once only but was too scared. Mr. Keane said the idea was that it would become a more user-friendly location that was being re-built and re- designed. He said that he had to suggest that while there was an informal walkway from 1981 there would not be a legal right of way. At this point Ms. Woodfull said that issue would be disputed.
For clarification to the Inspector, Drawing B237-101 was referred to and it was identified by Mr. Keane that Ms. Woodfull was suggesting it was a right of way to leave the walkway further towards the town and up to the terrace. He would say there was no evidence of that. He said the time was inadequate to establish a right of way by prescription because it was only 26 years being used.
Ms. Woodfull explained to Mrs. Maurice that the plan being proposed by the Council was to leave the right of way that was not being used from Seapoint Court to the Harbour Bridge and to remove the right of way currently used.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 91 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.18 Submission by Ms. Collins:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 37 to 38)
Ms. Collins said she had been listening to Mr. Joyce and Ms. McManus and Mr. Barr. She stated that Mr. Joyce has said there was a Phase A and a Phase B and if you put the storage in first you are preventing large flooding coming down and it will enable the emergency plan to go into play to evacuate the area. She said it would make it easier for people because they would be working in the river and would hold back the flow of the water and this would create better conditions.
In relation to the golf club she questioned putting up defences where no one lives and where there are no houses.
Ms. Collins said she thought the people on the Lower Dargle Road should be a priority and suggested investigation of Compulsory Purchase of a large section of the golf club and the diversion of the river under the railway track. She considered that the cart was being put before the horse. (See also Section 5.28 which is the submission of Mr D Collins which relates to CPO issues)
5.19 Ms Joan Conway on behalf of the users of People’s Park made a submission and asked questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 39 and 40)
Ms. Conway said apart from technical questions there would be 18 months of disruption to the Dargle area. This would involve reduction in People’s Park and the removal of roughly 1,500 combined years of tree growth in the park. She said landscaping is only referred to on the southern side of the river in the Town Council Development Plan 2005-2011. She said they wished to develop walks on the other side yet on the area already built to capacity the needs of the people do not seem to be commanding any consideration in the area. Ms. Conway said anyone else who had land taken from them is being compensated financially and yet the community seems to be receiving no compensation for the removal of parts of the People’s Park and the use of it as a plant storage site over the 18 months. Mr. Healy said that the immediate and most direct compensation is that of a reduced flood risk and he understood that Bray Town Council were considering the entire rejuvenation of the People’s Park under a separate arrangement.
Ms. Conway posed the question as to compensation to the community in general for the taking away of a public amenity and she said everyone else was receiving financial compensation and the community in general who have cherished the park for 150 years is getting nothing in return.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 92 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.20 Ms. Power made a submission and asked questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 41 to 53)
Ms. Polly Power said her address was at Dargle Vale House and she had been there for 24 years.
Ms. Power said she wished to inform the hearing how the river had affected her personally. She described her experiences on the night of the storm of 1986. Ms. Power’s description explained that she was in the garden which consists of one third of an acre. She had noted that a branch of a tree was across the garden and she described some horrendous noise which went on for hours and that when the rain stopped she stood on the bank and noted that not long after that the water began to recede.
Ms. Power described how about half an hour later there was a sudden surge in the water and the water came up to the first level of her garden which was a split level garden. She described a shed being lifted up and it appeared that something dreadful was happening.
Ms. Power described the following morning when there was no water evident in the river. She stated how the person from Bray Urban Council (Mr.O’ Dunlaing) had assisted and she said there were JCB’s and hymacs operating and it was discovered that there was a retaining wall behind the bank which probably saved the property.
Ms. Power said she was subsequently contacted in relation to a court case where evidence was required as to the variation in the water level. She said that she had heard that the Paddock lakes had burst their banks and that as far as she was concerned was what she had witnessed. Ms. Power said she did not witness the actual occurrence but witnessed the extra water coming into the river which washed down beech trees, took away the far bank, the Laundry Bridge and continued on down. She said there were very large 200 year old trees and they blocked the arches of the bridge to Bray. Ms. Power also described the impact on the golf club lands on the following Monday after the storm and in particular the level of water on the second fairway.
Ms. Power said that she wanted to establish that she was a riparian owner with a boundary to the middle of the river. She said she was concerned about the possibility of the water being deflected and she wanted to be assured that the water would not be deflected from the bank.
As Ms. Power did not have a CPO reference, it was established that the house was indicated on Drawing B 237-123 under the word “section” of Section M. of the two houses at that point, it was established that Ms. Power’s house is the one closest to Bray.
Ms. Power added that the two phases of work done after the flood involved a flood plain which caused an island to form in the middle of the river at the Slang. Ms. Power said remedial works were carried out over the years and noted that the river is very fast flowing.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 93 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Keane asked Ms. Power questions in relation to the ownership of a number of portions of land. Ms. Power confirmed that she had deeds which indicated title to the centre of the river and Mr. Keane said that this would enable the Council to register her on the CPO as an owner.
Mr. Healy stated that in relation to the water running past the back of the garden, it would appear as if nothing would happen to it. He referred to Drawing B237-123 and section Ref. 001 and he said that indicated that they were not interfering with Ms. Power’s property. He said with the flow channel was being biased to go towards her side of the river so that there would be more water on her side than anywhere else. Ms. Power said that two and a half feet of water was very important and in the past she said the river was narrowed to ensure this. Mr. Healy said that they were maintaining the narrowing of the river and there was an extra channel being created at a lower level for fish passage and that this meander within the river would be more on her side than it is on the other bank. It was confirmed that the CPO reference was 07g and 07d.
Dr. Bruen asked Mr. Healy about the water depths in terms of ease of passage of people coming back and forward across the river and Mr. Healy said in fisheries terms they would actually get deeper.
5.21 Mr. Kenneth Barr made a submission on behalf of SWAP as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 108-130)
Mr. Barr said he was a technical director of WA Fairhurst and Partners, Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers. He read from his submission which is on the file with additional comments arising from the evidence and questions at the hearing. He said he was instructed by SWAP, a community group based in Bray. He said local residents had reservations about aspects of the proposals and had obtained funding for an independent review.
He set out the background to his report including a site visit and a review of documents which were in the public domain. He noted that he had no access to any supporting documentation that was not in the public domain.
Mr. Barr outlined the extensive flooding which had occurred in Bray in 1905, 1931, 1965 and 1986. He said over 600 residential and business properties in Little Bray, Dwyer Park, Coburg estate and Seapoint housing estate remain at risk.
Mr. Barr outlined the brief received from SWAP. He said specific issues identified could be summarised as follows:-
Standard of protection provided to the communities. Technical soundness of the works proposals. Accordance with good practice. Effect on the scheme of the protection of the golf club lands.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 94 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Barr stated he had visited Bray on the 17th and 18th August 2007 and walked the reach of the river affected by the proposals. He said he also had the opportunity to hear eyewitness accounts of the 1965 and 1986 floods from local residents.
Mr. Barr noted that the hydrological assessment carried out was based on the Flood Studies Report (FSR). He noted that the OPW had identified the need for replacement methodology and particularly the shortfall in the ability to accurately represent upland catchments. He noted there was no flow gauging on the River Dargle until 2004 and predicted the 100 year flow using the adjusted flood studies report method was 288m3/s. Mr. Barr stated that the method of flood flow estimation which was used is appropriate. Mr. Barr said that the rainfall return period for previous floods did not correspond directly with the resulting flood return period and it could not be assumed that the 1986 flood return period was 100 years without further analysis.
Mr. Barr said a greater confidence could be gained by further analysis and that he was content with the hydrological assessment.
In relation to hydraulic modelling, Mr. Barr noted the use of HEC-RAS and that as the urban reach of the River Dargle had very limited volume of flood storage it would be reasonable to use a steady-state model in that situation. He said he understood the reasons for that approach based on clarifications given on Day 2 of the hearing. He said the hydraulic analysis appeared to have been carried out in a systematic and logical way, with the effect of many different individual measures and combinations of measures being evaluated.
Mr. Barr referred to Section 3.1.8 of the EIS which listed various discounted measures. He noted that the replacement of Bray Bridge was discounted and he said it was not clear why options including more significant widening f the channel into the golf club lands and the pulling back of the defences to the perimeter of Peoples Park were discounted. He noted the evidence in relation to not defending the golf club lands and the response to his question that indicated that the hydraulic efficiency of the channel was increased by defending the golf club lands. He noted that there was not evidence to specifically give a quantification of that effect.
In relation to design standards, Mr. Barr noted the evidence in relation to the protection standards of 1 in 100 year for fluvial events and 1 in 200 years for tidal events. He said the joint probability combinations derived from advice in the GDSDS and from the OPW appeared appropriate.
Mr. Barr noted that consideration had been given to the effect of future climate change but the design was one of “design for enhancement”. He said in his experience it was common in the UK to include climate change allowances in scheme designs but he thought in Scotland the design for enhancement was also accepted. He noted the provision for defence levels to be raised.
With reference to free board allowances, the recommendation of the GDSDS of 0.5 metre and the tidal free board of 0.76 metres recommended by the OPW
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
was noted. He said it was usual practice in the UK to calculate a site-specific free board allowance and he noted what Mr. Joyce said on the matter.
In relation to options considered, Mr. Barr noted the undesirable effect of cutting off the community from the river with a containment only solution. He said in his view this was not a viable option. He said the Option 3 which was containment and river works was potentially viable but he said there were issues about the options long-term sustainability, the effect on the ecology and future legislative constraints arising from the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD).
In relation to Option 4 which was upstream storage Mr. Barr noted that the option as put forward did not provide any freeboard above predicted river levels. He noted the average gradient of the River Dargle is very steep which would make a significant storage potential further upstream less likely. He also noted that the proposal involved a 17 metre high dam and would require protection to a number of existing properties. He said the practicality of protecting those properties was doubtful and he thought the properties might have to be purchased and demolished. He said it was questionable if that option was viable.
Option 5 is described as partial storage and containment with river works and would involve a 9 metre high dam and raised defences. Mr. Barr said defence levels would be 0.4 metres lower than Option 2 but still of significant height so his comments would be similar.
In relation to Option 6 which was partial storage with containment and river works, Mr. Barr said this option was potentially viable.
Mr. Barr referred to the economic assessment and the cost benefit assessment which was carried out. He said there was limited information on the methodology of the economic assessment but it appeared to be generally similar to methods used in the UK.
Mr. Barr described the selected or preferred option as he understood the proposal and noted that the selected option was sensitive to variations in hydrological and hydraulic parameters more so than options including flood storage. He said if the design flow rates were under-predicted or the channel capacity reduced for any reason serious flooding could result. He said there were significant uncertainties in the predicted flow rates arising from lack of hydrological data. Mr. Barr said the selected option involved significant removal of materials from beds and banks. He said the increase in the cross- section of the channel would reduced velocity of flow and could result in increase deposition of sediments. He said if significant volumes of sediments were deposited during flood events the carrying capacity of the channel could be compromised over a timescale.
Mr. Barr said that in response to his questions he understood that a geomorphological assessment would be carried out to assess the volumes of sediment passing at the river and he understood this would be carried out as
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 96 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
part of the detailed design. He said the drawings showed defence heights unequal on north and south banks at several locations and the difference in levels would need to be explained. He said he did not follow the logic of the explanation he heard because the high defences are not tied in to higher ground to create a closed cell protected to that level.
In relation to sustainability, Mr. Barr noted the requirement for annual cleaning, dredging every five years and dredging after high flow events. He noted that if sediments could not be beneficially reused landfill costs would be incurred. He said it was clear that there was a fairly significant allowance for maintenance but the volume of sediments were not quantified at this stage.
Mr. Barr referred to ecological status and legislative constraints. He said the EU Water Framework Directive requires member states to safeguard the ecological status of water bodies. He said flood defence schemes involving significant river works are now very difficult to promote in other parts of the EU such as Scotland because of regulation deriving from the WFD. He said he had seen no discussion of the impact of the WFD on the proposals for Bray.
Mr. Barr referred specifically to works at the golf club lands. He noted that the area involved was zoned for future development. He said concerns have been raised about the proposal on two grounds in relation to those lands. Firstly he said the effect on water levels of the loss of floodplain storage and secondly the effect of loss of conveyance on an escape route for floodwater from the residential areas. He noted the proposals included an emergency flood relief channel behind the flood defence within the golf club lands. He noted that this would be designed to take flood flows in the event that the defences at Little Bray were overtopped and pass through Dwyer Park into the golf club lands as occurred in 1986. He said the escape route for floodwater is critical to the scheme. He noted that this had been sized to accommodate the flow assessed for the flood of 1986. He said it was his view that this assessment was not sufficient. He said if a larger event occurred and more water over-tops the defences then the channel would not have capacity particularly if development went ahead on the golf club lands. He said floodwater could be held back within residential areas and could potentially result in greater depths of flooding at some locations than before the defences were constructed.
Mr. Barr said it was unlikely that the reduction in the floodplain storage caused by the protection of the golf club lands is of sufficient volume to make significant difference to flood levels if it is lost. He said the area fulfilled a vital function in conveying flood flows and this function must be safeguarded. Mr. Barr suggested that a flood consequence assessment be carried out for events exceeding the design standard and that the emergency flood route is sized to ensure its capacity is sufficient to avoid any increase in flood risk up to the 1000 year event, as is required for example in Wales.
Mr. Barr said that in addition to what he had in his written statement SWAP would prefer that the golf club lands were not protected and the defences are
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 97 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
instead returned to higher ground along the back of Dwyer Park and that provision for conveying flows to behind the defences be provided.
In relation to future enhancement, Mr. Barr noted the second stage proposals but that while he could not doubt the personal commitment of Mr. Joyce to enhance protection, Mr. Joyce would not be the only person who has a decision-making role in progressing that.
By way of conclusion, Mr. Barr said that while there was some uncertainty over the actual standard of protection because of lack of hydrological data, it offered a great improvement compared to the present situation. He noted that no specific allowance had been made for future climate change and there was a small margin above designed flood levels provided by the freeboard. In relation to technical soundness of the proposals, Mr. Barr said that the information he had received did not give rise to any particular concern. He said the issue that was of greatest importance to SWAP and to the residents in Little Bray was the functioning of the flood relief channel of the golf club lands. He said the engineering proposals for flood defence walls did not give rise to any particular concern. Mr. Barr said he had concerns over the volume of silt generated by the catchment and a potential loss of conveyance during flood events.
Mr. Barr said he had concern over the environmental effects of the river works and maintenance regime on the natural environment of the River Dargle, and their compliance with legislative constraints arising from the Water Framework Directive. He said the loss of flood-plain storage caused by the protection of the golf club lands was probably not significant in terms of its effect on water levels. He said the conveyance of flood flows through the golf club lands in the event of overtopping is critical. He said it was identified but in his view the capacity of the flood channel referred to in the EIS was not sufficient.
Mr. Barr made recommendations as follows:-
Independent audit of hydrological and hydraulic modelling should be carried out.
Geomorphological assessment of estimated volume of sediment generated by the catchment should be carried out which would include an assessment of likely patterns of deposition, consequences on flood levels and maintenance regime.
A flood consequence assessment for events exceeding design events up to 1000 years. Safeguarding of the flood escape route through the golf club lands to ensure that flood risks to residents is not increased in any events exceeding the design event.
Assessment of the effects of the Water Framework Directive to safeguard and improve the ecological status of water bodies on the proposed works and future maintenance regime.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 98 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.21 (Continued) Dr. O’Sullivan commented on Mr. Barr’s submission as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 Pages 130-133)
Dr. O’Sullivan said he agreed with Mr. Barr’s assertion that the factors that were used in the Wicklow Hills are underestimated in the flood studies report and are underestimated for eastern catchment as well as Dublin catchments. He said the analysis and hydrological assessment is hampered by the absence of an historical flow record for Bray and in the absence of that the Irish standard is the flood studies report and the supplemental report that followed it. He said the catchment characteristics methods based on the Dargle catchment was shown to underestimate significantly the mean annual flow. He said supplemental report No. 13 was applied to the River Dargle using the River Dodder as a similar catchment and that gave a flow of 288m3/s. He explained that if other growth factors were applied a design flow of 380m3/s would be indicated. He said when they tried to fit the 380m3/s into a profile as observed during the 1986 flood, it gave Manning’s coefficients which were unrealistically low.
Dr. O’Sullivan said in relation to the options for People’s Park, the original option did involve extension excavation into People’s Park but that would at the expense of the park to some degree. He said local residents in little Bray were opposed to that measure and it was discounted for further analysis. He said it was for that reason that they reverted back to looking at an alignment which ran along the existing boundary which was the river boundary of Peoples Park.
In relation to the Seapoint Court defences, Dr. O’Sullivan complimented Mr. Barr on noting the difference in levels for the defences. He said there was an error in the drawing and the 5 metre defence level does extend into high ground to seal off the area.
5.21 (Continued) Dr. Bruen asked Mr. Barr a question in relation to his submission as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 134, 135)
Dr. Bruen noted Mr. Barr’s recommendations and asked to what extent did the proposed hydraulic physical model address the questions of the escape route and also asked about his recommendation for an independent audit of hydrological and hydraulic modelling. Mr. Barr said the scope of the physical modelling as he understood it from Mr. Joyce was considerably more significant than he had appreciated from reading the EIS. He said he did not have any details of what Mr. Joyce said but in principle physical modelling would certainly give greater confidence to a significant degree.
