Flood Defences - But at What Cost?

08 Oct 2011



UPDATE 1 - 5th October - Dublin City Council's press release re the plans is covered in the Evening Herald. View here.

UPDATE 2 - 5th October - Over 100 submissions received in first 24 hours (now at 116 at 11.00am on 6th October). These submissions can now be viewed at the end of this news story)

UPDATE 3 - 6th October - Article in the Evening Herald giving the position of the CRA and CBA in relation to the flood defences. Read here.

UPDATE 4 - 7th October - A general meeting was held this morning of the Clontarf Business Association. There was unanimous support for the CBA to proceed to lobby local public representatives to defer this plan pending further consultation. And also for the CBA to work in partnership with the CRA to maximise the response from local businesses and residents.

UPDATE 5 - 8th October - We have now produced a list of estimated heights for the proposed wall/mound. Please note that these are estimates only based on the site drawings. Also, as there are no existing levels along path shown around Vernon Ave, these figures required addiitonal extrapolation. Download the list of proposed heights here.



A joint communication from Clontarf Residents’ Association (CRA) & Clontarf Business Association (CBA)

Promenade Flood Defence Scheme & Water Main Project - Due to start in early 2012

The proposed Combined Flood Defence and New Water Main Project by Dublin City Council is due, we understand, to start on the seafront early in 2012. The planning process was completed in 2008.

It has been designed to prevent potential further damage to homes and businesses along the seafront from flooding and to carry a new water main.

It is to take the form of a continuous landscaped mound (or a solid wall where a mound is not practical) ranging in height from 1.5 m (5ft.) to over 2.57 m (over 8ft.) from Alfie Byrne Road to the Wooden Bridge. The existing wall will act as a primary defence with the new proposed mound/wallacting as a secondary defence.

It has been designed to provide an adequate flood defence for a once in 100 year flood event and to also carry a new water main.

However, if implemented, the sea view in Clontarf will be eliminated.

Specific Practical Implications:

  • The sea view when driving along the Clontarf Road will be eliminated.
  • if this plan is implemented, pedestrians or joggers using the pathway close to the sea will not be able to see the road
  • Equally importantly they will not be visible from the road which produces its own potential security risk.
  • Cyclists using the cycle path will not have a view of the sea.
  • Householders who currently have a sea view at ground level will no longer be able to see any part of the sea.
  • There will be limited access points to allow you to move from one side of the berm to the other (unless you are able to walk up and over it).
  • The area on the sea side of the berm will no longer be visible from the road and this will make that part of the promenade much more difficult to police and thus increase the potential for anti-social activity.

What has happened to date:

  • In 2005/6 this plan was first mooted. Firstly there was talk of increasing the existing wall to 6ft high, and the water main was to go under the Clontarf Road. The fear was this would disrupt traffic on the Clontarf Road for up to two years.  It was suggested by the CRA that the wall idea might not be popular and that the water main could be put under the promenade but they were told that that would not be possible.
  • Protecting our homes and businesses from flooding is vital. The CRA and the CBA were aware that these defences were being planned in the form of a mound or wall. However, both the CRA and the CBA were under the impression that the height would be under 1M. Most of our public representatives have subsequently confirmed that this was also their understanding.
  • Details of the heights of the mound and the wall only emerged last week.
  • The Clontarf Residents’ Association and the Clontarf Business Association jointly called a meeting for this morning (Tuesday 4th October) inviting all our elected representatives to attend.  Those who attended were Aodhan O’Riordan T.D., Cllrs. Gerry Breen, Deirdre Heney, Damian O’Farrell  and Jane Horgan-Jones.  Apologies were received from Minister Richard Bruton, Finian McGrath T.D. and Cllr. Naoise O’Muiri all of whom asked to be briefed on the content of the meeting.

Next steps:

It has emerged that as a result of our recent intervention, a Special Area Meeting of the North Central Area Councillors has been called for Wednesday next, 12th October at which both the CBA and CRA will be in attendance.

Once we have further information, it is our intention to hold a public meeting and we will inform you in advance of this.

Please tell us how do you feel about the current proposal?

Please click here to submit your views.


We have received a large number of responses with many people choosing to add comments. Over 97% of the submissions expressed opposition to the planned flood defences. We are publishing some of these comments anonymously below. There is also the opportunity to add a public comment underneath this post.

  1. One of the reasons we live in Clontarf is because of the sea view. I often walk/jog along the seafront and would not feel safe doing so if I cannot be seen from the road.
  2. I am absolutely horrified by these proposals. Thank you for alerting me.
  3. This is a crazy proposal. Clontarfs principal attraction is it's seaside beauty, this benefits all who live and pass through here. The sea land conjunction defines the character of Clontarf. This is environmental vandalism and would destroy the area. I have seen floods here, they only occur at high tide, within two hours the tide has ebbed sufficiently for recovery work to begin. I would rather deal with the consequences of occasional flooding than any of the proposed protective measures.
  4. It sounds drastic - think the negative effect far out weighs the positive, surely there is an better alternative than this!!!
  5. Surely there is a practicable solution that is not as imposing. As an engineer myself I know there is never just one solution but I imagine this option is most likely the cheapest. The cheapest but at what cost to our natural amenity. The council is a disgrace.
  6. I am completely against the proposal to build a wall or to obstruct the view in any way. We have a beautiful amenity here in Clontarf and it would be complete lunacy to damage it in any way.
  7. I understand the genuine concern but overall, having seen the plan, and bearing in mind the serious need to future proof the area for the inevitable, I strongly support the flood protection plan.
  8. I'm absolutely appalled at the proposed structures.
  9. This seems like a very crude proposal that will significantly impair the quality of life of many people living in Clontarf, and detract from the enjoyment of visitors to the seafront. I'd also be very concerned for the safety of walkers who will be cut off from the green space on the other side of the mound and from the road.
  10. Im shocked at this proposed plan. It will ruin the whole vista along the coast & I find it difficult to believe it is regarded as a possible solution. Appalling planning.
  11. The proposed development will spoil the enjoyment for so many and put users at risk. Why create an eyesore, surely our planners have more imagination, if not move out and let others come up with better ideas. What other city would propose such a development?
  12. The sea view in Clontarf is a vitally important amenity. It lifts our spirits in these otherwise incredibly depressing times. Our elected representatives must be made to realise how valuable this is to our well being. Life is tough enough without taking away such a wonderful and free facility. Yes, I want to protect my business from flooding but there must be a better way.
  13. The withholding of details of the nature of the wall was clearly an attempt to push through a proposal they knew would never otherwise be accepted. This deliberate misleading of the community cannot be allowed to succeed.
  14. Ask DCC to justify increased height and to consider lower flood defence, burying the pipe, having a contingency plan if flooding occurs above a lower berm. Need to determine views of residents directly affected. If they don't want higher berm then less likely it will be built. High berm will drastically affect the landscape, recreational experience.
  15. i am concerned that this mound will alter the amenity value of the promenade and wonder is there any alternative at this juncture or is it set in stone?
  16. As a regular walker along the promenade and as one who appreciates the amenity as is at the moment I cannot believe that such plans are being considered. Where does the physical and mental wellbeing and safety of those who use the amenity come into play?
  17. I would be extremely amenable to attending future meetings as a local resident, perhaps also in helping the efforts outlined by the CRA to protect this amenity that my family and I enjoy each and every day.
  18. My wife and i walk the sea front a lot and feel it is a huge asset to Dublin city as a whole
  19. I'm shocked and appalled at the proposal. Apart from obliterating our seaview,there will be an increased security risk and anti-social behaviour.A two metre wall is just begging to be graffitied. Totally against this horrific proposal.
  20. This sounds unbelievable. I, like many others in my neighbourhood, use the prom for a rare city sea side walk. There must be an alternative to this plan. It would be really useful, I feel, if you could publish an artist's impression or available drawings of this plan?
  21. If this proposal were to go ahead it would destroy the wonderful safe amenity which is our Clontarf Promenade. I cannot imagine that they would consider doing the same from Sandymount to Blackrock!
  22. I would like to see more detailed plans, elevations, sections, etc, to determine actual impact, both from a visual perspective and from the flood defence aspect. Would definitely have some concerns with what is proposed but would like more information or a link to DCC website to view exact proposals. Thanks for the update.
  23. Floods do not happen very frequently at all it seems like a waste of money in these times and also ruining such a wonderful sea view. Everyday to work and each day the view is different and more beautiful. Don't take it away and ruin our landscape even more than has already happened with recent builds which stand empty.
  24. Hi I am appalled but not surprised by DCC with regard to clontarf, their attitude is very poor re: clontarf baths, driveways for houses, litter in public areas but this tops everything else.