Dr. O’Sullivan said he wished to add that the physical model that is proposed is very considerable and extends from the La Vallee development to the harbour and there is a significant number of simulations and sub-simulations which would be dealing with issues of increased standards. He said the design standards currently proposed to be investigated in the physical model are the 1
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 99 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
in 300 year river flow and not the 1 in 1000 but there were a significant number of simulations that are going to be carried out on the physical model. Dr. O’Sullivan confirmed that he could make the technical specification available for Mr. Barr.
5.21(a)Submission by Ms. Noeleen McManus on behalf of SWAP as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 11-18)
Ms. McManus made the submission immediately following the submission by Pizarro (see Section 5.24). She said the timing of the Pizarro presentation was such that their (SWAP) expert who had come from Scotland had returned and did not have the opportunity to hear the submission.
Ms. McManus said that SWAP were together for the last three years representing the people of Little Bray. She said they had no problem with building on the golf club lands but they had a huge problem with putting a park and playing field on the high ground and a high-density development on the low ground next to the river. She said that would move the storage area back into their homes as it would be trapped in the case of the fences breaking with the floodwaters coming into their homes.
Ms. McManus submitted that the zoning of the golf club lands has been wrong from the beginning.
Ms. McManus said that they were conscious that they did not want to get into a situation where they were saying no to everything. She said they were conscious of what Mr. Joyce of the OPW had said in relation to the danger to the community and the fact that the vulnerable people are at most risk. She said they needed flood defence works and she needed them to go ahead as soon as possible but they did not want the flood defence works to give permission to somebody to build on the escape route of the floods from their homes when it is not necessary.
Ms. McManus said what was required was the flood works as proposed and seen by Mr. Barr, their expert and she said what he saw he generally liked and SWAP totally accepted that. She said what was desperately needed was a condition in the granting of the flood defence works that what is granted and permitted is what has been seen and not a vague unknown thing that can change tomorrow. Ms. McManus noted that Mr. Joyce had consistently referred to the flexibility of the defences and she said if the main defence was enclosed in a basement it was no longer flexible.
Ms. McManus said that it was now difficult to know who is Bray Town Council and who is Pizarro. She said no one knows who is running the town at this stage.
Ms. McManus referred to the point in the Pizarro submission which stated the process should not preclude development. She said she would ask that it very definitely lay down a condition that what is approved is approved. She said if
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 100 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
there was going to be any changes made to the defences they should have to come back before An Bord Pleanála to make them. She said they should not be allowed to change something that has been passed and Bray Town Council should definitely not be the arbiter of what would be allowed. Ms. McManus said the flood defence scheme had been stated throughout the hearing as being standing on its own. She said if either was designed with the empty land there or it was not.
In relation to the submission by Pizarro on programming and phasing, Ms. McManus drew attention to the word “will” and she questioned the statement that the construction of the escape route as outlined could only be carried out as part of the basement construction of the mixed use development.
Ms. McManus referred to the OPW explanation in regarding the second project and the storage. She noted the approach being taken and stated they were accepting that on faith from the OPW reluctantly but they did not want to hold up flood defence works. She said they were looking for some sort of guarantee that the second project namely the dam would take place and not just disappear like the last second phase. Also if possible the emergency plan should have an indication in some way by way of a siren so that when the river reaches a certain level at least there is warning. She noted that Ms. Collins and Ms. Flood of Bray Town Council were the first two officials to come and talk to them and try to progress the emergency plan. Ms. McManus submitted also that there should be a condition that the floodplain would be kept free as part of the flood defences.
5.21(b)Mr. Adrian McKenna made a submission on behalf of SWAP as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 18-25)
Mr. McKenna referred to recent TV documentaries and to UK experiences in the past few years. He said that increased temperatures allows more moisture to be held in the air and it is stated that the incident of much heavier rainfall leading to flood would increase dramatically. He noted that the drainage system in the area is very old and he also noted the position in regard to insurance availability. One leading authority had stated that a 1 in 100 year flood event is likely to become a 1 in 10 year flood event in the foreseeable future.
Mr. McKenna also referred to the EPA Climate Change Report and quoted it as saying that on average Ireland is warming up at twice the rate as the rest of the world. He noted that this report was launched by the Minister for the Environment Mr. John Gormley who stated that in effect the debate on climate change was over. Mr. McKenna submitted that it was time to start acknowledging that the professionals are beginning to draw the line with each other. He submitted that the only way that flood protection should be paid for is with state funds that is not compromised in any way.
In relation to the predictions for less rainfall in the south-east and east of Ireland, Mr. McKenna says this may be true but if there were much drier
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 101 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
summers then the flora and fauna would be in a much drier state when a flood does arrive and there would be a high degree of rate of settlement going into the river channels. Mr. McKenna noted the comments of the EPA Director General in relation to the changes arising from climate change which were stated to be likely to increase over the coming 10-20 years. The Director General continued by stating that it would be necessary to consider and develop actions which would allow us to adapt to future climate conditions in order to avoid adverse impacts.
Mr. McKenna quoted Dr. Kelly of the EPA further on climate change when she said the OPW was the body responsible for flood protection and they had increasingly preached the gospel of the importance of flood plains. The guidelines are noted by Mr. McKenna as follows:
1. Development sensitive to the effects of flooding would generally not be permitted in flood prone or marginal areas.
2. Appropriately designed development not sensitive to the effects of flooding may be permissible in flood plains provided it does not reduce the floodplain area or otherwise restrict flow across floodplains.
Mr. McKenna said that’s what had been asked for from the very beginning namely to move the development to the higher ground. He said also something that was being asked for was an adequate response and warning system as there is not one in the town of Bray.
Mr. McKenna drew attention to the OPW website which notes that underlying causes of flooding namely heavy rain and high sea levels are essentially uncontrollable. It notes that the factors affecting the extent and severity of the flooding can be addressed. Mr. McKenna said that anyone who has lived in Bray for any length of time would be able to know that each time there is a period of heavy rain the golf club was a lake.
Quoting further from the OPW website, Mr. McKenna noted it stated that in times of flood the river flows not alone through its normal channel but also along the floodplains. He noted that video evidence had been shown at the oral Hearing in relation to the golf club lands showing the river flowing through the golf club.
Mr. McKenna further quoted the website which stated that the construction of buildings and particularly embankments for infrastructure for protection in or across a flood plain can not only put the development itself at risk of flooding but can also increase the flood risk for land and properties upstream.
Mr. McKenna said the OPW also stated that development consisting of construction of embankments, wide bridge piers or similar structures would not normally be permitted. He said this should be borne in mind if the proposed LUAS extension to cross the floodplain from the north to reach Bray DART station is permitted. He said it was acknowledged that the building of the railway line was the beginning of the flood problems in the area. Mr.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 102 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
McKenna noted that it had been shown at the previous hearing that the whole area used to be a very wider delta and the river broke up into several small sections with islands.
Mr. McKenna concluded by referring to the annual report of An Bord Pleanála which stated that it could not be assumed that the Board would be constrained to grant permission by zonings which were not sustainable or which contradict the national policies or Regional Planning Guidelines. He said the report noted cases where the site was at risk of flooding. Mr. McKenna said the Chairman of the Board said that the Board would not be deflected from refusing permission in such cases merely because the local authorities might be at risk of having to pay compensation arising out of unjustifiable zonings.
Mr. McKenna said he believed that in this case the statement is entirely viable and should be considered in its entirety.
5.21(c) Ms. McManus on behalf of SWAP made a further submission:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 113-114)
Ms. McManus read an email from Mr. Barr written after Day 2 of the hearing. This stated that if the specification for the physical hydraulic modelling was not available, could a requirement be put in that the option of not protecting the golf course lands is included in the modelling. He also requested that another planning application could be asked for to cover the escape routes through the golf club lands once the physical modelling is completed and the culvert / flap valve capacity had been determined and detailed design carried out.
Ms. McManus said she had phoned Mr. Barr following the Pizarro submission and she said his response was that the storage on the golf club lands is not the one of extreme importance but what is of vital importance is the golf club lands as an escape route. He said he was not happy with the capacity quoted in the letter for the culvert.
Ms. McManus said Mr. Barr stated it was vitally important that if his request that the golf club lands be left unprotected was turned down, then at the very least, once the physical modelling had been carried out to show the capacity necessary for the escape route, there should be the opportunity to come back to An Bord Pleanála to discuss whether or not that is okay to go through. She said he was very concerned about the idea of building going on the ground without any physical modelling being carried out.
5.22 Mr. Little made a submission on behalf of Cosgrave Developments (La Vallee/Riversdale) as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 173-182)
Mr. Stephen Little of Stephen Little and Associates, Planning Consultants stated he was representing his client Cosgrave Developments. He said the evidence would be in two parts namely introductory evidence to the town planning matters and engineering evidence from Mr. Sean Shannon of DBFL Consulting Engineers.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 103 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Little’s submission is tabbed SUB 06.
Mr. Little said about 80 of the 124 approved dwellings at Riversdale were occupied at that point and a crèche which was part of the development was operating. He said the crèche was 742m2 in area and the planning Reg. Refs. were 04/91 and 05/92 from the Bray Town Council planning register. He said building work was completed in September 2006. Mr. Little noted that the threat of flooding was expressly mitigated against in the development proposals which were adjudicated on by Council at that time.
Mr. Little said that the issue of flooding was raised during the pre-planning discussions with Bray Town Council where a gabion defence system was specifically requested by the Planning Authority. He said restrictions and complications that arise during the works on the river included the requirements of the Fisheries Board.
Mr. Little said that modifications to the northern banks of the River Dargle at its boundary with La Vallee and Riversdale are now proposed in the flood defence scheme. He said it would be their submission that the new La Vallee and Riversdale development do not warrant an embankment for protection, given the raised finished floor levels and the construction of gabion walls intermittently along the length of the site. He said the proposed works would result in the reduction of 700m2 of riverside public open space currently available to residents of Riversdale. He said his client had a reputation for delivering high quality developments and the amenity lands in the photographs are part and parcel of an integral part of the development. He said having reviewed the situation in detail, it was the advice of DBFL Consulting Engineers that an alternative option exists and this would confine the CPO to the southern bank only and it is the contention of the consulting engineers that this option represents the optimum solution for the site and indeed the local authority.
Mr. Little said under the Bray Town Council Development Plan the land opposite the subject site is generally governed by zone E1 – solely open space, F4 – reserve site to provide for mixed use development and there is also an objective for proposed pedestrian circulation in the area. He said he would direct attention to Map 3 of the Bray Town Council Development Plan and the majority of the frontage of the La Vallee and Riversdale site is an area considered preserved for river flood protection. Mr. Little said it would be reasonable to assume that the area where there is flood protection would indeed follow the entire length and frontage of his clients land. He said there was no option considered within the EIS for providing flood protection measures on that side of the river, yet the Bray Town Council Plan specifically identifies it as an appropriate location for such measures. Mr. Little said by way of clarification to the Inspector that on Rehills Land Action Area Plan Map C calls for a flood protection on the entire frontage on the river.
Mr. Little said that the option put forward had the least impact on Riversdale and would extend the bank widening works to the southern bank opposite La
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 104 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Vallee and utilising an area which is already identified by the EIS as accommodating a construction traffic route. He felt that the modification required could be attached by condition.
Mr. Little said the southern bank of the river had no special characteristics that would prevent the excavation of the type proposed and his proposal would safeguard the amenity value of the northern bank of the River Dargle. He said it was their contention that remedial works would also have to be undertaken on the southern bank due to its instability. He said he noted the Development Plan objective to provide a pedestrian route along the southern bank and it was their contention that the southern bank offered the best solution to the remedial works at this point.
Mr. Little said his clients wished to highlight to the Board their concern regarding routing of construction traffic in close proximity to a crèche that is currently operating. He said that route would require traffic to travel through both La Vallee and Riversdale developments. He said his clients wish to confirm to An Bord Pleanála that they are happy to accommodate light machinery construction access north of the La Vallee site. He said he wished to confirm also that Cosgrave Developments are not in fact in ownership of the plot identified as Site 24d. He said he wished the CPO to be amended to reflect this.
Mr. Little said his clients wished it to be noted that any money payable to them as a result of the CPO would be distributed to the sinking fund of the Riversdale management company and would not directly benefit Cosgrave Developments.
Mr. Little said in the event that the CPO order was confirmed in lands within the identified curtilage of Riversdale and La Vallee, while recognising the Councils entitlement to unhindered access to the CPO area, Cosgrave Developments would request that the Riversdale and La Vallee managing agents be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of these areas and that these areas be available for the benefit of the residents of La Vallee and Riversdale.
Mr. Little said they failed to understand how on balance the applicant had decided to take land from an existing residential community as 80 apartments were already occupied together with the crèche. He said a more appropriate piece of land is available on the southern bank and which it would be assumed, a similar flood defence boundary could accrue.
Mr. Little said in his submission the view is that the EIS did not appear to take full account of the Riversdale development, and he questioned whether the identified works had been proposed with the benefit of full and correct site details and DBFL Consulting Engineers had identified what they believed to be more suitable proposals for river widening works and which could be accommodated within the line of the CPO. He said DBFL had identified that the existing ground levels allow flooding to be contained within the Riversdale and La Vallee site therefore not effecting third parties.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 105 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Little stated he would urge An Bord Pleanála to consider the wider environment as envisaged by the Planning and Development Act 2000 in determining the matter and not simply issues relating to river flow or hydrology. He said he felt that it would be in the interests and proper planning and sustainable development of the area that the flood protection measures be incorporated onto the opposite (described as southern but at this location is south eastern) bank of the River Dargle at that particular location. He said he recommended that a condition be attached to the Inspector’s recommendation seeking the relevant improvement works to be located on the southern (or opposite) bank of the Riversdale and La Vallee developments.
5.22 (Continued) Mr. Shannon, DBFL Consulting Engineers made an engineering submission complimenting the submission of Mr. Little above:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 182-188)
Mr. Shannon said DBFL Consulting Engineers had been retained by Cosgrave Developments to review the proposed River Dargle flood defence scheme as it relates to La Vallee/Riversdale developments. He submitted that the proposals are excessive in terms of the impact on his client Cosgrave Developments, and the residents of Riversdale / La Vallee. He would submit that the required river remedial works should be altered to impact neutrally on the development which received planning permission in 2004 and was constructed as recently as 2005/2006. He referred throughout his evidence to the written submission which is tabbed SUB07. Mr. Shannon drew particular attention to Figure 1 and 2 of this document. He said the Riversdale development (Planning Reg. Ref. 04/81) consisted of three apartment blocks over a 1.37 hectare site and the La Vallee development (Planning Reg. Ref. 199/99) was situated directly north and downstream and consisted of three apartment blocks on a 2.08 hectare site bordering the River Dargle.
Mr. Shannon said that a HECRAS model was constructed of the River Dargle by J. B. Barry and Partners to assess the potential for flooding of the proposed sites and a flood figure of 300m3 per second was agreed with Bray Town Council as the flood defence flow required for both developments. He said finished floor levels, car park levels and ground levels for the developments were based on that modelling exercise and the details were given in Table 1.1 of his submission. He noted that the finished floor levels varied from 13.95 to 14.75 which was between 2 and 2.75 metres above the 100 year storm event. (Table 1.1 indicated predicted water levels of between 12.35 and 13.69 metres OD)
Mr. Shannon said both developments included extensive high quality landscaping to the River Dargle including the provision of gabions.
Mr. Shannon referred to Figure 3 of his submission and noted the proposed flood defences as in the Bray Town Council Scheme, these include: -
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 106 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Excavation of up to 3 metres of riverbank over 120 metres length bordering the Riversdale development.
Installation of an embankment of 0.75 metres high over a length of 120 metres to both La Vallee and Riversdale developments.
He said the works would impact Riversdale in the following manner: -
Excavation of 3 metres of riverbank would result in a significant reduction in the amenity area available. This has been estimated at 700m2 or 15% of the total riverside area.
Excavation of the bank of the River Dargle may potentially result in the need to divert services in the immediate area of residential Block A. Mr. Shannon said this excavation could also result in undermining or disturbance of the foundations to the block which is five storeys high and within 8 to 9 metres of the River Dargle. He said this gap would be reduced to a little more than 5 to 6 metres if excavation occurred to the bank at that location.
Construction of the scheme would require a construction access through the now occupied Riversdale development.
Mr. Shannon set out the alternatives and referred to Figures 4 and 5 of his submission. He said it was proposed that if excavation of the riverbank was required to maintain or increase the capacity of the River Dargle it should be completely limited to the southern bank as shown on Figure 4. He said that the southern bank was undeveloped and had no special merit which would prevent excavation of the type proposed in the EIS. Mr. Shannon said this should be extended up to where the Town Council proposed excavating and just taking that nick out of the river. He said it would be noted that the proposed works would still be within the CPO line.
Mr. Shannon said the implementation of this alternative would safeguard the structural stability of Block A in Riversdale and the amenity value of the frontage to the River Dargle currently enjoyed by the residents of both La Vallee and Riversdale. Mr. Shannon said he proposed that the requirements for an embankment along the river at La Vallee / Riversdale should be omitted and that the existing riverbank should be allowed flood during extreme flood events. He said the estimated extent of the flooding is shown on Figure 5.0 of his submission and had a flood level of 11.96metres OD at section GG. He said the flood area is largely contained within the green area to the riverbank.
He said if the embankment level of 12.46metres OD at Section GG is taken as critical the flood area becomes larger in extent but flooding in the car park area is still limited to a relatively small area and depths are limited to 100- 200mm approximately. He said they did not consider this depth of flooding in car parking areas would pose a risk to the residents of the La Vallee / Riversdale developments. He said it should be noted that based on the above
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 107 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
levels the flood event would be contained within his client’s site and would not impact third party lands.
By way of conclusion, Mr. Shannon submitted that Cosgrave developments and the residents of Riversdale / la Vallee welcome the implementation of a flood defence scheme for the River Dargle. He said the implementation of the works as currently constituted would have a significant, permanent, negative impact on the residents of both developments. He said to remedy the situation they would ask that the alternative proposals be considered to (1) allow the site to flood during extreme flood events and (2) limit excavation to the southern banks of the River Dargle at Riversdale / La Vallee so that the existing river frontage of the River Dargle can be retained for the amenity of the residents of both developments.
5.22 (Continued) Questions were put by Bray Town Council to Mr. Shannon and Mr. Little in relation to their submission as follows: - (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 188-206)
In response to a number of questions from Mr. Keane, Mr. Shannon said he had worked on preliminary reports for schemes and had come across flooding issues over a number of years in engineering practice. Mr. Keane asked about the 20cm of flooding on the car park and would that not cause a risk. Mr. Shannon said that he was dealing with extreme flood events and a 1 in 100 year storm may affect one car parking space and if you go o a 300-year storm the number of car parks might flood to 100 or 200 millimetres.
Mr. Keane asked about the widening of the far side of the river given that the banks rose quite steeply on that side. Mr. Shannon said he was aware of the trees on the far side and that he understood Mr. Keane’s point about requiring a significant amount of tree removal and that a steep slope would be left. He said that on the Riversdale and La Vallee side gabions had been built to the banks and it should now move across the river to the southern side.
Mr. Keane referred to Block A of the Riversdale development which was the closest to the river and suggested to Mr. Shannon that the effects of the works on both banks in essence amounted to straightening of the river. Mr. Shannon said he accepted it would straighten the river and that it was good to take out bends. He said gabions and river work was already being put in there and the river could be straightened further downstream simply to leave the residents of Riversdale with their amenity.
Mr. Keane referred to Figure 3 attached to Mr. Shannon’s submission and asked could the earthen embankment be landscaped in such a way that it would appear pleasant. Mr. Shannon said having walked the site there is a large fall and one could not leave the embankment to the riverbank there. He said you would be building up the area for just 6 metres. Reference was made by both Mr. Keane and Mr. Shannon to Section GG of Drawing B237-145 and that there was a gradient of 1 to 2 on the embankment. Mr. Shannon said his point was that an embankment was being put in to protect against the flood event that occurs once in a hundred years and floods to about 100mm for the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 108 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
majority of the green area in Figure 3. Mr. Keane said there was already a steep slope and it was not like one could walk down to the river at that location. Mr. Shannon said one could walk to the fence line.
The Inspector clarified that the photograph in question was View C – downstream from Figure 3.0 of Mr. Shannon’s submission. Mr. Shannon said that it would be roughly 8 to 9 metres wide at present (View D) and there would be 3 metres removed. He said what was proposed was an embankment 0.75 metres high with a slope of 1 to 2.
It was established that the floor level of the crèche which is behind Block A is 13.5metres OD. It was noted that the bottom of the embankment appears to scale 4 metres from the building at this cross-section. It was also established that the permission was granted by Bray Town Council following a detailed flood assessment in 2004.
Mr. Keane asked about View A Ref. Figure. 3.0 (also could relate to 4.0) and he noted a fence at the top of the embankment. He referred to View B which was the upstream bank from Figure 3.0 and the gabions are visible in View D which is the downstream bank. Mr. Keane asked based on those photographs would there be what he termed a marginal difference in how close one could get to the river. Mr. Shannon said the engineering answer was that you would be 3 metres away from the riverbank or at least 1 or 2 metres. Mr. Keane suggested that between the moving of the river it would continue to the base of the embankment of Mr. Shannon’s client’s property. Mr. Shannon said one point now was that the residents would be moved back 2 metres and the area that they had between the building and the fence line is now down to 5 instead of 8 to 10 metres.
Mr. Keane said that with the embankment available it was a small reduction. Mr. Keane said the embankment was less than 1 metre above existing ground level and would be at 12.6metres OD. Mr. Keane said that he did not think any of the residents had actually objected and the objection was on behalf of Cosgrave Developments. Mr. Little said he wished to confirm the submission was made on behalf of Cosgrave Developments and the property management company was not formulated as of that time. He said Cosgrave’s had the support of those residents that were there at that time to be included in the submission.
Mr. Keane asked about the balcony indicated in Mr. Little’s submission on page 1 which indicated a large overhanging structure over the river. Mr. Little said that was a detached element on the amenity area and to the best of his knowledge it was not included in the planning application. He said he was however unaware of any enforcement action by Bray Town Council. Following a further question, in relation to the construction, Mr. Little said that his response would be that it was a matter for Bray Town Council to determine if it was unauthorised development.
Mr. Keane asked would it be correct to take the flood defence level as 12.46 metres. Mr. Shannon said in that instance without looking at the specifics it
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 109 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
could flood to maybe 400 or 500mm. Mr. Keane asked was the structure used for standing on and suggested that with anything over 150mm of water that somebody would be knocked off their feet. Mr. Keane pointed out that earlier evidence was that during Hurricane Charlie people went down to the river to watch and it had an attraction for people.
The Inspector asked for a response from Bray Town Council in relation to the submission by Mr. Shannon about the danger of undermining of Block A.
Mr. Keane noted that on Figure 3.0 of Mr. Shannon’s submission that View D - downstream bank appeared to indicate a vent or aperture which would be below the floor level. Mr. Shannon said that the floor level is 2.5 metres above the embankment level.
Dr. O’Sullivan said they had looked at the potential de-stabilisation of the existing building very closely from an engineering point of view. He said the current embankment was formed by a series of gabion walls and they considered that they needed to enhance the support and had considered rock anchors into the ground which might not necessarily have to go to rock but ground anchors that would provide additional support to the ground. Mr. Healy pointed out in relation to drawings that not all buildings were shown in the sections.
By way of additional comment Dr. O’Sullivan said that one of the concerns they had as a technical steering group was that that section of the river is of very high energy and also that the south bank particularly indicated an erosive nature of the slope. He said the bend that it referred to was effecting the flow they felt and it could undermine existing trees which could make their way into the river and they were very concerned about those sort of build ups. Dr. O’Sullivan said that the decisions were partly based on hydraulics but also contributed to by the nature of the south bank, and particularly in the severity of the slope. He said he believed that the works required there would be very significant in nature.
5.22 (Continued) Ms. McManus asked a question of Mr. Little as follows: - (Transcript Day 2 – Page 207)
Ms. McManus asked if the crèche was on the ground floor level in the Cosgrave Developments buildings. Mr. Little confirmed that it was. Ms. McManus said that in SWAP they had been dealing with the Council and the emergency services to try to put together an emergency plan to do a map in terms of where the most vulnerable people are and obviously a crèche is covered in that. She said because they did not have enough manpower to cover apartments she wanted to make the point that maybe Mr. Little could talk to the Council and make sure the crèche is registered as one of the vulnerable spots.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 110 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.23 Mr. John O’Sullivan made a submission on behalf of Ms. Ailbhe de Buitléar as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 – Pages 208-217)
CPO reference 14a and 14b.
Mr. O’Sullivan explained that his submission at the Hearing was additional to the submissions that were already lodged with the Board on the 9th September 2007. He said the stretch of the River Dargle at the bottom of Ms. de Buitléar’s garden was classified in the introductory chapter of the EIS under Table 1.1 in relation to key constraints where the potential impact on habitats was described and in particular it stated the most natural stretch of habitats and vegetation along the banks of the river was between the western end of People’s Park and La Vallee. Mr. O’Sullivan said Ms. de Buitléar’s property is situated within that stretch so the constraint was known from Day 1. Mr. O’Sullivan said despite identifying the constraint that the Town Council proposed to drastically alter the vegetation and thus the habitat of the stretch of the River Dargle at the bottom of Ms. de Buitléar’s garden. He said this would happen by the creation of a tall embankment whose impact cannot effectively be mitigated in terms of the loss of amenity to her garden and the loss of her direct access to the riverbank and could therefore compromise the security of her property including both her house and garden.
Mr. O’Sullivan said it was clear from Table 1.2 on page 6 of the introductory chapter of the EIS that the majority of those who responded expressed a preference for Option 3 or Option 6 which was the river works and river works with limited storage. He said the scheme as proposed did not contain any element of upstream storage and he submitted that An Bord Pleanála should only permit a flood defence scheme which involves upstream storage being constructed.
Mr. O’Sullivan said if the scheme had any chance of success it requires regular maintenance and Bray Town Council had never provided regular maintenance for the River Dargle on a consistent basis to date. Mr. O’Sullivan said it had been difficult for Ms. de Buitléar to obtain precise details of the specific elements of the proposals. He said despite having to involve the Ombudsman’s Office and having to threaten legal action, Bray Town Council had yet to identify which trees and which hedges it proposed to remove from Ms. de Buitléar’s garden. They had also failed to state whether or not it would provide a fence separating the remainder of her rear garden from the one third or so of her garden it proposes to acquire to undertake its proposed scheme.
Mr. O’Sullivan said if one went to the supplementary photographs on the submission (tabbed SUB 08) a photograph with red tape marking the boundary is the area the Council wish to put under Compulsory Purchase. He said the tape was laid by a representative from the Town Engineer’s Office. Mr. O’Sullivan said measuring from the tape it runs 52 feet back from the river towards the house and across the entire frontage which is 140 feet from west to east. It confirmed that the photograph was taken from the grass and looks onto the river and that it is Plot 14a which is being described.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 111 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the land past the tape falls quite dramatically to the river and was an important part in the context of Ms.de Buitléar’s garden. He said the garden was effectively in three levels and the lowest level is at riverbank level itself. Mr. O’Sullivan said that since the Town Council could not and would not identify the precise details of its scheme in relation to Ms. de Buitléar’s property, it followed that it could not assess the impacts in the EIS. He said for this reason it was submitted that the Board should not approve the EIS.
Mr. O’Sullivan said he wished to raise other points which were not in the text but arose during discussion at the Hearing. He said that from discussions between Mr. Barr and Dr. O’Sullivan that the impression might be that almost all of Ms. de Buitléar’s property was inundated in 1986 but in fact it was only the lower part of her rear garden that was inundated and the higher ground was not inundated at all.
Mr. O’Sullivan said that Ms. de Buitléar’s house received planning permission from Bray Town Council in 2001 and was constructed in 2002. Following a question by Mr. O’Sullivan it was clarified by Mr. Keane that the house was in fact shown on Drawing No. B237-120.
Mr. O’Sullivan said if the Board should decide not to uphold Ms. De Buitléar’s objections, that it would be very important that conditions would be very clear, very detailed and particularly in relation to noise. He drew attention to the evidence of the noise consultant in regard to the sheet piling proposed at Killarney Glen.
Mr. O’Sullivan said Ms. de Buitléar had tried very hard to understand the scheme. He said one of the things that did emerge was that she was told at one stage that the measurement of the land was actually from the house rather than from the river. Mr. O’Sullivan said Ms. de Buitléar felt very strongly that the CPO is oversized and that the land actually required to do the works would appear to be significantly less than the amount of land contained in the CPO. Mr. O’Sullivan said he accepted that the Town Clerk offered to send an official to visit Ms. de Buitléar again next week to see if details could be discussed further.
Mr. O’Sullivan said that it did seem surprising that a scheme would not have had more detail in relation to someone’s property before it reached oral Hearing stage. He said it seemed that the detail which was received would not have been got only the oral Hearing was called.
5.24 A submission was made by Pizarro Developments and questions were asked on the submission as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 1-10)
Ms. Mary Birmingham, with Mr. Conor McDonald made a submission on behalf of Pizarro Developments. The submission is tabbed SUB 09.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 112 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Birmingham outlined the recent history of the Bray Golf Club lands including the zoning and the previous planning application which she said was refused with a primary reason being that of prematurity pending approval of a Bray Flood Defence Scheme. She noted that in October 2007 Pizarro submitted a revised planning application for the Bray Golf Club lands. Ms. Birmingham said by incorporating measures which would be identified, the current Bray Town Centre Scheme as proposed on the Bray Golf Club lands complies with the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme and Pizarro could implement some elements of the defence scheme within its development if approved.
Mr. McDonald continued the submission and referred to the drawing at the back of the submission (SUB 09). He said the first point he wished to note was in relation to Design Development of Construction Solution. He said the flood defence proposals along Ravenswell Road identified a solution involving:
Structural cut-off wall. RC retaining wall. New embankment. New landscaping.
Mr. McDonald said that one of the design principles he understood was the containment of the flow of the main river to within a particular profile. He said the structural cut-off wall could be developed to act as a basement wall and the retaining walls could be incorporated into the proposed basement construction in which case the embankment would no longer be required and there would be revised landscaping proposals. Mr. McDonald said Pizarro requested that the Board would take cognisance of the flexibility required for designing development of the solutions proposed.
Mr. McDonald referred to the flood escape route. He said his understanding was that the flood escape route was required as a flood relief mechanism and would provide a conduit for floodwaters through Dwyer Park to re-enter the river channel downstream of Bray Bridge. He said the capacity required was 20m3/sec. He said the proposal was the incorporation of a varying width concrete box culvert integrated within the basement. He said from the current design the width would vary from 15 metres at the upstream entrance, 23 metres wide at a bend and reducing to 10 metres at the outlet. He said the concrete box would be 5 metres high in places and represented approximately 5,000m2 of basement floor area and involved the relocation of 250 parking spaces. Mr. McDonald said the box culvert as proposed would in his opinion comply fully with the requirements of the emergency escape route as identified in the flood defence scheme and would be modified if necessary as directed by Bray Town Council depending on the results of the physical model.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 113 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. McDonald referred to the widened riverside sweep. He said in the revised planning application, the eastern plaza had been designed to allow for river widening and a section approaching the railway bridge that would result in a cut into the golf club lands of 12 metres for a stretch of 150 metres.
Mr. McDonald made a submission in relation to site compounds and said that one of the four compounds on the scheme was indicated as being within the golf club lands. He said access to the golf club lands would be gained via Castle Street and he submitted that flexibility be allowed with respect to the precise location of the site compound within the golf club lands as identified in the CPO.
In relation to programming and phasing, Mr. McDonald said that they would anticipate there would be a period of time when the two projects would be running in parallel. He said there could be benefits to both schemes if there was an opportunity to coordinate the construction activities adjoining the golf club lands. He said that Pizarro Developments were willing to carry out works related to the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme within the first phase of any future development of the golf club lands.
Mr. McDonald also refers to coordinated diversion of services and said there would be an opportunity to coordinate diversion of services and he cited a 525mm diameter combined sewer which needed to be diverted and a 10kv overhead ESB line.
Under the heading improving sustainability, Mr. McDonald said the 160,000m3 of soil to be removed as part of the works included the use of 70,000 m3 to raise the ground profile in the lands at the Slang. If the development of the golf club lands would include a considerable re-grading exercise and good quality fill would be needed and that as some of the excavated material the flood defence works could be suitable as engineering fill a coordinated “cut and fill” exercise could be carried out.
The Inspector asked questions to clarify the submission and Mr. McDonald confirmed the following: -
The drawing in the submission was taken from the current planning application.
Mr. McDonald said that the drawing did not conflict with the proposals being put forward in the flood defence scheme.
It was clarified that the submission was drawing attention to the fact that there is a planning application lodged.
The differences would be in the form of construction in that the flood defence scheme has an embankment and Pizarro propose to culvert that into a basement construction.
The submission states how the capacity of 20m3/sec could be provided.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 114 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
5.25 Submission made on behalf of Senator Deirdre de Burca was read by Mr. Steve Matthews as follows: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 26-34)
The submission read by Mr. Matthews refers to two written submissions on behalf of Senator de Burca and these are tabbed SUB 10A and SUB 10B. This section also includes questions arising from the submission.
Ms. de Burca’s submission states she welcomes the application made by Bray Town Council for flood defence works for the Dargle River. Her concerns were the consultants had been previously employed by Pizarro Developments Limited and the potential for a very real conflict of interest was inherent in the design process. The submission states that the land has performed an essential function in past floods of accommodating excess water, thus alleviating the flood levels in the nearby low-lying residential area of Little Bray.
The submission states that as a member of Bray Town Council from 2004- 2007 Senator de Burca enquired of senior officials on a number of occasions whether the remit given to the design consultants included the possibility of leaving the floodplain free of any development and the response on different occasions was that it both did and did not include that possibility. The submission states there was a total lack of clarity about the issue.
The submission states that the proposed design of the defence works excludes the floodplain from the flood defence works. It states that this appears to be on the basis that the storage capacity of the floodplain is limited.
Senator de Burca’s submission refers to the UK guidelines on flood risk and development. Quoting from the particular document which is included in submission SUB 10B it notes that built development in the functional floodplains where water flows or is stored in times of flood should be wholly exceptional and limited to essential infrastructure that has to be there. The submission stated that Section 10.4.4 from the Bray Town Development Plan 2005-2011 provides for the Council in consultation with the Office of Public Works to identify areas of the town prone to flooding which must be reserved for flood protection. Senator de Burca submitted that she did not believe that the Council had complied with that objective of the Town Development Plan.
The submission refers to the UK Flood Risk and Development Guidelines which include reference to the limits of hard engineered flood defences and refer to soft engineering techniques and it was submitted that the inclusion of the flood plain in the overall design of the flood defence works would constitute a soft engineering technique and should be considered by the Board.
Senator de Burca submitted that the application of the Precautionary Principle in the case of flood defence works would result in the incorporation of the floodplain into those works.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 115 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
The submission states that the planning application recently submitted by Pizarro indicated that the developer planned to proceed with high-density town centre development on the floodplain of the Dargle River. It is submitted that the effect of that development would be to remove all the absorptive capacity of the traditional floodplain and obstruct the natural flow of the river.