    If an 8ft wall is built along the promenade the current depreciation of property prices will accelerate as the main attraction for residents will be removed and it will become another featureless suburb when DCC is trying to encourage sustainable development with attractive natural features everywhere else.

    Building an 8th wall will create a canvas for graffitti criminals, clontarf is currently losing the ongoing battle in this regard.

    Have all other alternatives to flood relief mechanisms been investigated? Are reports available?

    We must not allow this proposal to go ahead for the sake of all those people who walk, jog or run along the coast road. Clontarf will become the Coastal town with no view of the coast, funny it ain't.
  25. This can not be allowed to happen, it will destroy Clontarf.
  26. I will be the first to lie under a bulldozer! Have they lost their reason.
  27. Blocking the view of the sea will significantly detract from the quality of life we enjoy in Clontarf. The sea, and all that it offers, was one of the main reasons we moved to the area.

    I'm not an engineer but would it not be possible to extend the Bull Wall over to the land on the East Point with gates to allow or stop the flow of water as appropriate.
  28. The plan as outlined,would not just diminish but destroy a beautiful amenity. We residents appreciate it; visitors see its beauty. To turn the view of the bay into a concrete landscape does not speak well of the engineers who conceived it. If it was a case of major and frequently damaging flooding then maybe such drastic solutions might be considered. But not in this case.
  29. What would be wrong with simply raising the existing sea wall? I think thats all that is required.
  30. 1.5m is far too high, it will destroy a visual amenity and the potential for antisocial behaviour is greatly increased. This needs to be rethought! The water main can go under the promenade - plenty of grassed area that can be dug up and replaced with relatively little effort.
  31. Perhaps the return of the salmon on the Tolka will be Clontarfs equivalent answer to the snails that held up the completion of the motorway routes a few years ago. New environmental impact study please. On September 28th 2011 it was reported in the press that Salmon have returned to spawn in the River Tolka for the first time in over 100 years.
  32. The view of the sea is the single most fabulous thing about Clontarf. It would dramatically reduce the quality of life of everyone going through Clontarf if this access to the sea were removed. This is a terrible suggestion!
  33. Completely ridiculous that someone would be allowed to ruin the sea front.
  34. I am not opposed to a measure in preventing the flooding, but I am opposed to this specific proposal that is being put in place to prevent the flooding.
  35. How could this have got so far without us knowing. There was no mention of this when we were at all of the meetings. We were not properly informed. It is an outrage!.
  36. Outrageous and the residents of Clontarf should take a strong stand against this "sledgehammer approach to crack a nut". I would have thought that Dublin Corporation would have learned by now from the disasters of the past (e.g. wood quay) about protecting our environment, heritage and local community ammenities. Blocking the views of dublin bay from the citizens of Clontarf and Dublin.....what kind of morons do we have running our local government. Surely there is a more appropriate way to tackle the flood defences (which I agree needs to be done)!
  37. So, Clontarf residents & organisations spend over 20 years fighting the proposed 52 acre infill by the Dublin Port Company, thus protecting the natural heritage of Dublin Bay, only to have the view of the same bay from Clontarf obliterated by a mound or wall. Beggars belief, it really does....
  38. Was the information given re the height of the wall/mound deliberately misleading up to this point. If so this is totally unacceptable and our public representatives should ask/answer very serious questions as to how this could happen. It is an outrage if we have been mislead the culprits should be accountable if this is the case.
  39. This is unbelievable. I can understand that the sea front needs to be protected,but surely there are less invasive ways of protecting the area. It could also be come a hazard alone. This is not acceptable, it will completely ruin the area
  40. I just want DCC to get a move on with the project asap
  41. I think this would destroy a very special scenic amenity that I & everybody in clontarf have enjoyed for all of our lives . There are other ways of dealing with flood defences as taken on by Venice & Spain . It seems to me that Dublin city council have taken the cheapest option to deal with the problem . Historically they allow the northside suffer in relation to bad planning . You only have to look @ the houses they have allowed through planning to see this . This would not happen or be acceptable on the southside I.e the houses & buildings have far more thought put into them.
  42. Strongly opposed to this plan as it will destroy the current beautiful outlook along the coast road-has anyone analysed exactly how often flood damage actually occurs and how much financial loss is incurred? Surely that's what insurance is for (assuming it's available on the coast road). Sounds like a costly over reaction.