The submission states that if the Board were to direct the Town Council to include a floodplain in the overall design it would ensure that the inappropriate development of the floodplain i.e. a high-density town centre would not occur. Senator de Burca’s submission urged the Board to direct Bray Town Council to include a section of the floodplain on the Bray Golf Club lands in any flood defence works which were approved for the Dargle River.
At this point Mr. Matthews asked Mr. Healy some questions of clarification and some questions arising from the submission of Pizarro made in Section 5.24.
Mr. Matthews asked about the maintenance of the culvert which was proposed by Pizarro. Mr. Healy’s response was that in cases where such a proposal was approved, it was done by way of wayleaves or easements but he said he was only seeing the proposal and hearing about the proposal and he said he hadn’t studied it as it was a submission made on that day.
Mr. Matthews asked about the maintenance figure of €2.5 million quoted by Mr. Joyce of the OPW. Mr. Healy said that the cost benefit analysis which was carried out would have taken 1.5% for maintenance and what was done was to take the net present value cost of the scheme over a 50 year period and then apply a 1.5% maintenance cost to that. He said he was not quite sure where the €2.5 million figure came from.
Mr. Matthews asked a question on the geomorphology study and how it would affect the maintenance cost. Dr. O’Sullivan said that the Dargle had shown itself to be reasonably sustainable in terms of morphology. Evidence he said suggested that the sediment trap that currently exists at the Slang was capable of dealing with sediments that are being washed down for low to medium flows. He said obviously the flood flows that potentially generate larger portions of sediment and that was an aspect that would be dealt with in the full geomorphological study which was to be undertaken.
Mr. Matthews asked if the culvert proposed by Pizarro was to be an integral part relating to flooding should that not be compulsorily purchased also. Mr. Healy said this was a proposal that was only coming on the table at that point. He said he thought the Council would have to look at that and view it accordingly.
5.26 Submission of Mr. Ruairi de Buitléar, Bellville, Dargle Valley presented by Ms. Eithne Carey: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 36-42)
CPO reference 14c and 14d
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 116 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Carey said she was making the submission on behalf of her farther Ruairi de Buitléar of Bellville, Dargle Valley which he said was also known as Upper Dargle Road on some of the maps. Mr. De Buitléar’s submission stated that he had lived on that part of the riverside his whole life. He had serious concerns and objections to parts of the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme and the CPO process.
The submission states that in July 2007 Mr. Stephen Fox of Bray Town Council and Mr. Ian Crehan of O’Connor Sutton Cronin visited Mr. de Buitléar to discuss the proposed plans. It was made clear at that point that the flood defence works would only require the removal of light vegetation from the land. The submission states that if this were the case a permanent CPO would be considered unnecessary and excessive. Mr. de Buitléar submitted that there was no objection to such light clearing being conducted as part of a well-planned flood prevention scheme.
Referring to the CPO, the submission states that the lines of delineation on the map did not appear to be in the same position as the physical markers placed on the land by Bray Town Council.
Eight photographs are attached to the written submission which is tabbed SUB 12. It is submitted that the proposed CPO appears to be far more than necessary for the light landscaping measures which were indicated as being required. The submission states that a simply legal agreement between Bray Town Council and the property owners would be sufficient for that work.
In the submission, Mr. de Buitléar states that the property has been a bustling family dwelling enjoyed so far by four generations who have taken particular pleasure in its gardens which are landscaped to incorporate the unique features that are the river and the riverbank. Mr. de Buitléar stated that he has continued in his retirement to care for the environment which he had nurtured and cultivated throughout his adult life. It is submitted that the loss of the large and integral section of the garden would have an enormous impact on his enjoyment of daily life during his retirement. It states it would also have a detrimental effect on the enjoyment of the site by future residents of the property.
The submission states that the proposed development works and CPO would seriously impact on the value of the property and would reduce the visual quality and environmental characteristics of the property. The Council it is stated had not indicated any measures that are proposed to lessen the impact of the proposed works such as landscaping plans.
The submission states there had been discussions relating to developing a riverside walk in the future on the north riverbank as per Section 9.4.1 of the Development Plan. It is submitted that the confirmation of the CPO on Mr. de Buitléar’s land would facilitate this. The submission states that this raises significant security concerns for himself and other residents. It states he was concerned that the flood defence scheme may be used as an easily justifiable
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 117 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
mechanism to enable land acquisition which would allow the riverside walk development at a later date without the right of objection from the home owners most affected by the establishment of a right of way through their former gardens.
Mr. de Buitléar submitted that it would appear foolish to proceed with the plan without the construction of upstream storage and he noted that the proposed timing of the works would have a detrimental effect on spawning fish and nesting birds, including heron and kingfisher. Mr. de Buitléar’s submission raised concerns about potential impact on house foundations arising from dropping of the water table. He noted that post to 1986, it had been necessary to underpin his own house.
The submission states that much of the local flooding between Blind Lane (which is Love Lane on some of the maps) and Little Bray in 1986 was due to secondary factors. It is submitted that the County Brook burst its banks opposite the Slang due to a lack of flow capacity under Blind Lane. (Refer to Map B237-121) Mr. de Buitléar submitted that this water rushed along the Upper Dargle Road towards Coburg and in through the fronts of the houses affected and not from the river at the rear. Mr. de Buitléar’s house was not affected as it was built 18 inches above the 1965 flood level which was a planning condition stipulated at the time. He noted that condition was not applied to many subsequent developments for example Coburg, Seapoint Court and the Maltings.
Mr. de Buitléar stated that since 1986 a holding tank had been put in place on the County Brook to reduce the flow at peak water levels but that had affected the flow at normal levels causing silting of the county brook and reduced numbers of fish in the brook.
The submission states that as others had stated surface water drainage contributed to the problem on the Lower Dargle Road and Little Bray. The impact of the Paddock Lakes bursting was also referred to and it was submitted that this was another reason why the dam proposal should be re- entered.
Mr. de Buitléar noted proposed installation of a culvert of 1200mm diameter just above Coburg at the point of discharge from the county brook into the main river channel. The submission states that this appeared inadequate considering the cross-section of pipes under the Upper Dargle Road 50 yards upstream was double that. The submission states that the 1200mm pipe would be unable to cope with possible additional Dargle floodwaters which in 1986 entered the County Brook having passed across the front garden of the property now known as Dargle Lodge.
The submission refers to architectural heritage and noted that there did not appear to be anything in the EIS planning to reinstate the 150-year-old granite riverside retaining wall on Ravenswell Road.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 118 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
In conclusion the submission states that it was the opinion of many local people that whilst protecting existing dwellings and commercial properties in the Dargle Valley and Little Bray areas, the entire Dargle Flood Defence Scheme is mainly driven by the desire of Bray Town Council to move forward with a large commercial and residential development on a floodplain adjacent to the River Dargle in the old golf club lands which were previously refused permission by An Bord Pleanála.
5.27 Submission by Mr. Eamonn Halpin, acting for Paul and Edel Flynn of Lough Crew on the Dargle Road:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 42-51)
Mr. Halpin, Chartered Surveyor presented his written submission to the hearing which is on behalf of Paul and Edel Flynn and this is tabbed SUB 11. it includes eight photographs and a location map. The CPO references are plots 17a, 17z and part of 02i.
Mr. Halpin said it was unfortunate that people are termed objectors because his client was very supportive of general works to lead to an improvement of flood defences for the town. He said they were not there to criticise the scheme in its entirety but in relation to several matters including the value of his client’s property. He said he believed that his client’s plots were totally superfluous to the CPO. He explained that the two plots 17a and 17z should also have a portion of the plot to the centre of the river included to reflect his client’s ownership.
Mr. Halpin submitted that there had been an absence of detail related to the timescale, as the scheme would affect individual sections of properties. He said it was understood that if approved, it would be over two summer seasons but how long it might affect individual properties including security measures, screening had not been included. Mr. Halpin said his client’s property would devalue and he would make the point that his client was a full time artist. Mr. Halpin said the single most attractive feature of the property from his client’s point of view was that it actually adjoined the river. Mr. Halpin explained the items covered by the photographs with Photographs Nos. 1 to 4 setting out the existing situation and the following two photographs indicating the engineering works carried out after the 1986 flooding. The last two photographs referred to by Mr. Halpin show the rear of the property indicating the gate and the septic tank adjacent to the fence. Also included in the submission is the extract of the site map from the CPO documents.
By way of conclusion, Mr. Halpin stated that as there were no engineering works on that section of the property it could be ascertained from the documents supplied he submitted that the two plots should be excluded from the process.
Following an enquiry from the Inspector in relation to a temporary take, Mr. Healy said there were a number of discussions ongoing at that time in relation to acquisition and the question of ownership to the centre of the river would result in an amendment to some drawings.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 119 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Halpin asked a question of Mr. Healy in relation to land acquisition and its input into the cost benefit analysis. He said he was not looking for information in relation to a further stage which he might or might not be involved in but wished to say that the impact of land acquisition on the cost benefit analysis would be significant.
Mr. Halpin clarified the direction in which photographs were taken for Mr. Keane and following a question from Mr. Keane he agreed that he could amend his submission into saying that there were no engineering works to be carried out as in Drawing B237-120 it provided for clearing away and cut back of vegetation.
5.28 Submission by Mr. D. Collins as follows on behalf of Bernard and Elizabeth Collins of Killarney Glen, Bray:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 51- 58)
Mr. Collins referred to Drawing No. B237-116 and the CPO ref. 16a, b, c, y, z and 15z. Mr. Collins said that he believed there was a great chance to mitigate the impacts of the scheme at this stage. He said the details of the solutions had been hard to get. He said his preferred option would be upstream storage with potential floodwater and he said that submissions at the proceedings did not give a real feel for the catastrophic effects of flood conditions. He said when the river decides to break out it breaks out and it does not have regard for what is in its way or who is in its way. He said that results would not be known until nature provides us with the text conditions that we need.
Mr. Collins said that Cosgrave Developments had said the southern bank of the Dargle River opposite La Vallee would need remedial works to stabilise it and he said the same was true of the southern bank all along Rehills field and Killarney Glen. Mr. Collins referred to photographs in his submission which is tabbed SUB13.
It was clarified by the Inspector that points of submission by Mr Collins would need to be made at the Hearing.
Mr. Collins said that the bridge abutment is a very important part of the defence system that already existed in the river and it was overlooked in the report as being of no historical cultural importance to the area. He said he wished to point out that a bridge was constructed to serve the Dargle Bray Laundry which was one of the biggest employers in the town at one stage. He said the remains of the bridge are also available at Killarney Glen.
Mr. Collins said if permission was granted he would request that parcels 16a and 16b get the same level of protection on the south riverbank as is afforded on the northern bank and that a retaining wall be used to prevent erosion by undermining of the riverbank. He referred to Photograph 1 in his submission that if a retaining wall were used the river could be excavated deeper with a narrower channel instead of the extraordinary width of up to 200 feet from riverbank to the line of excavation. Mr. Collins said they had no trouble in
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 120 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
accommodating the full cross-sectional area of the channel but not two to three times cross-sectional area at that point.
Mr. Collins said that it appeared to him that the reason for this was the debris trap that is proposed at the rear of the lithographic or laundry site across the river. He said it was badly sited and by design is only partially complete. He submitted that the debris trap has no containment on either side and is up to the level of the flood defence system. He said there did not seem to be any physical barrier to stop the river circumventing the debris trap travelling and eroding through Rehills field over a period of time. Mr. Collins submitted that there was ample room in Rehills field for any measures that the Council wished to employ without harshly penalising landowners in the area. He submitted that the natural debris trap area of the river currently exists further upstream than where it is proposed.
He said in his experience the river had broken out at the Slang in previous years and would continue to look at breaking out in its historical sites. Mr. Collins pointed out the photograph of the sheet-pile wall which existed at Killarney Glen. This was given as Photograph No. 6. He said there was a proposal to excavate the bottom of the piled wall to remove up to 1 metre of alluvial collection and he wished to know if there had been any kind of evaluation as to the pile depth and if excavation could possibly undermine the existing wall. He said at the Section 16z and 15z there is an outfall into the river known as the culverted stream from Brook Wood. He said the stream originally flowed into a pond at Brook Wood and the pond now allows material to flow directly into the river which once settled in the pond. He said he wanted to know what the Council intended to do about the quality of the water coming from the outflow and it seemed to him to have an element of sewage waste.
Mr. Collins said the river traditionally had been eroding the south bank for many many years. He said there was a reason to believe the river had moved so far across to the south bank there is actually land belonging to residents of the south bank now on the north bank.
Mr. Collins confirmed to the Inspector that the pipe through plots 16z and 15z currently entered the river at river level but the proposal was to put a hinged flap on it but if there was sewage coming out 10 feet up from the wall it was not going to be a very attractive prospect particularly for residents downstream. Mr. Collins said that he hoped it would be dealt with in a fair and equal manner and that flood defences would be equal to the rest of the river and they would not be penalised harshly or unduly to have lands taken that are not actually necessary if the site of the debris trap was moved to where it should be upstream of any proposed new bridge that serviced the field of Rehills.
5.28a Submission by Ms. Audrey Collins as follows: - (transcript Day 3 – Pages 58-63)
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 121 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Collins said her parents were very worried and upset about the CPO of their lands. She said the Bray Urban District Council compulsorily purchased land already which had been their old avenue. She said in exchange instead of giving money they gave a swap and they now want to take the land they had given back again. Ms. Collins said they would prefer a swap again because the Council owns Rehills land and she said her father would be agreeable to some sort of arrangement on something like that.
Ms. Collins said the right of way with the proposed new wall to the river would be denied. She said the Council had said they would give access to a proposed new bridge but as it stands now they would loose their ownership of land near the river because they did not have access due to the proposed new wall. She said the land would be devalued because the excavations and defence systems.
Ms. Collins said her father would prefer as a lot of other people would to have upstream storage as the number one phase and she said she thought the Council were putting the cart before the horse.
Ms. Collins said that the proposal to raise Rehills field to a higher level would mean that their patch of land would become in effect duck ponds. She said the proposal of the Council was for a wall going across the north side of the lands with a gap.She stated that the river would have a mind of its own and would take the easiest route. She said their houses would be swamped following on down to the next set of houses and would ensure an even worse flood would ensue than in Hurricane Charlie. Ms. Collins commented on the impacts on the golf course of that flood and asked why the river was not diverted down through the golf course and then under the railway bridge to the sea.
Ms. Collins said she wished to know when the project would start and what the level of disruption and the level of dust would be.
By way of clarification Mr. Collins said that plot16y was a temporary acquisition and there was an existing wall which was sheet piled adjoining a stone built wall which his father built. He said there was a small concrete connector back from the main pile wall to the stonewall. He said this was running directly south perpendicular to the river. He said the wall was totally unnecessary because it would be never inundated with floodwater if the flood defence were correct along the riverbank. He confirmed that the dwellinghouse was beside the wall.
5.28b Questions posed by Ms. Audrey Collins and Mr Dermot Collins were answered as follows: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 68-75)
Mr. Healy said he would deal with the questions posed by Ms. Collins and said that the start date would be subject to the Board and the approval process but as to duration it had been identified as an 18 month contract period.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 122 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
He referred to Drawings B237-120 and Drawing B237-132. He said the existing sheet pile wall on Drawing 132 on Section 6 required additional strengthening to the sheet pile wall. Mr. Collins asked if a profile had been done on the depth of piling. Mr. Healy said they were designed as cantilevers and they were proposing a tie at the top and providing a restraint to the cantilever. He said it would be drilled from the riverside of the wall and drilling substantially deep so that they would not interfere with property.
Mr. Collins asked was it allowed to bore holes under somebody’s property without permission. Mr. Healy said that was the permission which was being sought. Mr. Collins said the CPO did not extend beyond the wall and Mr. Healy said the land being used to anchor the system would not interfere with the existing ground. He said it would be done from the riverside.
Mr. Keane said at that point that it was clearly a legal issue and the local authority did have the power under the relevant acts to go on for example for a sewerage problem.
It was confirmed to the Inspector that ground anchors were being used in a number of locations along the scheme. Mr. Keane (Page 74) quoted section 271 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878 and also Section 274 of the same Act.
Mr. Healy dealt with the question of water quality and the sewers. He said if there was a water quality problem in the surface water system it should be brought to the notice of the local authority. Mr. Collins said this had already been done. Mr. Collins said that surely proposals of the scheme should have some input into the quality of the water that is going into the Dargle River.
Mr. Collins said it was a very minimal amount of material in front of the sheet pile wall and the removal of that had given rise to the need for ground anchoring.
Mr. Collins asked a question in relation to disruption and Mr. Healy said in summary the previous evidence was that there would be a negligible impact in terms of the extraction and truck movement. Mr. Collins said that the problem of dust would require to be dealt with and they did not want to have a situation of living in a fog of dust pollution.
5.29 Submission by Mr. Jason Cooke, Bray and District Chamber of Commerce as follows: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 64-68)
Mr. Cooke stated he was a Director of Bray and District Chamber of Commerce and stated that the Chamber fully supported the implementation of a flood defence scheme as proposed in the EIS. He said the scheme represented the long desired and yearned for implementation of a flood protection scheme and on its own it was reason enough why the scheme as proposed should be approved.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 123 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr. Cooke said that the scheme represented a vital lifeline to the overall business of retail life of Bray. He said to promote the sustainable development of Bray it was considered that the scheme should be implemented in conjunction with the future of the golf club lands.
Mr. Cooke outlined the current status of the golf club lands and stated that the Chamber was pleased to note that Pizarro Developments had incorporated the design of the flood protection scheme into its own development plans. He said they considered the phasing of the development in that manner would ensure that public money was not wasted in an inappropriate approach to development whereby the flood defence scheme was implemented and then at a later date reconstruction of the defences are required. He said by developing the golf club lands in conjunction with the flood defence scheme it would represent a more efficient approach to development.
Mr. Cooke said that Bray and District Chamber of Commerce would draw the Board’s attention to the severe retail leakage afflicting the retail and business community in Bray for the past 10 years or more. He outlined the facts of this and the experiences of retailers. Mr. Cooke stated he wished to quote from the report of Mr. Tom Rabbitte to An Bord Pleanála in respect of the proposed Bray Town Centre development on the golf club lands. This quotation states, “the issue of locating such a quantum of retail is critical to the vitality and viability of a town. Bray is in a unique position that such a quantum of retailing can be provided adjacent to the existing commercial core. This site provides an opportunity to consolidate Bray and its commercial core.”
A further quote was “this effectively will allow the extension and expansion of the existing town centre instead of one competing with the other a synergy can develop and the town centre can continue as a single entity”. Mr. Cooke said that was the view that Bray Chamber of Commerce had held from the outset in relation to the development of the golf club lands.
Mr. Cooke submitted that development is vital for the town and community of Bray as a whole. He said that the Bray and District Chamber of Commerce requested that An Bord Pleanála take into consideration the impact on further retail linkage in Bray and the impact on existing retail businesses and jobs that would develop if there were any delays in the development of the golf club lands. He recommended approval of the River Dargle Flood Defence Scheme in conjunction with the golf club lands development.
5.30 Mr. Eamonn de Buitléar made a submission as follows: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 76 and 77)
Mr. de Buitléar said the holding tank which was on the County Brook has never worked properly. He said it was a very important area for spawning salmon and sea trout and that in times of flood fish ran up the tributary and spawned and then ran back into the river again. He said that the holding tank instead of controlling the water just drains the water from the County Brook
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 124 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
with the result the water runs into the river about three-quarters way up the Slang which means it is dropping from a height and no fish can actually use the stream when it is in that condition. He said this happens when there is no flood. Mr. de Buitléar said he could understand the use of it if the water was running out of the bank into the river in times of flood. He said the Eastern Fisheries Board had had a closer look at the tank on countless occasions and the whole design of the tank seems to be wrong. He said he thought it would be totally wrong to create another culvert further down which has been proposed. He said he would be totally against another culvert being built onto the stream.
Mr. Healy responded by saying that the holding tank was an existing holding tank and it was an issue that had been there and is outside of the project. He said it had been mentioned insofar as it is holding water in terms of how it actually releases water. Mr. de Buitléar said that that was his argument.
5.31 A clarification of CPO issues: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 91 and 92)
In relation to the objection of Ms. Marion Gaule, Mr. Foley stated that he was formally withdrawing Ms. Gaule’s objection. Mr. Keane said that Plot No. 18a would be withdrawn from the scheme and the amended schedule would be completed before the end of the Hearing on the basis of the agreement reached between Ms. Gaule and the local authority.
Mr. Keane confirmed in relation to the Seapoint Court Residents Association that the proposed river defence works on the southern bank of the River Dargle would necessarily require the closure of the right of way along the riverbank during construction works. He said as part of the works the riverside walk would be restored.
He said in relation to the path and alleged right of way for the residents of Seapoint Court, the local authority would undertake to provide a sloped tarmacadam access track at an angle to the slope from the edge of the proposed CPO lands adjacent to the turning circle at Seapoint Court. This path would extend up the river walkway and then provide a ramp and slopes of tarmacadam access track from the right of way along the riverbank to the lands formally occupied by the abattoir in the area of the rear of No. 18 Seapoint Court. Mr. Keane said that during construction there would be a closure of the existing right of way but it would be reinstated. Ms. Woodfull confirmed that the objection to the CPO aspect of the scheme was being withdrawn by the Seapoint Court Residents Association.
5.32 Submission by Ms. Woodfull as follows: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 92- 104)
Ms. Woodfull said the Seapoint Court Residents Association want flood protection and they would support the submissions made by Mr. Kenneth Barr that it offered a great improvement compared to the present situation and also
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 125 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
support his assertion that it is crucial that the floodplain be preserved and his view that this is critical as an escape route. She said it was stated Government policy and best practice not to build on a floodplain.
Ms. Woodfull said there was no reference to the option of not building on a floodplain in the EIS and she said this was strange indeed. She said it was now known from the evidence of the OPW that there was considerable discussion in relation to run-off water from the floodplain. She said that given the matter of the floodplain was central to some of the submissions, in law this should properly have been referred to. She said Mr. Keane had said already it has been referred to in the do-nothing option but she was talking about the floodplain as open space with other variables potentially taken into account.
Ms. Woodfull stated that the EIS has significant omissions and it is fundamentally flawed in circumstances where justice must be done and most importantly be seen to be done. She said four of the parties involved in the flood defence scheme namely O’Connor Sutton Cronin, Dr. John O’Sullivan, Mitchell and Associates Landscape Architects and McGill Planning Consultants were all involved in the last unsuccessful application by Pizarro Developments and excluding Dr. John O’Sullivan, they or their related companies are involved in the present Pizarro application currently before Bray Town Council. She said the Bray Town Council Planner, Mr. Stephen Fox had admitted in evidence that there could be a public perception that there could be a conflict of interest.
Ms. Woodfull stated that there was no reference to not building on the floodplain and there was a requirement for the EIS to set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for the choice taking into account the effects on the environment. She said the discussion on the floodplain should have been referred to in the EIS and the reasoning process should have clearly been set out and transparently set out.
Ms. Woodfull said the Seapoint Court Residents Association supported Mr. Barr’s assertion that more calculations should have been done in relation to the theory that leaving the floodplain free of building would actually in some way have a negative effect.
Ms. Woodfull referred to the assessment done by Mr. Gerry Mitchell in relation to landscape and visual impacts and his comment that his assessment would have been very different if there was development and building on the golf club lands. She said that pointed up the validity of the point in relation to the flawed nature of the EIS.
Ms. Woodfull said they had heard from all the consultants that their assessments were done on the basis of the golf club lands being free from buildings. She said all the considerations done, none of the Pizarro intentions were admitted in the evidence and it should have been on the basis of that proposed development being included. She said throughout the hearing she felt it was a Trojan horse and it had rather curiously emerged at eleventh hour
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 126 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
in the form of submissions that it was inextricably linked to the grant of permission in relation to the golf club lands. She said that given that throughout the Hearing it was presented as a standalone application and CPO for flood defence works contrary evidence had been submitted that it was going to be contingent only on development.
Ms. Woodfull said in Pizarrro’s submission they originally stated that they noted the proposed development in the form proposed would no longer be required once the golf club lands were redeveloped and in their second submission it was amended but they simply reiterated that things were going to be very different and one was not looking at the finished product at all and that is a big flaw.
Ms. Woodfull referred to the Brady Shipman Martin report which provided for no building on the floodplain section of the golf club lands but rather the placing of playing pitches there. She said therefore it was possible to develop on the lands but simply leaving the floodplain there as open space that can be used in a different way.
Ms. Woodfull said that from the evidence of Mr. McGill this was a stand- alone scheme and would be proceeded with even if nothing were built on the golf club lands. She said there was a conflict of interest and there are different matters now before the Hearing that had been raised. She said it was unusual that any developer would undertake such costly works without any perceived development. She said that in the situation where such little work had been done by Bray Town Council in relation to flood protection she felt people were saying that the consultants were saying this is the best we’re going to get and if we don’t take it, it will not be done and Pizarro wont pay for it. She said that was no way to do proper planning.
Referring to the Pizarro document presented on Day 3 of the Hearing, Ms. Woodfull quoted portions which included reference to elements of the scheme within the golf club lands being implemented if approved. She said this indicated that there was no certainty that the defence works would proceed at all. She said they had been told that work was to be jointly funded between Pizarro and Bray Town Council but the different extents of money are not known. She said there was a change in relation to the scheme and it is now linked with development which is what Pizarro itself was now saying. She referred to the reference to the structural cut-off wall being adapted and developed to act as a basement wall and she noted the change in tense from will to could but they were saying if you don’t give us a grant of planning permission we are not going to do this flood defence scheme.
Ms. Woodfull referred to the revised planning application and the submission in relation to the widened riverside sweep. She said different evidence was being presented as to what was actually going to happen in relation to the food protection works if they ever happen. She referred also to a comment about the two projects being run in parallel. Ms. Woodfull said that this meant there are tied together.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 127 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Ms. Woodfull said at the eleventh hour the reality of the situation was seen without people having time to adequately consider it. Ms. Woodfull referred to a conflict of interest and said that no decision in relation to the scheme should be contingent on the grant in relation to the main planning application in relation to the golf club lands. She repeated that the two aspects should not be linked.
Ms. Woodfull submitted that there was a huge flaw in the EIS in that the assessments in relation to the floodplain have not been reflected in the EIS and she said the reason was that there was a clear conflict of interest between the parties making that assessment and they are never going to do that because he who plays the piper always calls the tune.
Ms. Woodfull said the residents of Seapoint Court endorse the works happening because they are badly needed but they would ask that the floodplain not be built on.
5.32 (cont.) Ms. Woodfull made further submission as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 141/2)
Ms. Woodfull said she wished to make an application in relation to costs under Section 219 of the Planning and Development Act. She said she had four points to make as follows: -
Seapoint Court Residents Association is a group without significant financial resources.
They devoted considerable time and energy throughout the process and attended many meetings and in fact were referred to the hearing from a meeting which is why everyone was present. She said several members attended the hearing throughout and it was essential that they come to the hearing to actually get answers to questions from the people involved.
Seapoint Court Residents participated in an organised way and she would submit that that helped the efficient conduct of the hearing.
There are complex and legal technical issues which arose in the matter and would require legal representation. She said it was a David and Goliath situation in terms of resources and to bring some equality to the process, the residents association needed the minimum of legal representation.
Ms. Woodfull said on foot of the above, she was seeking that a recommendation made in relation to her costs
5.33 Submission by Mr. Steve Matthews on behalf of Councillor Ciaran O’Brien and the Green Party: - (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 104-105)
Mr. Matthews said the Green Party welcomed the flood defences and they were badly needed. He said they did not support unnecessary development on
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 128 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
the floodplain. He said it was in line with the OPW and in line with the sentiments of An Bord Pleanála’s Chairperson when he made his annual report quite recently.
Mr. Matthews said the Green Party had challenged the rezoning of the golf club lands and they stood over that challenge. It was rezoned for high-density development and they did not believe it should ever have been zoned that way.
Mr. Matthews said they supported the recommendations made by Kenneth Barr in the submission and would request that the Inspector take those recommendations and applies them in his report. He said they endorsed the flood defence works as being badly needed and they just want the best deal possible for all the residents in Bray and do not want to see any future development putting the residents at risk.
5.34 Additional information submitted by Bray Town Council and errata noted:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 105-107)
Mr. Keane said the revised schedule was being drawn up and Ms. Gaule’s plot of 18a was being removed from the CPO. Errata and the EIS was noted as follows:-
Mr. Healy said the first erratum was on Page 4 of the non-technical summary Paragraph A – reference should be 2.4 instead of Section 3.4.
EIS Page 8, Table 1.3 a misprint in a sentence, which has no relevance, should be struck out.
Truck movement calculations given in the EIS as 22 truck movements. It is revised to 32 truckloads and 64 truck movements which is also the information on Page 16 of Mr. Healy’s brief of evidence.
Clerical error at the rate of which the east coast was falling a typographical error indicated it as 30mm per year and it should be 3mm.
Revised drawings in A3 and full size for Drawing B237-140 and 141 Revision A were submitted and these are tabbed LA15.
Mr. Healy said that the levels could not be made out from the A3 size drawing in relation to levels in Little Bray.
The 5 metre tie in at Seapoint Court was covered by a revision of the Drawings No. 140 and 141 as circulated and Drawing No. 113 which was the plan section did not need to be amended as it indicated the new works retaining wall which would tie in with the existing wall.
In relation to rebuilding as an option with raising of levels generally, the original estimate of 540 properties was made and considered to be low.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 129 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
The lowest point in the entire scheme was Seapoint Court which was particularly low and also the Maltings and similarly Little Bray – Seapoint Court outfall could give rise to localised flooding in times of heavy rainfall.
Two outfall points are at the Maltings – an attenuation tank is at the Maltings and under the scheme it is proposed to provide a non return valve on both of the two outfall pipes.
In 2001 / 2002 a sewer upgrade was carried out as part of the Bray- Shanganagh Works – an overall drainage network study was carried out at that time. An overall catchment of the Little Bray area was also carried out at that time – work includes upgrading of the pumping station and the holding tanks and Shanganagh Treatment Works.
5.35 Mr. Keane gave details of rights of way as follows:- (Transcript Day 3 – Pages 123-124)
In response to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Keane outlined the rights of way, which were as follows: -
The triangle at People’s Park – the riverbank has been excavated but a river walk is being substituted.
Ravenswell Road extinguishment of one right of way and replacement with another
– on the north bank it commences as a vehicular roadway but is pedestrian only at the eastern end. – a continuation of the pedestrian pass to the north of the river will be provided which would not be vehicular.
A right of way from Seapoint Court to Bray Bridge – extinguished and being replaced together with the modification previously referred to in Section 5.31.
On a procedural matter, Mr. Healy said that it was his opinion that the lands as identified in the CPO are required to carry out the Bray Flood Defence Scheme.
Ms. Collins asked Mr. Keane about the removal of a right of way at Killarney Glen and questioned why three rights-of-way were mentioned. Mr. Keane said the three rights-of-way are public rights-of-way which is proposed to extinguish. He said private rights-of-way would fall within the acquisition of land but they are not required to be the subject of the CPO scheme but the evidence in relation to a right-of-way across Killarney Glen there was no proposal to extinguish the public right-of-way at that location. Ms. Collins asked would they retain their right of way and Mr. Keane said what he was saying was that if there is a right-of-way it is not proposed to extinguish it but
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 130 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
he was not saying whether there was a right-of-way or whether there was not a right-of-way. Ms. Collins said that she was telling Mr. Keane that they did have a right of way.
5.36 Closing submission of Mr. Keane on behalf of Bray Town Council: - (Transcript Day 3 – Page 125 and Pages 127-141)
Mr. Keane commenced by stating that he was handing in the copy of the revised CPO schedule and he undertook to furnish copies of all the amendments to the effected landowners. He said the only actual specific removal is Plot 18a subject to the agreement reached with Ms. Marion Gaule in relation to access for the carrying out of works on lands.
Mr. Keane said that in relation to the EIS and the Environmental Impact Assessment, this also includes the oral hearing and the evidence given both by the local authority and any evidence from the members of the public who have made submissions and objections together with submissions from all parties. He said the EIS has been fully and comprehensively carried out and the legislation had been fully complied with both in relation to the preparation of the EIS and the carrying out of the Environmental Impact Assessment. He said the process had been fully accountable and transparent and had included a number of public consultations. He said in relation to EU Directive 35/2003 the public had been afforded full opportunity of participation in relation to the preparation of the current scheme.
Mr. Keane said any insinuation against the veracity of the testing of the expert witnesses was entirely rejected. He said the EIS had been subject to independent review by a wholly independent expert review group and he noted the input of the expert employed by the objectors, Mr. Kenneth Barr in this regard and he said this was welcomed, as was the involvement of the wholly independent OPW. In relation to the legal basis of the scheme, Mr. Keane said it was being promoted by Bray Town Council on behalf of itself and with Wicklow County Council pursuant to their powers and duties under the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878 forming part of the Sanitary Services Act.
He said the fact that the funding may be provided by the OPW or that a contribution towards same may be required from the proposed developer of those lands including the Bray Golf Club Area Action Plan does not affect that proposition in any way. Mr. Keane stated that the fact the provision of these works not only provided significant and urgently required flood protection for Bray, but may also facilitate the zoned development of the lands of the Old Bray Golf Club is wholly in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development Acts and in particular Sections 212 and 213 of same. He quoted from Section 212 to illustrate his point. He said the scheme was in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and in accordance with the provisions of the National Development Plan and with the relevant development plans of Wicklow and Bray Town Plan.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 131 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
He said the proposed scheme was put forward as a design and build scheme and adequate information had been furnished and considered by the public as in the Environmental Impact Statement. He said the scheme had the clear advantage of permitting the incorporation of modifications to allow for optimisation of the scheme and take account of any advances and technical know-how and engineering methods that may occur at the detailed design stage.
Mr. Keane referred to the submission of Ms. Woodfull which he said was that government policy was not to build on a floodplain and he said that he was not aware of any alleged policy. He said the policy of the OPW Flood Review Group acknowledges the fact that it may be necessary for economic reasons to build on a floodplain so long as same is compatible with the existence of the risk. He said a detailed consideration of any such proposed development within the Bray Golf Club lands was entirely premature.
Mr. Keane stated that in relation to the installation of ground anchors, they extend under adjoining land in certain circumstances, but would do so at considerable depth and as confirmed by Mr. Healy, would not in any way be likely to impact on any structures or services in adjoining lands. He said the works in question as proposed pursuant that the provisions of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Acts of 1878 – 2001 and the Local Authority have powers conferred including those under Section 271 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878. He said other statutory powers also existed to enable the scheme to be constructed as proposed if approved by An Bord Pleanála with or without modifications.
Mr. Keane submitted that in relation to architectural impacts and archaeological impacts, they had been fully considered and he did not think there were any objections in relation to same. He submitted that in relation to construction traffic, relevant data had been furnished in particular the haul routes had been identified and vehicle numbers had been given. He said the amount of traffic that had been assessed would have fairly limited impacts.