  43. I am a regular walker on the promenade and hugely value this wonderful amenity - the sea view is important and also the safety aspect with easy view and access from the road. While I fully understand the need to develop flood protection measures, surely there are ways that won't have such a negative impact on this wonderful promenade. Thanks you so much for the information and for your valuable work.
  44. i think this is ludicrous.there is always a natural risk of flooding living so close to the see.Building a massive wall will not only look horrid it will take away from the beauty of living by the sea,running,walking on the promm.i have no doubt that those in charge of decision making live nowhere near Clontarf of its surrounding areas. We have a beautiful natural attraction that draws thousands of people to each year. Erecting a massive wall would also be detrimental to this.
  45. I believe that one of the attractions for Clontarf is the view to the sea. There are definitely huge numbers using the promenade more than in previous times as it is a safe place to walk and cycle. One of the benefits of having a seafront business in particular restaurants is the fact that during warmer periods you can sit outside and enjoy the view of the sea. We are in hard economic times as it is with some houses in negative equity and stronger believe that an impact on the seaview will further damage properties along the seafront.
  46. an 8 ft wall from Alfie Byrne Rd. Graffiti artists will consider this as important as the Berlin Wall and will travel from around the world to deface it. I walk at night on the prom. This will not be safe anymore. Impossible to police, and EXTREMELY dangerous. Put flood deences immediately in front of houses and businesses. Do not make the masses pay for the privileged few. The seafront is for everyone, not just those with houses on the seafront.
  47. We are not opposed to the idea of flood defences. Infact we think it is essential to have some kind of defence, as soon as possible. However, the building of a mount up to the heights suggested to totally ruin the charm and scenic beauty of the area. Why not reinforce the existing wall and increase its hight by 2-3 feet utilising similar material as at present in existing wall, plus in areas deemed requiring extra height fit on top a strenghtened clear material which would not block the sea views and would do the job of sea defense. We are sure there is material on the market which could do such a job, possibley 3 or 4 layers required. Cost are obviously a consideration, however the destuction of the promanade by such a mound will nodoubt destroy the area's appeal and local businesses will suffer.
  48. The house I live in is away from the main dangers of flooding but reading the email with the information about the planned flooding defence measures it is obvious it needs more thought and consultation. The first thing that entered my head was the security risk posed to those who use the promenade regularly. Yes the houses along the promenade should be protected from flooding but has every option been looked at?
  49. 1. Biggest concern is security and public order, as it WILL cause problems in both regards. The seafront is mainly used by women, children and older persons, with men in the minority (some walking, but mainly on bikes or running). Even at present, the litter shows what is going on - public drinking during fine evenings. Some people might prefer being secluded from view for a sense of greater peace, but it has a flip side.
    2. If the sea cannot be seen from the road or single storey houses - the 52 acres will have one less problem the next time it arises.
    3. Built outer wall up a little if necessary and have the inner wall (at edge of footpath) built up to about .5 metre; keeping the car parks, but with an engineered facility to close them off to make the wall continuous to prevent the large egress of flood water.
    4. One of main reasons my family has remained in the same house for the past 25 years is the safe, open-plan facility of the seafront, just 75 metres from our front door.
  50. This work is completely unnecessary. It would absolutely ruin the promenade and would convert it from being a much envied asset to a dangerous wasteland hidden from view from the road. The prom is used by all types of people 24/7 including older people who at the least would have limited access. The main threat of flooding comes when there is a high tide coupled with southerly /south-easterly gales. This does not happen often enough to warrant the complete destruction of the prom. There are vested interests at work here and the money could be better spent on temporary defences. Whether these defences are necessary are, like the whole global warming, rising tides issue debatable to say the least.
  51. Hi, I cannot state strongly enough how much I oppose this. Such a beautiful amenity callously destroyed, please let me know of upcoming activities to protest against this.
  52. The proposed sea defence seems totally unacceptable the sea view is the most attractive feature we have Clontarf. I accept we need a sea defence why not take a look at the sea defence in Baldoyle which actually enhances the area.
  53. This is a lovely park with sea views, to put up this "Berlin Wall" would be a disgrace and a bloth on the landscape. Crazy thinking.
  54. What is the point of destroying the one most beautiful amenity we have in the area? I use the seafront daily for walking/running/cycling/walking the dog/with the kids. Note to DCC... use your brains and figure something else out, this proposal is lunacy!
  55. Having been a resident in Clontarf for forty years, I am aware that on certain tidal ranges combined with a specific wind direction there is a potential risk of flooding along the promenade. This risk may have been heightened due to the increased silting in the bay as a result of the causeway not permitting the natural flow of water around bull island and as such increasing the wave height. Has anyone investigated breaching the causeway to reduce the level of silting and therefore decreasing the possible wave heights incurred along the promenade?
  56. This would be a disaster for Clontarf and would take away one of the most appealing aspects of living here - the ability to walk safely on the sea-front at any time. I would not feel safe walking at night if I couldn't be seen from the road, especially in darkness. It's a fantastic amenity, and I use it several times a week, often with my kids - we bring bikes / scooters and often a football.
    It would also be a huge blow for businesses, as it is a great attraction for visitors and the success of this years Summer Festival is testament to that.
    There has to be a better way to deal with floods that only happen once in 100 years than ruin a beutiful natural setting for everyone.
  57. If the flood risk is for tides at a certain height, then building a lower barrier is pointless
  58. Yes, this is devastating news. The sea front views and promenade improves the health and well being of people who live and/or travel to avail of this wonderful seascape. To build a wall that obliterates the sea view would be another local council building disaster. That disaster would again be lament for more than a hundred years as yet another bad decision made by those cannot think further than the physical function of a sea wall.
    Personally, I feel privileged to walk along the sea and look North towards Howth and South towards the Wicklow mountains while enjoying the effects of the sea view and the sea life.
    Recently I have noticed that there are numerous advertisements and discussions on radio and television encouraging the population to exercise and eat healthy. If this very special amenity of the sea and land scape is obliterated people will no longer have and incentive to walk, run, cycle, roller blade, play rugby, football or sit peacefully in view of a concrete wall.
  59. the height expressed in this proposal is not acceptable as it will eliminate any sea view. The promenade is really lovely and a very useful amenity which should not be lost. There must be a better way of dealing with the flood problem. Can we not look at other similar areas both at home and abroad for a solution.
  60. Flood defences are important but not at the cost of the beautiful sea view we all love and have paid so much to live near and enjoy. We must urge the groups involve to outline this proposal to residents and explain how this is the only or best option. It appears like a mallet is being used to crack a nut here so thanks to the residents association for raising this issue on our behalf.
  61. We must work together as a community to get these plans amended, protection from flooding and protect the amenity and sea views. Neither should be sacrificed.
  62. From your description, this would seem to be yet another example of the City Council's wildly exaggerated responses to straightforward problems. (Remember "Traffic Calming"... and what they did to Griffith Ave.?) It is also typical of the crazily extravagant use of taxpayers money by Public Servants... the kind of recklessness that did so much to land the country in its present predicament... an attitude that should, by now, have been buried with the Celtic Tiger!
  63. This seems absolutely daft. Apart from being unsightly it seems completely unnecessary and an overreaction. I vigorously oppose.
  64. i am running a bed and brekfast on clontarf road and 1 of the main attractions is the wonderfull view,this mound would make business even harder for us. i would be glad to help out in any way on this
  65. The water front and prom is one of the main reasons we moved to Clontarf Its what makes it the best places in Dublin to live. I am sure there are many other solutions than building a huge wall. Fixing the drainage would be a start and upgrading the road so that it drains away as opposed to in to the buildings on the front would be good second and clearing the leaves in Autumn would also help. If this is the only solution then they better build one along the entire eastern coastline since it will merely move the flood potential to somewhere else in the event that we have a big event. Of course this could also be a way of them getting out of fixing the flood issue ie. propose something preposterous like this knowing every one will object so they can delay the whole thing ad infinitum.
  66. The loss of the visual amenity is not worth the avoidance of a once in a hundred year flood risk. When I drive home from the Law Library and come onto the Clontarf Promenade the sight of the sea, the boats, the Bull Wall, the walkers and joggers is a balm to the soul and has a definite therapeutic effect after a day's work. If the scheme can go ahead with a lower berm/wall which avoids blocking sight of all of this, well OK, otherwise - definitely not OK. The Council of course is covering its corporate rear, which is par for the course and means that a local referendem of some kind would be needed to allay its fears of being sued if a lower wall/berm was built which failed to avoid flood damage when a higher one would not have failed. Finally, as Forest Gump would have said, 'That's all I have to say about that.' Except to say I will be available for picket duty.