Mr. Keane said in relation to noise impacts, it was proposed that the installation of piles for the construction north of Bray Bridge would be carried out during the daytime. He said this also should permit the preservation of two-way flows of traffic across Bray Bridge at peak times. In relation to piling on other construction works which are associated with significant noise on occasions, Mr. Keane submitted that these would be of relatively short duration and there would be no ongoing condition of noise.
Mr. Keane submitted in relation to ecological impacts that no European sites where priority natural habitats would be affected by the scheme. He said in relation to the Water Framework Directive, the preamble to same acknowledged that the necessity for flood relief works takes priority over the other aspects of the environment protected by the Directive.
In paragraph 32 he quoted “there may be grounds for exemptions to prevent any further deterioration or to achieve good status under specific conditions,
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 132 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
if the failure is the result of un-perceived or exceptional circumstances, in particular floods and draughts or for reasons of overriding public interest.” A further quotation includes that “all practical steps were taken to mitigate their adverse impact on the status of the body of water”.
Mr. Keane said the River Dargle was a designated salmonid river following SI 293 of 1988. He said the works proposed have been designed to lead to a safe and good ecological status of the river and the same time would safeguard the risk taken and all practicable steps had been taken to mitigate adverse impact on the body of water.
Mr. Keane submitted that flood defences were clearly necessary to safeguard health and safety of the people in Bray and he noted the statement of Mr. Joyce of the OPW in relation to maintenance of the scheme.
Mr. Keane said the lands proposed to be acquired were required for the scheme. He said the compulsory purchase of such land is entirely intravires of the local authority in accordance with the provision of Section 213 of the Planning and Development Act of 2000. He quoted from subsection 1 and 3A of Section 213 and he said that in this case, land was required for the scheme both at present and in the future in relation to ongoing maintenance, removal of vegetation and the protection of such land from any development which while it might be exempt from planning permission under the Planning and Development Act could have significant and adverse impacts on the flow of water along the River Dargle corridor with potential undermining of embankments which had been created in adjoining properties. He said for those reasons it was submitted that as clearly stated that all of the acquisition of land proposed to be acquired is necessary for the scheme.
Mr. Keane submitted that in relation to acquisition, it was correct to suggest the Local Authority must establish that it cannot achieve the desired end by any other means. He said in relation to interactions, these had been fully assessed in the EIS. He drew attention to the numerous photomontages which had been prepared showing the existing environment and the visual impact of the scheme on landscaping. He said it was desirable that room be provided for sufficient landscaping measures, including boundary treatment to allow for consultation of the adjoining householders where appropriate.
Mr. Keane stated that it would be entirely premature and incorrect to consider at this stage the possible development of the golf club lands. He said such a development would be required to be the subject of its own planning application with the possibility and a clear probability of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. He said a submission made on behalf of Pizarro Limited was made entirely independently of Bray Town Council. He said it did not form part of the scheme submitted to the Board and was a matter for the Board to consider what modifications, if any, it would make to the scheme either on foot of the submission by Pizarro or indeed submissions made by all other parties making submissions in relation to the scheme.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 133 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Mr Keane said none of the modifications proposed by Pizarro were sought by or on behalf of the Town Council and any development of the lands at the Golf Club which might occur in the future would require a full planning application and any enclosing of the culvert (channel) inside the flood defences would require full assessment and would require to be shown to cause no increase of risk to flooding.
Mr. Keane said a similar argument had been put forward by objectors at the Dundalk Bypass and he quoted the case of O’Connell v. O’Connell and the Minister of the Environment and Local Government (2001). Mr. Keane said in that case, Mr. Justice Finlay stated that “to enquire into the scheme necessarily would require enquiring into all matters relating to the scheme. It does not requiring enquiring into a road that would be the subject matter of a future scheme”. Mr. Keane read further sections of the judgement into the record and made reference to McArdle & Others v. An Bord Pleanála of March 2003.
Mr. Keane said a number of objections had concentrated on the view that there should not be any building in the low-lying area of the golf club lands. He said there also appears to be suspicion of some wrongful influence being exercised by Pizarro Limited over Bray Town Council. He said that was wholly wrong. Mr. Keane said reasons why the provision of flood defences on the riverside of the golf club lands requiring excavation of portion of same as one approaches the railway road bridge at the mouth of the river allows for the best flood protection of Bray and this had been dealt with in evidence and in response to questions of Mr. Kenneth Barr in particular, who prepared a report on behalf of the local residents.
Mr. Keane said particular note should be made of the fact that the golf club lands are downstream of Bray Bridge and that any flood waters on same would have to re-enter the river along the approaches to the railway bridge and these would reduce the speed and capacity of the river as such water re- entered and caused eddies along the channel. He said a culvert (channel) was proposed as part of the scheme and as noted any possible alteration would require considerable examination would have to be shown to meet the effect of what was being proposed.
Mr. Keane referred to climate change and the report quoted by SWAP attributed to the EPA. Mr. Keane quoted from that report, in particular the reference to increase in precipitation events on the west coast with decreases on the east coast. He said the scheme had been designed to take into account the probability of global warming and was fully compliant with the recommendations contained in the EPA report referred to.
Mr. Keane said in conclusion, it was contended on behalf of Bray Town Council that to properly safeguard the lives, safety and property of the people working and living in Bray, it was essential that the works proposed should be carried out. He said the lands sought to be compulsorily purchased were required for a scheme and the three public rights-of-way required to be extinguished would be re-instated. He said the scheme had been designed
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 134 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
with environmental concerns to the fore and the works when carried out would provide long-lasting improvement to the environment of Bray and would be designed to enable the possibility of flood defences to be enhanced should further climate change necessitate same.
Mr. Keane said it was recognised that permanent acquisition of some lands was required and temporary acquisition was required of others. He said there would be temporary disruption to residents during the construction of the works, particularly due to noise. He said the same would be short-term in nature. Mr. Keane said the requirement of the works was manifest and he said in fairness to most of the people who attended before the oral hearing had been accepted by them.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 135 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
6.0 ASSESSMENT
The assessment is concerned firstly with the broad principles of the scheme including need, alternatives and major impacts and then individual objections are considered.
6.1 Need for the Scheme
It is considered that a do-nothing scenario in relation to Flood Protection on the Dargle river through Bray is not a realistic option. Given the flooding history of the river, and even taking the possible implications of climate change which casts some doubt about summer rainfall rates increasing in the area in the future, the clear findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment is that substantial areas would flood in the event of a 1 in 100 year or greater storm event. Arising from the presentations at the Hearing the question was put as to whether there was an option of rebuilding all premises at risk and the response indicated that this had been considered but that in excess of 500 premises would be involved and that this was therefore discarded as an option. It is considered therefore that the need for a Flood Defence Scheme has been established.
6.2 Alternatives
The EIS sets out the different options numbered 1 to 6 including containment, river works, upstream storage and a combination of same. The public consultation process was detailed at the Hearing and the modifications which were adopted were explained. In particular the approach to Bray Bridge which at one time included an option to rebuild the bridge to give additional capacity and now had an additional culvert indicated changes based on consideration of options and the results of public consultation.
The extent to which alternatives have been dealt with in the EIS complies with the requirements of the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment.
In relation to the chosen option which is in effect a two-stage proposal, this has been reported upon favourably by Dr Bruen in his specialist report which is attached. It was indeed stressed during the Hearing and endorsed by Mr Joyce of OPW that the current proposal provided the required degree of protection of itself and was designed to OPW Guidelines.
6.3 Environmental Impact Statement
I conclude that the E.I.S. submitted meets all the statutory requirements.
6.4 Impacts assessed
The assessment of environmental impacts in relation to the various aspects of the scheme are considered below. In all cases the scheme as presented at the Hearing and described in the EIS is a stand-alone scheme.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 136 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
6.4.1 Human Beings and Socio Economic impacts.
The overall impact of a successfully constructed scheme is considered to be positive in socio-economic terms. This is reinforced in evidence at the Hearing and the near universal welcome for the carrying out of works which would remove the threat of flooding, given the past history of the catchment. The funding arrangements, which were discussed at length at the Hearing do not suggest that the scheme could not be satisfactorily delivered and the Local Authority stressed that there was not a dependency on the granting of other planning permissions to effect the works. The direct involvement of OPW appears to have given reassurance to many of those who made submissions on the scheme. While a number of those who made submissions referred to upstream storage, it is noted that the scheme as proposed is intended to achieve design standards independently. Dr Bruen’s report which is attached is relevant in this regard.
6.4.2 Material Assets
Chapter 5.8 of the EIS considers mainly impacts on properties and also traffic. The measures proposed in the scheme are intended to reduce the risk of flooding of premises and it is considered that the proposals are satisfactory in relation to the proposed protection of properties from flooding from the river Dargle.
However it is noted that a substantial number of properties have floor levels lower than the predicted flood level in the river at their particular location. Therefore these properties would continue to be at risk from local surcharging of surface water sewer systems if these could not discharge against the level of the river during a storm event.
It was stated at the Hearing that separate studies had been undertaken in relation to the sewer systems but there were no details given of the findings of the studies. The degree of risk to low lying properties would be influenced by the extent of the surface water systems of which they are part. It is noted also that if local systems were contributing to flooding in previous floods that the contribution of the local system may not have been noticeable when compared with the flooding caused by the river.
While the level of risk from flooding arising from surcharging of local systems is much less than that posed by a 1:100 year river flood, residents in houses where surface water systems cannot fully discharge during storm event should be aware of the local situation. Therefore it is recommended that the Local Authority publish details of all recent studies in relation to surface water and foul sewerage systems which are affected by river levels and that this information be made available at the offices of Bray Town Council. A condition is recommended in that regard.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 137 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
6.4.3 Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries.
The direct involvement of the Central and Eastern Regional Fisheries Boards is considered a positive enhancement of the scheme. Dr O’Grady’s evidence at the Hearing confirmed that the low flow situation had been considered carefully in the overall design and the design approach to the full reach of the river from a fishery standpoint is noted. Construction works are identified as having the potential to impinge on water quality through disturbance but the mitigation proposed which includes adherence to the requirements outlined in the ERFB publication of 2006 for the protection of fisheries habitats. The proposed monitoring timetable for macroinvertebrates, otter and salmonids at table 5.3.1 of the EIS is considered appropriate.
It is noted that water quality is described as being slightly to moderately polluted but likely causes are not outlined. It would be desirable therefore that every opportunity be used during flood defence construction works to advance any proposals for tackling existing sources of pollution. The apparent problem with an outfall or overflow at Killarney Glen raised by Mr. Dermot Collins would be one example where the Local Authority should investigate with a view to eliminate pollution at source if there is a problem at that location. It is noted that the river in the area of the scheme is not designated SAC or NHA but is designated salmonid water.
Overall the approach is considered satisfactory and should enable proposals to be integrated with requirements for compliance with the Water Framework Directive where a programme of measures would be expected to be adopted in mid 2009. As the mitigation proposed is described in the EIS, it is not considered necessary to recommend any additional condition with regard. To aquatic ecology.
6.4.4 Terrestrial Ecology
The evidence at the Hearing together with the EIS describes an area that has numerous areas which have been neglected over time and some which have been populated by alien species such as Japanese Knotweed. The intention to remove such species and replant with suitable species is considered appropriate. The proposals in the EIS in relation to planting are noted as is the recommendation that a qualified ecologist be appointed in relation to the construction phase of the scheme. A condition is recommended in this regard.
It is evident that in the interests of avoidance of bankside debris being washed down during storm events, the nature of planting in some areas between low water level and flood level may be limited by the requirement that hydraulic flow characteristics are not impaired. The EIS conclusion that residual impacts would be minor negative and probably neutral in the long term is accepted.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 138 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
In relation to fauna, the EIS states there are no identifiable positive impacts but it notes that if the river corridor was cleared of alien plant species, it would benefit faunal species. This is considered reasonable. Having regard to the semi- urban nature of much of the reach of the river the EIS conclusion that residual impacts would be probably neutral is accepted.
6.4.5 Landscape and Visual
The evidence of Mr Gerry Mitchell at the Hearing was that in overall terms there were five discreet landscape compartments of varying visual character. His description was that the former pristine nature of the river valley had been extensively modified over time by the expansion of Bray. He noted the changes arising from development and the potential change if the golf club lands were developed. The landscape measures proposed are noted to take account of hydraulic requirements of the river cross section. It is considered that a satisfactory landscape and visual balance can be achieved within the parameters laid down.The EIS conclusion that the proposed engineering measures would in overall terms have slight and neutral landscape and visual impacts is considered reasonable and justified.
6.4.6 Water
The EIS has an extensive chapter entitled “Water” and covers mainly the history of flooding and the hydraulic modelling carried out. The evidence of Dr. John O’Sullivan covered the area of hydraulic modelling and compliance with design standards. The impacts on water quality are noted in terms of aquatic ecology and the implications of hydraulic impacts relate to material assets and human beings. The recommendation in the EIS that an integrated catchment management strategy is required in line with the Water Framework Directive is accepted. As the requirements for a programme of measures contained in the Water Framework Directive apply in 2009, no additional condition is recommended in that regard.
The specialist report of Dr Bruen refers to the decision to propose a two-stage flood defence scheme as being practical and this is considered an appropriate assessment. He notes that the design parameters were not challenged at the Hearing and are reasonable. Dr Bruen’s conclusions are accepted. He refers to the need for information on the results of the physical model to be made available and also raises the issue of impact on groundwater levels. Conditions are recommended to take account of both of these concerns.
6.4.7 Noise and Vibration
The noise impacts of piling were identified at the Hearing as being very significant for dwellings in close proximity to the proposed works. It is considered that there would be a noise impact from piling operations extending over a much wider area although noise levels further away from the piling would be lower. While the EIS recognises the need to give advance notice to affected residents and the duration of the individual piling operations
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 139 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
is short there appears to be a need for a readily contactable liaison officer and a condition is recommended in that regard.
6.4.8 Cultural Heritage
The cultural heritage of the area along the banks of the river is set out in the EIS and elaborated upon at the Hearing. As would be expected historically there were settlements along the river and the cultural heritage of the area including both archaeology and architecture is rich. The changed course of the river towards the harbour over the last 200 years is particularly noted the mitigation measures described are considered satisfactory.
The comprehensive mitigation measures are included in the Brief of Evidence of Mr Martin Byrne are considered appropriate and a condition is proposed in relation to archaeological monitoring.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 140 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
6.5 Individual Objections to the Development.
Objections by individuals and by groups to the proposed development and not related to the CPO are referred to in the order in which they made submissions during the Hearing. Where a submission dealt with an objection to the Development and to the CPO, these are assessed under the different headings.
6.5.1 Dargle Anglers. (para. 5.16 refers) The submission made on behalf of the Anglers was responded to by Ms Flood on behalf of the Town Council. The submission related to angling rights and Ms Flood said she had anticipated that discussions with the representatives of Lord Meath would have concluded before the end of the Hearing. In the event , there was no update on the discussions given by Bray Town Council. The issue of fishing rights is considered to be outside the scope of this assessment. The matter is therefore proper to discussions between the Town Council and the Dargle Anglers.
6.5.2 Seapoint Court Residents Association. (submission regarding right of way only) (see 5.17) A submission made by Ms Woodfull on behalf of the Seapoint Court Residents Association on Day 2 of the Hearing resulted in discussions between Bray Town Council and the Residents Association. Arising out of the discussions, Ms Woodfull (see 5.31) withdrew the objection to that aspect of the proposed development.
6.5.3 Submission of Ms Audrey Collins (see 5.18) ms Collins made a submission on day 2 of the Hearing in relation to upstream storage provision and re-routing the river as it approached the harbour. The submission and objection to the current proposal is considered not to give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.5.4 Submission by Ms Joan Conway on behalf of Users of Peoples Park. (see 5.19) The issues raised generally related to disruption and the concept of compensation to the community for loss of usage of People’s Park during construction. While the disruption and loss of amenity during construction appears to be conceded by the Local Authority, the evidence was that rejuvenation of the Park was being considered. This would clearly be a desirable outcome. It is considered outside the scope of this assessment to recommend a condition which could adequately compensate for the loss of amenity during construction. The objection does not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 141 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
6.5.5 Submission by Ms Polly Power. (CPO reference 34a, 34b ; see paragraph 5.20). Ms Power’s submission gave a comprehensive description of her experience during the flood of 1986 and the likely impact of the bursting of the Paddock Ponds on the area just upstream of the Slang. It was established during the Hearing that Ms Power should have been listed as an owner and this was rectified in the Amended Schedule submitted by the Local Authority. The Local Authority also clarified that the low flow river channel would be directed to her side of the river. Ms Power’s submission is not considered to be objecting to the proposed development.
6.5.6 Submission by SWAP. (see section 5.21). The submission was made in three main parts by Mr Kenneth Barr (expert advisor), and Ms Noeleen Mc Manus and Mr Adrian Mc Kenna. In Mr Barr’s very comprehensive submission, he indicated his agreement with many of the proposals and the methodology used to arrive at the various conclusions. The expert report by Dr Bruen which is attached to this report deals with the hydrology issues raised by Dr Barr. Specific issues raised by Br Barr included the quantity of silt which would be generated on an ongoing basis.
The commitment by the Local Authority to prepare a physical model in the course of detailed design is considered to address the point raised. Mr Barr recommended an independent audit of the hydraulic modelling and it is considered that the OPW operating procedures will ensure the appropriate level of audit would be carried out. In relation to the water Framework Directive, it is anticipated that the programme of measures to be expected in 2009 would address the overall relationship of the flood defence scheme and water quality. Finally regarding the flood consequence assessment and the sizing of the flood escape route through the golf club lands raised by Mr Barr, it is considered that the operation of the physical model would determine the appropriate capacity for the escape route.
Ms Mc Manus stressed that flood defence works were necessary but referred to building on the golf club lands, potential enclosing of escape route through the golf club lands and confirmation of a second phase of the works to include storage and the completion of an emergency plan. It is considered that the operation of a physical model would enable the Local Authority to confirm the appropriate capacity for the escape route and establish criteria for its construction. As the commitment to construct a physical model has been given by the Local Authority a condition is recommended in relation to the dissemination of the results of the model.
Mr Mc Kenna’s submission dealt with overall issues including building on flood prone or marginal areas and climate change effects. He also referred to the Annual Report of An Bord Pleanála regarding unjustifiable zonings (by local Authorities). The same comments regarding the expected benefit of the physical model apply to Mr Mc Kenna’s submission. It is considered that the submissions made on behalf of SWAP do not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 142 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
6.5.7 Submission on behalf of Ms Ailbhe de Buitléar (section 5.23 above). Mr John O’Sullivan made a submission on behalf of Ms de Buitléar which related in part to the Development and in part to the CPO. Referring to the Development, Mr O’Sullivan submitted that An Bord Pleanála should only permit a flood defence scheme involving upstream storage, that there were insufficient details to evaluate the proposal and that in the event of a grant of approval, noise limitations would need to be very clear and enforced.
It is considered that the detail in the EIS is sufficient when taken with the evidence at the Oral Hearing to allow assessment of the proposals in relation to environmental impact. Taking note of the various expert witnesses in relation to the scheme as proposed and noting also Dr Bruen’s Report, it is not considered that the Development should be rejected based on the absence of upstream storage.
The noise limits applicable would be expected to be built in to the conditions of contract. However, it is considered that piling, because of the repetitious nature of the noise could be perceived as a nuisance at low levels so it is recommended that a condition be applied that special arrangements be made in relation to notifying residents of the location and duration of piling operations and that a liaison officer be appointed as per the recommendation in 6.4.7 above.
6.5.8 Submission on behalf of Pizarro Ltd. (section 5.24 above)
The submission on behalf of Pizarro Ltd drew attention to a current application for development on the golf club lands and suggested that if both the flood defence scheme and the development on the golf club lands went ahead at the same time, some aspects of the scheme could benefit if both proceeded at the same time. The submission also indicated how it would be proposed to substitute the open channel provided for in the flood defence scheme with an enclosed culvert incorporated into the golf club lands development.
It is considered that it would not be appropriate to take account of the issues raised in the Pizarro submission as it would involve speculation in relation to an application following a different pathway within the planning system. Neither can any judgement be made on the possibility of substituting one form of channel for another. The issue of the capacity of the escape channel is to be resolved by the physical model proposed by the Local Authority. Therefore, although the intent of the submission is not considered to be attempting to impose conditions on the Flood Defence Scheme, it would be inappropriate to take any matters raised into consideration. The Scheme proposed by the Local Authority must be considered on its merits.
6.5.9 Submission on behalf of Senator de Burca (section 5.25 above) Mr Mathews read this submission which includes issues related to potential conflict of interest by consultants, UK guidelines on flood risk and examination of options excluding development on floodplains. It is considered that the issues raised have been generally responded to adequately by the Local Authority and that the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 143 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
issues do not give grounds for rejection of the Development. It is noted that Senator de Burca welcomed the application for Flood Defence Works.
6.5.10 Submission on behalf of Mr Ruairí de Buitléar (section 5.26 above) Mr de Buitlear’s daughter Ms Eithne Carey made the submission on behalf of Mr de Buitléar. Apart from CPO issues which are dealt with later in this report, the submission stated that it appeared foolish to proceed with the plan without upstream storage and it drew attention to the possibility of lowered water tables causing subsidence problems for houses. Mr de Buitléar also disagrees with the proposals for the method of joining the County Brook into the Dargle river. In relation to the issues raised it is considered that they do not give grounds for rejection of the Development but it is recommended that the arrangements for piping of the County Brook into the river be examined at the detailed design stage to take account of possible fisheries impacts. It is also considered that an evaluation of the potential impact of groundwater lowering be undertaken and a condition is recommended in this regard. It is not considered that there would be a likely significant effect in relation to ecology or water quality. However there is a previous history of affected foundations in the area of the Slang and it would be prudent to monitor potential effects in the interest of ensuring that impacts on buildings are avoided.
6.5.11 Submission on behalf of Bernard and Elizabeth Collins (section 5.28 above) Mr.Dermot Collins’ and that of Ms Audrey Collins submission related to the CPO also and points related to the development including upstream storage, an excessive width cross section in the vicinity of Killarney Glen and circumvention of the debris trap. The issue of the potential value of the abutments of the collapsed bridge at Killarney Glen in relation to channel control was noted by Dr Bruen in his report. It is considered that the physical model and the detailed design stage can evaluate to effect of the abutments. It is considered that the issues raised do not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.5.12 Submission on behalf of Bray Chamber of Commerce (section 5.29 above) Mr .Jason Cooke spoke in favour of the Development. His outline of the current state of retail business in Bray is noted. However, the proposed Flood Defence Scheme is a stand alone scheme and is presented as such by the Local Authority.
6.5.13 Submission of Mr Eamon de Buitléar (section 5.30 above) Mr de Buitléar’s submission was in relation to the current holding tank at the County Brook and the proposals for joining to the Dargle river by a culvert. A condition is recommended in this regard regarding joint examination with the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board regarding the detail of that connection.
6.5.14 Submission on behalf of Seapoint Court Residents Association (section 5.32 above) Ms Woodfull’s submission includes references to perceived
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 144 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
conflicts of interests, lack of examination of the option of not building on the golf club lands (floodplain) and also the Pizarro submission. The assessment of the Pizarro submission is in section 6.5.8 above. It is considered that the physical model results should clarify other issues raised by Ms Woodfull.
6.5.15 Submission on behalf of the Green Party (section 5.33 above) Mr Mathews referred to zoning decisions and building on the floodplain while endorsing Mr Barr’s recommendation and also welcoming flood defences. The submission is not considered to give grounds for rejection of the Development
6.5.16 Cosgrave Developments
The submission was made by Little and Partners at the Hearing and is described in 5.22 above. It is noted that the Development of La Vallee and Riverside was carried out in the past 4 years and that river modelling was carried out as part of the approval process. Nevertheless, the design proposed by the Local Authority is considered to be to the appropriate standard to be used and accordingly all lands in the CPO are considered to be required. The arguments put forward relating to the opposite or south-eastern bank are noted but based on the evidence and questions at the Hearing, it is considered that the Local Authority proposal is appropriate. The objection therefore does not give grounds for rejection of the Development
6.6 SUBMISSIONS MADE PRIOR TO THE HEARING
A number of submissions were made by individuals who did not attend the Hearing. Some related primarily to CPO issues.
6.6.1 Ann& Nicola Ralph, Thomas & Val Mc Mullan and Hugh & Anna Carney. Submission was made on behalf of all above who reside in Nos. 2-4 Killarney Glen by Kieran O’Malley &Co.Ltd. Apart from issues relating to the CPO the submission questions the use of a sheet pile wall in the location planned and refers to use of flood plain downstream and storage upstream. Issues of erosion and blockages are also raised in the submission. It is considered that the objections raised do not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.6.2 Alice Jackman : Ms Jackman raised the issue of the golf club lands and the 1 in 200 year flooding event. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.6.3 Dargle Residents Association. The submission includes reference to the following : Upstream storage Traffic implications from construction compounds
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 145 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
People’s Park utilization as a social amenity and pedestrian safety issues.
The Local Authority response includes reference to actively encouraging the use of a temporary diversion at the Upper / Lower Dargle Roads and sets out the Local Authority position on the WA Fairhurst Report and its comments on design elements of the scheme. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.6.4 Eugene & Maeve Raeside (1 Glenburgh Terrace, Lower Dargle Road) The submission raised the issue of upstream storage and a second phase of the scheme. It also raises issues regarding construction compounds in People’s Park including the impact on trees. Implications for residents’ parking is also raised. The Local Authority response refers to the issues raised including the mitigation measures proposed for air quality management. Some of the issues of concern may be addressed by one or more of the recommended conditions. The submission is considered not to give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.6.5 J.Power and A.Doyle (2 Glenburgh Terrace, Lower Dargle Road) The submission refers to upstream storage and issues relating to the proposed compound which is very close to Glenburgh Terrace. Some of the issues raised may be mitigated by one or more of the recommended conditions. The submission is considered not to give grounds for rejection of the Development.
6.7 SUBMISSIONS BY STATUTORY BODIES. Submissions were received from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) and from the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (ERFB). Neither Body attended the oral Hearing.
6.7.1 Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resouces The DCMNR submission was received by the Board on 26th September 2007. The submission contains 15 observations / requirements. Item 1 is a requirement to publish a “MARINE NOTICE” before commencement of works and items 2- 6 relate to fisheries. Item 7 is a recommendation for a committee to oversee an Integrated Catchment Management Strategy.
Item 8-9 related to waste and water management and items 10-12 relate to navigation issues. Conditions 13-14 relate to standards of works in the marine environment and condition 15 refers to legal title to the foreshore.
The majority of the issues are considered to be covered in the EIS or in the mitigation measures as described in evidence at the Hearing or in the EIS. In relation to the recommendation for a committee in relation to catchment management it is considered that such a committee would be required in compliance with the Water Framework Directive.
However there is merit in establishing a committee as suggested to include representation from the DCMNR (Now relevant to the Department of
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 146 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) and the Fisheries Boards to ensure co- ordination of the various mitigation measures in relation to ecology and to ensure compliance with statutory requirements as regards the DCMNR. A condition is recommended in this case.
6.7.2 Eastern Regional Fisheries Board. This submission was made on 10th September 2007 and raised a number of concerns. It is considered that the Local Authority response which states that all works will be undertaken under the guidance and supervision of Dr O’Grady of the Central Fisheries Board is considered satisfactory. The commitment to carry out all mitigation measures outlined in Appendix D of the EIS is noted. It is considered that the ERFB submission does not give grounds for rejection of the Development.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 147 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
7. COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
7.1 The Compulsory Purchase Order application relates to land holdings including part of the existing river, open space, portions of riverbank, road frontage, gardens and grassland, paved area and forest and these are shown on the Deposit Maps. Objections were noted as being withdrawn from two persons during the course of the Hearing. Mr Healy, on behalf of the Local Authority stated that all the lands contained in the CPO were necessary for the full implementation of the Flood Defence Scheme.
The total land acquisition totals 19.2 hectares which includes considerable areas of land including open space acquired from Bray Town Council and Wicklow County Council. Excluding land in the ownership of the Local Authorities and State Agencies and portions of the existing river, the CPO covers approximately 3.8 hectares of land involving over 20 landowners, both individuals and companies.
7.2 Objections to the CPO
Seventeen objectors are listed on file as having lodged objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order. A number of these were also objections to the Development and have been referred to above in so far as they relate to the Development. One objection was withdrawn pre-Hearing, one during the Hearing and one objection is duplicated. Individual objections are listed below in the order they appear on the file.
7.2.1 Objection of Hugh and Anna Carney – CPO reference 10a,10b and 10z Written submission was made by Mr & Ms Carney. The submission refers to past anti-social behaviour on adjacent land. Submission seeks adequate secure fencing to the home and property. No submission was made at the Hearing in relation to the objection. It is noted that Kieran O Malley & Co Ltd represent Mr & Ms Carney and the response of the Local Authority addresses that objection under 7.2.14 below. In relation to the aspects raised directly by the Carney’s it is considered that the security of the property in both the construction and operational phases of the scheme are covered by commitments made by the Local Authority in relation to supervision of Contractors and to ongoing maintenance. The objection is not considered to give grounds for rejection of the CPO. See however 7.2.14 below.
7.2.2 Objection of Richard Barrett –CPO reference 27a,28a Written submission was made in this instance by Cullen, Tyrrell and O’Beirne Solicitors and refers to the questionable legality of the notices issued. Historical comment regarding a weir is included and the current use of the garden area of Mr Barrett’s property is outlined. It states that the commitment of the Council to ongoing maintenance must be seen in the light of failure to tackle a growing sand bank at Bray Harbour and to adequately clear to silt trap at the Slang. There was no submission made at the Hearing on
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 148 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
behalf of Mr Barrett. It is considered that the matters raised do not give grounds for rejection of the CPO.
7.2.3 Objection of Veronica Hayes –CPO reference 19a,19b,31a. The objection was made by Ms Hayes and the letter of objection noted that correspondence should be addressed to her daughter as she was in nursing home care. Subsequent correspondence is on file from Mr Kevin Dodd who is son-in law of Mrs Hayes. The issue raised by Mr Dodd relates to the necessity for the extent of land take in the CPO and he questions the consistency of the approach, noting the adjacent landowner had property acquisition sub-divided into permanent and temporary acquisition. The response of the Local Authority is that all lands are necessary for the works but also states that should An Bord Pleanála consider it appropriate, Bray Town Council would enter into agreements with affected riparian owners in a lease agreement.
The response of the Local Authority is considered unsatisfactory in that it appears to confirm an inconsistent approach as regards neighbouring landowners and application of a condition in relation to CPO issues is not considered appropriate and gives grounds for annulling the CPO. In particular it is noted that a portion of garden was withdrawn from the CPO in relation to plot 18 (a&b), and a temporary take for part of the garden is proposed in relation to plot 17 (a,z).
7.2.4 Objection of James and Brigid O’Leary – (CPO reference 20a, 20b) also 32a following amendment. This plot is immediately upstream of Ms Hayes and on the same side of the river. The submission questions the need for the acquisition and its extent. It disputes the extent of the property attributed to the O’Learys. The Local Authority response notes the alteration in the schedule to reflect the revised extent of land ownership subject to title being shown. It states that all the lands are necessary for the implementation of the flood defences. This plot is adjacent to 19a but the Local Authority do not refer to any lease possibility for the land adjoining the river bank. There appears to be a lack of consistency in approach when plots 08, 14 and 17 to 21 are considered together. It is considered that this gives grounds for annulling the CPO
7.2.5 Objection of Ruairí de Buitléar –CPO reference 14c and 14d The issues raised in the objection relating to the Development are dealt with in section 6.5.10 above and Ms Carey’s submission is summarised in section 5.26. The issues raised relating to acquisition state that the Local Authority only wished to remove light vegetation and that a permanent landtake should not be necessary. The Local Authority response states the lands are all necessary but refers to a possible lease arrangement with the riparian owners if An Bord Pleanála considered it appropriate. As per the comment in 7.2.3 above this gives grounds for annulling the CPO.
7.2.6 Objection of the Earl of Meath This objection was withdrawn by letter of O’Keefe and Moore solicitors dated 10th December 2007.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 149 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
7.2.7 Objection of Cosgrave Developments - CPO reference 24a –e and 24z As stated in 6.6.3 above it is considered that all lands at this location included in the CPO are required.
In relation to ground anchors, while the Local Authority contention that these are necessary is accepted, the question of the right of the Local Authority to enter on to the land and install ground anchors outside of the CPO take must be considered. Mr Keane quoted section 271 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act as providing for such works. Section 271 includes reference to the powers of entry of the Sanitary Authority on lands for the purpose of making plans and ascertaining the course of sewers. It does not appear to cover the drilling of ground anchors as they would appear to require the permanent sterilisation (for shallow anchors as a minimum requirement) along the line of the anchor. A possible solution might be for the Local Authority to acquire a wayleave for each anchor under different legislation. However that approach would involve prejudging the wayleave application by the confirmation of the CPO. The ground anchor problem was raised by Mr Collins at the Hearing (see 7.2.17 below) and it appears that there are in excess of ground anchors proposed, although many are under roads, footpaths and open spaces. It is considered therefore that insufficient land is proposed to be acquired to carry out the works in this case, arising from the need for ground anchors and it is considered that this gives grounds for annulment of the CPO.
7.2.8 Objection of Marion Gaule ----CPO reference 18a, 30a. This objection was withdrawn by Mr.Foley on behalf of Ms Gaule during the Hearing and following discussions with the Local Authority. (Transcript, Day 3, page 91). Mr Keane, on behalf of the Local Authority withdrew plot 18a from the scheme and stated that the schedule was being amended on the basis of an agreement made with Ms. Gaule.
7.2.9 Objection of Pizarro Developments CPO references 03a,03b,03z,03y. Pizarro Developments made a submission at the Hearing which related to the wish of the company to carry out development on the golf club lands at the same time as the Flood Defence Scheme. It is not considered that the issues raised are relevant to the approval or otherwise of the land acquisition and do not give grounds for rejection of the CPO .
7.2.10 Objection of Paul and Edel Flynn -- CPO reference17a, 17z and 29a A summary of the submission of Mr Eamonn Halpin at the Hearing is covered in Section 5.27 above. It is noted that plot 17z is in fact a temporary take and the submission is that neither the permanent or temporary land-takes are necessary. The approach of the Local Authority in this instance is different from that taken with adjoining plots in that on one side, a plot was reduced during the Hearing and on the other side no modification or temporary take is proposed and this can be seen from Deposit map B237 – P03 which was amended in the course of the Hearing. On that basis it is considered that the CPO should be annulled..