  67. I am strongly opposed, at the thought of one of the scenic features in Clontarf being taken away. I am very much against this. I have lived in Clontarf for 17 years and am shocked at this.
  68. All local councillors and TDs for the area should be immediately lobbied to highlight my strong opposition to the City Council's plan.
    A strong media campaign needs to be rolled out involving print, broadcast, online and social media.
    Dublin Port wanted to fill in 52 acres of the Bay at Clontarf and failed. Now we have Dublin City Council wanting to block people's views which is ludicrous.
    Has the Council studied flood plain defences in Holland, and part of the English eastern coastline?
  69. Whilst I have personally experienced flooding to my premises and will welcome flood defenses for the Clontarf road area,I am astonished that the idea of 8ft walls and green mounds of similar heights are the preferred option.Clontarf is all about its promenade,its our amenity,the envy of city dewllers all over Europe.Are we seriously considering walling ourselves in from the sea,destroying our views forever,building mounds which mimimise the green spaces and creating a passage way on the seaside which will be a haven for anti social beheaviour ?Lets pause for breath here and revisit this issue before its too late.
  70. This proposal is absurd.
    |All the points made in relation to negative affects are valid - the major ones being anti-social activity, issues for cyclists and also the negative aesthic issues.
  71. I appreciate that dublin has to be protected from flooding however this must not eat into the fabric of the best facility in Dublin - Dublin Bay.
  72. While the height of the wall appears inappropriate and would take from the view, would a mound/wall of less than one metre as originally proposed actually keep the flooding at bay?
  73. This might finally give the promenade the much needed revamp it requires at present it's a litter-strewn with grafitti on every possible surface, the sea wall needs work etc.  As for the view, isn't it more a view of Dublin docks than open sea.
  74. i cannot understand why the proposed structure needs to be higher than 1/1.25 metres other than in one or two low lying locations in existing wall. security and anti-social implications of proposed structure are significant and indicates crass lack of "street sense" in the planning dept.
  75. Visit Dublin to see the Berlin Wall!
  76. I acknowledge that flood defences need to be strengthened, however this is NOT the solution.In fact, it defies belief! Have there been any alternatives proposed? E.g.There were murmurings in the media a while back about a bridge/flood defences from Howth to Dunlaoghaire to protect the bay and simultaneously complete the "ring" of dublin with the M50.London has an imaginative and effective flood defence in the Thames Barrier - surely something like this is better than the "stone age" solution of an 8ft high mound and would also generate much needed employment for those in the construction/civil engineering sector.Who is accountable for making these ridiculous decisions?
  77. Any wall would be an obvious target for graffiti which is a problem already on the shelters. Adverse effect on local tourism destroying one of the nicest views on the east coast. Property devaluation. Saint Anne's have recently removed there wall along the seafront due to concerns on policing. An out right bad idea for the people of Dublin, they should be thinking of ways of tackling this once in a hundred year event by other means then having the seafront ruined for the remaining 99.
  78. the proposed height will destroy the character of the promenade and will make it unsafe to walk at the path at the sea wall. The height should be reduced to that originally proposed.
  79. It would badly affect already dire property prices in the area. It's a ridiculous idea for flooding that happens once every 20 odd years!!
  80. There are possible alternatives http://www.hydroresponse.com/watergate.htm
  81. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to cut off such an amenity from public view. surely there is another less drastic way to sort out the drainage.
  82. I would like to be kept informed and am happy to help with "opposition" if there is anything I can do.
  83. This would be a visual eyesore and without a doubt would result in a massive rise in anti-social activity along the seafront.
  84. The sea view in Clontarf is a hugely contributing factor in choosing to reside in this part of the city. I have been a D3 and D5 resident all my life and this is an integral part of my life.
    I am appalled that such a plan could be mooted, let along strongly considered!
    I am wholeheartedly behind the Clontarf Residents' Association in opposition to this plan.
    An alternative solution must be found.
  85. Having lived in Holland where these flood defences were built well and were not unsightly, I think that the benefit far outweighs the cost - if we can make them semi-appealing to the eye rather than just functional.
  86. if the wall is lower, will this protect from flooding?   and what are the alternatives?
  87. In this day & age I don't believe that the combined expertise of engineers, architects & city planners cannot find a better solution to this problem without ruining a beautiful natural amenity
  88. This project seems to be seriously lacking in imagination. I will strongly oppose it.
  89. Surely the most impractical and damaging of many such proposals to have come from the City Council, and their friends the Port and Docks Board.
    1) As this wall is to terminate at the Bull Wall junction, is it not obvious that any freak tide would spill over on to Clontarf Road just North of there, and flood all the seafront anyway.2) Presently, such flooding as occurs, happens when water surges on to Clontarf Road where there is still NO barrier, ie opposite the slip at the Yacht Club, at the Clontarf Baths, and at the Alfie Byrne Road end. There is nothing in the proposal to say this will not still happen.If the Council really wish to improve the situation and derive benefit from the existing barrier, let them start with these basic simple low cost improvements now.3) A wall of one meter combined with quickly removable barriers at access points would meet all forseeable tide situations. 4) There is plenty of room to place the new water mains on the sea bed along the existing sea wall
  90. I have been born and reared in clontarf and really value the seafront especially in the summer with the view and smell of fresh cut grass! think this idea will be dreadful
  91. Totally ridiculous solution suggested. Am appalled that anyone could see this as a long term solution. Although it may serve to act as a flood defense it will ruin the Clontarf seafront for both residents, visitors and businesses. Clearly devised by someone who does not live in the local area and ultimately does not care!
  92. This seems mad. There must be a better way. A investment was made in lights etc for prom and this will now take from them. For aesthetics and security it is such a pity. Clearly we need flood defences but the open area is quite wide ... is there not another option. Thanks. Will be watching this closely
  93. As a bus driver out of Clontarf garage think this is a discrasse.  Think they could finish off cycle track from wooden  bridge to causeway would be a better way to spent then money. As I love the view I have going and coming to work and hate to see it been lost
  94. Would less than a metre be feasible? This proposed mound would ruin our beautiful seafront both for our residence and all who visit our area. It would also be incredibly dangerous for all those who jog/walk etc. along our prom. Apart from the fact that it would hugely affect our already suffering property prices.
  95. My house was built in 1901. We have lived here for 20 years and the previous occupants for 54 years giving a total of 74 years. The previous occupant told me that this house, one of 4 built at the same time as part of a small terrace had never been flooded. If proper geographical and planning  information is followed there should be no need for flood defenses on the front.
  96. yes thats really stupid.you wont be able to see anything over the wall and youll ruin clontarf.
  97. The height of the wall cannot be changed at the whim of someone in the city council. The initial understanding that it would be no more than one metre would be more palatable
  98. I think that the proposal is completely unacceptable.  1m would be acceptable but certainly not the proposed 1.5 - 2.57m mound.
  99. I am totally opposed to this development. It is an excessive response to an issue that occurs only relatively rarely and when it does occur does no require this level of structure.
  100. I agree with your view (as I understand it) that anything over 1m in height would totally destroy the view and character of the current promenade and would create an unsafe area to walk, cycle, etc, due to creating a magnet for antisocial behaviour.  I think that a 1m high barrier would be sufficient to deal with most of the future storms.  Let us not go higher than that level and, in the process, make the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  101. I think that the construction of the causeway has a lot to do with the flooding. I know that there was always flooding to a small degree but that causeway should be replaced with a bridge this would releive greatly the natural flow of the tides. I am opposed to the solution of Dublin City Council there should be more thought given to this problem. I do think that people property and business should be protected in some way.
  102. This is a ridiculous suggestion and would resemble nothing more that a hideous concrete scar on the landscape.  All Dublin residents, not just Clontarf ones, would resent it. Waste taxpayers money on the Millennium Clock, Gondolas in Stephens green, even the bloody Bertie Bowl, but not this...!!!
  103. This would destroy Clontarf and must be stopped
  104. It can't go ahead, the view of the sea is one of the main attractions of Clontarf. It will also encourage young people to go behind the wall for underage drinking and other anti social behaviour. I walk along the promenade at least once a week and would feel very unsafe if I couldnt not see the road. It will ruin the area, Clontarf is so beautiful the way it is. Surely there is another way around this. It's not very often that flooding does occur.