7.2.11 Objection of Alan and Nicola Ralph – CPO reference 12a, 12b – address 2 Killarney Glen.: - Written submission was made by Kieran O’Malley Ltd.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 150 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
and covers the objections of three residents of Killarney Glen. As there was no submission at the Hearing, the objection to the development, which specifically relates to the proposed sheet pile wall and choice of alternatives is dealt with in this paragraph. Having regard to the Local Authority evidence at the Hearing in particular relating to Killarney Glen, it is considered the approach of the Local Authority is appropriate and the objection made does not give grounds for rejection of the proposed Development. In relation to the compulsory purchase of lands, it is considered that the objection raised does not give grounds for rejection of the CPO. However, the sheet pile wall proposed at this location requires a number of ground anchors which appear to require to extend outside the CPO line into the Ralph’s garden. This is considered to give grounds for annulling the CPO.
7.2.12 Objection of Ailbhe de Buitléar – CPO reference 14a, 14b The submission made by Mr John O’Sullivan is summarised in section 5.26 and the objection in relation to the development is assessed in section 6.5.7 above. In relation to the CPO, the submission refers to the loss of access to the river and it is contended that the land – take is excessive. The Local Authority response states that the proposed embankment throught the garden would not prevent access to the river and that steps would be provided if required. It is not clear from the response that there is any agreement in place with Ms de Buitléar in relation to right of access to the river. In view of the need for clarity in this matter it is considered that the CPO should not be annulled in this instance.
7.2.13 Objection of Thomas & Val Mc Mullan – CPO reference 11a,11z—address 3 Killarney Glen: - Written submission by Kieran O Malley & Co.Ltd. Same comment as for 7.2.11 above
7.2.14 Objection of Hugh and Anna Carney CPO reference 10a, 10b, 10z –address 4 Killarney Glen: - Written submission by Kieran O’Malley Ltd. Same comment as for 7.2.11 above.
7.2.15 Objection of John Kelly- CPO reference 21a, 21b, 33a Letter of objection is by Mr Kelly and requests continued access to the river. The response of the Local Authority is that the current proposals do not affect Mr Kelly’s access to the river. From the documentation submitted it is not clear that this is the case. This is considered grounds for annulling the CPO
7.2.16 Objection of Seapoint Residents Association – no CPO reference The objection of the Seapoint Residents Association to the extinguishment of a right –of- way was withdrawn in the course of the Hearing following discussion between the residents association and the Town Council.
7.2.17 Objection of Bernard & Elizabeth Collins – CPO reference 16a, 16b, 16c, 16z and 16y and part interest in 15z. The submission made by Mr Collins which refers to the acquisition issues is summarised in section 5.28 and 5.28b above. Mr Collins referred to a right of way which he said existed along the line of the bridge which collapsed in the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 151 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Flood of 1986. As the Local Authority are not proposing to extinguish any right of way it is considered that the issue as to whether there is a right of way or not is outside the scope of this assessment.
Mr Collins raised the issue of ground anchors and the reply of the Local Authority referred to powers under section 271 of the 1878 Public Health Ireland Act. See sections 7.2.7 and 7.2.11 above. On the same basis as the previous cases it is considered that should be annulled due to the uncertainty about the power of the Local Authority to drill ground anchors into land not in its control or ownership and therefore it is considered that the Local Authority has not proposed to acquire sufficient lands to carry out the scheme.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 152 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
8.0 CONCLUSIONS - CPO
8.1 With respect to the CPO, while the acquisition of the lands is generally necessary for the purpose stated in the Order there are inconsistencies in relation to certain properties on the left or northern bank in the area of the Slang. While it appears from the written responses of the Local Authority that access to the river is acceptable under a lease agreement it is not possible to clearly establish a consistent land-take line or decide which properties should have a lease agreement. On that basis it is considered that the CPO should not be confirmed . See sections 7.2.3, 4, 5, 10, 12 and 15 above.
8.2 The issue of ground anchors driven into ground outside of the CPO needs to be further clarified. Although the anchors would be driven from the river side of each sheet pile wall, the anchors appear to be driven approximately 4 to 5 metres into private property outside of the CPO take. The conclusion therefore is that the Local Authority are not acquiring rights over sufficient land to execute the project and the CPO should not be confirmed. See sections 7.2.7, 11,13, 14,and 17 above.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS –EIS (Proposed Development)
9.1 I consider that the proposed development would be in accordance with the proper planning and development of the area and is consistent with the Bray Town Development Plan and the Wicklow County Development Plan and that subject to conditions would not have significant effects on the environment.
9.2 I consider that the EIS as submitted complies with legal requirements. I consider that there is adequate information available to assess the impacts on the environment
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 153 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
10.0 RECOMMENDATION -- CPO
I recommend that An Bord Pleanala should annul the Compulsory Purchase Order as modified by Bray Town Council, for the following reasons and considerations:-
Having regard to :-
(a) The requirement to provide ground anchors beneath and into lands outside the area proposed for compulsory purchase (b) The different treatment of adjoining plots in the area upstream of the confluence of the river Dargle and the County Brook and the absence of a consistent approach to the extent of acquisition in those cases,
It is recommended that the Compulsory Purchase Order be annulled.
11.0 RECOMMENDATION --- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
I recommend that approval be granted for the Development subject to conditions REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to the following: -
(a) Wicklow County Council Development Plan 2004 - 2010
(b) Bray Town Development Plan 2005 -2011
(c) The Environmental Impact Statement prepared in respect of the Development
(d) The submissions made prior to and during the oral Hearing and the evidence given at the Hearing. (e) The specialist report of Dr Michael Bruen, Consultant Hydrologist
It is considered that, subject to the conditions set out in this order, the proposed development would not be in conflict with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and would not result in significant adverse effects on the environment.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 154 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
CONDITIONS
1. All studies commissioned by or on behalf of the Local Authority relating to the surface water and foul sewerage systems in the study area since 2000 for the area between Bray Harbour and the N11 bridge on the Dargle river shall be collated and made available for inspection at the offices of Bray Town Council.
Reason: To assist in public consultation in relation to potential sources of flooding other than that arising from the river Dargle.
2. A suitably qualified project ecologist shall be appointed for the construction phase of the scheme. The ecologist shall monitor the riverside planting and shall prepare a report on the planting and the impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna which shall be made available for public inspection at the offices of Bray Town Council
Reason: To monitor the mitigation measures for terrestrial ecology.
3. A project liaison officer shall be appointed with specific responsibility for keeping the public informed of elements of the construction works which can be expected to cause significant noise impacts with particular reference to piling operations.
Reason: To mitigate the impacts of short term construction noise for residents close to construction works.
4. That the results of the running of a Physical Model of the Flood Relief Scheme be made available at the offices of Bray Town Council for inspection by the public prior to the appointment of contractors for the main works.
Reason: To assist in public consultation in relation to flood mitigation measures
5 An examination of potential groundwater movements adjacent to the river arising from lowering of the river bed and installation of sheet pile walls shall be carried out as part of the detailed design.
Reason: To identify any potential problems arising from variations in groundwater levels.
6. That an environmental monitoring committee shall be established for the construction period , comprising representation from the following:-
Eastern Regional Fisheries Board Central Fisheries Board
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 155 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Dargle Anglers Association DoEHLG (National Parks and Wildlife) Main Contractor Consultants to Bray Town Council Bray Town Council Office of Public Works Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Reason: To ensure co-ordination of environmental mitigation measures
7. That a suitably qualified archaeologist be appointed to monitor all pre- development wading and metal detecting surveys and the removal of the top 500 mm of excavated material from the river bed. Reports describing the results of the monitoring shall be made available at the offices of bray Town Council.
Reason: To ensure protection of cultural heritage.
______Daniel O’Connor Engineer Gd I
May 2008.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 156 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
Appendix A ------Report of Dr. M Bruen
River Dargle (Bray) Flood Defense Scheme
Comments on Hydrological Aspects of EIS and Oral Hearing.
Michael Bruen 1. Introduction.
A flood defence scheme is proposed for the Dargle at Bray. A number of options were considered:
Option Description 1 Do nothing; the baseline current situation 2 Containment only; build/raise walls and embankments to contain flows 3 Containment and river works; as 2 but with lower wall and embankment heights and with lowering and regarding of river bed and removal of weir d/s of Bray Bridge 4 Flood attenuation by upstream storage; dam 17m high storing 2 million m3 over 74 ha and a river length of 2.75 km. Would reduce flood to 200 m3/s so some river works also required in Bray 5 Partial storage and containment; dam 9m high storing 0.5 million m3 over 25 ha and 1 km of river 6 Partial storage and containment and river works; dam 9m high storing 0.5 million m3 over 25 ha and 1 km of river
It is unclear why the dimensions and capacity of the dam and storage in option 6 is the same as in option 5. When river works are added to the containment option in the Town, the conveyance capacity of the river is increased and the storage volume required in the reservoir to achieve a given level of protection should be reduced. Despite this, option 6 has a better cost/benefit ratio – probably because of the various options added to the basic option.
Option 3 was chosen and is the basis of the application, the submitted EIS and the oral hearing. The later provision of upstream storage by a separate agency was mentioned as enhancing the degree of protection offered by the proposed scheme. However it is not part of the current proposal.
2. Design Approach
The “design for enhancement” approach (OH: day-1; page 17; lines 22-27) is a reasonable approach to the uncertainties involved. Whereas there was considerable debate about a “Phase 2” involving an upstream dam, the present scheme is intended to achieve its design standards independently of a “Phase 2”.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 157 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
3. Design Flood and Tide
The proposed scheme is designed to the OPW’s normal standards of (i) the 100 year fluvial event (300m3/s) (together with Mean High Water Spring Tides) and (ii) the 200 year tidal event (3.5 mOD – made up from a GDSDS value of 2.95 mOD to which is added an allowance of 550 cm for climate change and drop in land surface elevation) together with the 1 year return period river flood. In the absence of long data records for flows in the Dargle and tidal levels in Bray Harbour, the 100 year fluvial event has been estimated using a number of different approaches and is reasonable. The 200 year tidal level has been taken from the work of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS). It was claimed at the oral hearing that the latter may overestimate the actual 200 year return period tidal level at Bray, but no data was offered to support this. In the GDSDS, a higher design standard (4.0 mOD) is applied to areas of critical infrastructure. At the oral hearing, Bruen asked whether this would be appropriate to any of the areas in this scheme and the answer was no and this response was not questioned by others at the hearing.
4. Hydraulic Model
The EIS uses the HECRAS model. This is a widely used and respected model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and used by them. It is a good choice of model for 1-dimensional river simulations. The HECRAS model can be run for a steady state simulation or for a dynamic (time varying) simulation if there are not channel loops. In this study it is run in steady state mode (OH: day 2; page 18; lines 15-17). This is likely to overestimate maximum water levels (as the steady state model ignores storage effects) but the difference here is likely to be small as the storage involved is mostly in-channel. It may also underestimate in-channel velocities during an ebbing tide as the water in the channel has to exit the reach as levels drop, as well as the water entering from upstream. Again the difference is likely to be small for flood conditions in this case. When questioned about the values of Manning’s n (a roughness coefficient that has a strong influence on upstream water levels) – the values given (0.038 to 0.04 for the main channel and from 0.06 to 0.12 for the floodplains are in the expected range. The use of measured data collected by gauges installed for the purpose adds considerably to the modeller’s ability to calibrate appropriate values.
5. Groundwater Levels and Subsidence Risk
At the oral hearing, Ms. Eithne Carey report that following previous works on the river following the 1986 flood large cracks appeared in the walls of her house (OH: day 3; page 40; 2nd Para). It was blamed on a drop in the water table. In the present proposal, the removal of the weir downstream of Bray Bridge and the lowering of the river bed will result in lower water levels in the river during low tides. Water levels during high tides will be less affected as they will be strongly influenced by the level of the water in Bray Harbour. While there will be a greater degree of fluctuation of water levels in the river as the tide ebbs and flows, the average level is very likely to be lower than at present. If there is a connection between river and groundwater then this may influence groundwater levels, producing (i) a lowering on average and (ii) a greater range of fluctuation in the vicinity of the river. If this happens then the risk of
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 158 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council further subsidence should be considered and will depend on the soil type and the nature of the hydraulic connection between river and groundwater. In the EIS (page 178) the installation of sheet piling is mentioned as possibly having a damming effect and causing local groundwater rise. This suggests firstly that there is an hydraulic connection between river and groundwater and secondly that where sheet piling is introduced the connection may be modified.
6. Seapoint Court
Mr. Barr pointed out the discrepancy between height of defences (5 mOD) at Seapoint on the south bank of the river and the adjacent Abattoir defences (4.56 mOD) (OH: day 1; page 25). Subsequently the promoter agreed to extend the 5 mOD protection all around Seapoint.
7. Need for Physical Model
A physical model is to be commissioned to assist with the detailed design. This is essential for the following reasons:
(i) To quantify energy losses by oblique approach angle of flows (including lateral inflows – see below) upstream of the Railway Bridge.
(ii) To quantify the amount of water than might have to pass through Little Bray and through the Golf Club lands. Any associated culverts and outlets (and by implication the relief channel itself) should have at least sufficient capacity to convey this water into the main channel under flood conditions (OH: day 2; page 29). There is not sufficient detail in Drawings B237-150 (sheet 1) or B237-111 (sheet 1) for the capacity to be calculated here. The physical model should also be used to determine to what extent this water, entering from an angle at a number of outlets, will introduce additional turbulence in the main channel, with an energy loss and thus increase in upstream head. [Part of the same argument was used for not having water storage on the Golf Club lands (OH: day 1; page 227)]. If the effect is significant, the physical model should be used to determine the optimum number of and locations for the outlet(s).
(iii) To quantify additional turbulence and energy losses at the exit from the new culvert under Bray Bridge under flood conditions. This flow will return to the river at an angle and may cause additional energy losses and increase in head.
8. Additional Issues
(i) Appropriate flood warning and response systems should be in operation during periods in the construction when properties may be particularly vulnerable to flooding.
(ii) A morphological/sediment budget for the catchment should be established for the detailed design stage (in answer to Mr. Barr’s questions) to assist in determining (i) the long-term natural sustainability of the lowered river channel and the amount and frequency of dredging required and (ii) the
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 159 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
amounts of sediment to be removed from the trap at the Slang and the appropriate frequency of such removals.
(iii) Maintenance: A lost of required maintenance activities associated with the scheme is given on page 39 of the EIS, including removal of material from the “silt” trap and periodic dredging of the river channel to maintain its re-graded level. The EIS states that Bray Town Council would be responsible for this, but the Bray Town Council representative said they didn’t have the budget for this. To what extent will the OPW be responsible? This is critical as the chosen design option depends on the lower bed level and regrading to achieve the required level of flood protection.
(iv) Commitment for 2 gauges to be made permanent (ask OPW or EPA to take over reading (on behalf of Bray Town Council?) to ensure long-term integration with National Network) Data will be useful in monitoring operation of this scheme and also may assist in the design of a Phase 2.
(v) Adequacy of size of culvert on County Brook to be assessed as Ms. Carey reported on behalf of Mr. de Butlier that the County Brook has burst its bans in the past. Also investigate if the existing outfall to Dargle is too high for migrating fish to reach it to travel upstream.
(vi) The Mr. and Ms. Collins claimed that the abutments of the former bridge at Lithographic protect the land at Killarney Glen from the force of the floodwaters and thus possibly from erosion or damage. Consideration should be given to this before alterations in channel or removal of abutments.
(vii) Concerns were raised (i) about the location of the debris trap, with a suggestion that it should be further upstream and (ii) a concern that some flood waters can circumvent the trap. The detailed design phase should address these issues.
(viii) In closing submissions there was a request that the option of not developing the Golf Club Lands could be included in the physical model. Generally floodplain storage provides a benefit by reducing peak discharges downstream, but, for a steep river channel, much of the benefit in terms of reduced water levels occurs at the location of the storage or downstream, e.g. in this case downstream of Bray Bridge. At the Oral Hearing, it was claimed that the amount of storage volume available was small in relation to the volume of water in the design flood and thus would have a small impact. Notwithstanding this argument, for a steep river channel, very little of any benefit would normally accrue to properties substantially upstream of the floodplain storage. A dynamic river model would be required to assess the exact amounts. The restrictive effect of Bray Bridge would contribute to limiting the upstream benefits of such storage were it to be provided.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 160 of 161 39YA0003 / 39XA0001 Bray Town Council
9. Overall
(a) The decision to propose a two-stage flood defence scheme for Bray seems a practical one. The first phase, under consideration here, is designed to OPW guidelines and is intended to provide the required degree of protection by itself. Phase 2 would enhance the degree of protection and would provide for longer-term climate change impacts. The need for a flood protection scheme was not queried at the oral hearing, although there were queries about the status of a Phase 2 and whether funding would be committed to it once a Phase 1 was completed.
(b) The hydrologic/hydraulic design parameters (river flood and tide), Manning’s n values were not seriously challenged at the hearing and are reasonable.
(c) Various specific aspects of the scheme were queried – (i) whether the Golf Club Lands should be protected or used as storage, (ii) the degree of protection proposed at specific locations (e.g. Seapoint) or (iii) the need for all of the land proposed to be taken at some locations. The resolution of the latter two issues does not affect the overall integrity of the scheme. Further information on the first should be provided at the detailed design stage when the results of the physical model are available.
(d) The physical model should also be used to determine the magnitude of possible flows through Little Bray and to ensure that the capacities of the flood relief channel, beside Ravenswell Road, and associated culverts/outlets (both in number and location) are sufficient and to minimise any additional head loss they may cause in the main channel.
(e) The effect of the lowering of the riverbed on nearby groundwater levels and the possibility of land subsidence was not adequately addressed in the EIS. It may or may not be a serious issue, but should be resolved in terms of the areal extent and magnitude and, if necessary, taken into account in any detailed design.
39YA0003 / 39XA0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 161 of 161