  105. The impact of this wall would seriously diminish the value of our property as it is one of the main draws for people wishing to live in this area I strongly oppose this wall
  106. Shocking proposal! This is even worse than the plans Dublin POrt have to infill 52 acres. There is not another country on this planet that would consider such a preposterous proposal. The view of the sea is of priceless value all over the world. I fail to see how this absurd plan benefits anybody excepth the number crunchers in the home insurance business.
  107. I strongly oppose the proposed plans. I cannot believe the lack of appreciation shown in these plans for the pleasure the sea view gives the local and wider Dublin community. The plans show a crude approach to the issue and most likely based on cost and not value. To me this sounds like a short term ignorant way of satisfying the budgets of a government body rather than a value driven, collaborate, intelligent approach which will enhance both the quality of people's lives and the environment. Who would choose to live behind a prison wall when the most precious views in Dublin are just beyond it?
  108. We object as a family of 5 to the proposed plans.  Thank you for you email and please keep us informed as we are willing to sign and support any petition you may be collecting.
  109. I believe this to be an extreamly short sighted and unsightly solution to the issue of flooding in the area - there are many possible solutions and this is by far either aesthetically or functionally the best - the above suggests that there will be strategic gaps placed along the length of the wall, and as such there will still be flooding potential - if the landscape within the bay (below surface and against the existing wall) was modified by using below surface crash defences (such as Gabion blocks forming a crash wall), it is quite possible that this would serve as a more proficient and practical way of reducing/defending against flood potential. It would also serve as a more environmentally sound solution and maintain the amenity and environment as it presently is - to progress with the present proposal would be an outrage! I wonder are the same plans in place for Sandymount? I would strongly believe they aren't....
  110. I will oppose this in every way possible
  111. The promenade is a major amenity not just for Clontarf, but for the whole city.
    The security or lack of security, for walkers has huge implications.
    Is it intended to have a high wall all the way out to Howth Head? If not surely the wall will be like the Maginot Line - easily surrounded?
  112. I suggest that the clontarf residents association contact residents associations in other surrounding neighbourhoods to garner additional support.
    While the proposed wall would affect Clontarf residents in a greater way, the residents of surrounding neighbourhoods (Artane, Marino, Killester etc) also use and enjoy the seafront.
  113. While I, like many others, accept that Coastal Engineering is a 'necessary evil' in the face of coastal erosion and coastal flooding generally, I feel that in the case of the promenade at Clontarf there is a real absence of strategic vision in the response to flooding in this coastal zone. Normally coastal management decisions such as this include some or all of the following actions: engineering works, environmental measures, economic development and management policy and plan formulation. In this proposal the proposed intervention to manage coastal flooding goes against the first rule of coastal management 'to work with, rather than against, the natural system'. These planned preventative engineering works are radical in scale and are a disproportionate response being not aimed at the 'average' seasonal conditions but rather being put in place at enormous financial expense to combat 'extreme' climatic or environmental conditions when and if they arise.
  114. I have just heard about this plan today and am really shocked. It seems hard to believe that there is no solution to the flooding threat other than this plan. The sea view and the ability to walk along the sea front in safety is what makes Clontarf a great place to live. Building this wall so high will destroy our most valued amenity. We must do everything we can to stop this before the contract is awarded.
  115. The Clontarf promenade is an invaluable amenity for people from all over northside Dublin.  One of the joys of living in a bayside city is being able to see it as you drive, walk, cycle along.  To remove this view would be a massive mistake and one that we can not allow to happen.
  116. I am horrified to hear of the proposed wall.  I drive the coast road in Clontarf regularily for the beautiful views rather than drive the ugly Malahide road, I am sure lots of people in Portmarnock and Malahide also do and would gladly give support to any campaign to stop the building of this wall.
  117. Does An Bord Pleanala really exist or is it there to facilitate  bodies such as Dublin City Council to do whatever they want regardless of the implications pointed out by CRA and CBA. for the Clontarf Promenade. Dublin Port Company won an appeal hearing regarding the 52 acres infill even though An Bord Pleanala's own inspector rejected nine out of ten proposals put forward by DPC. Are the erection of the flood defences a mask for the real reason as to why they have been proposed or are they simply diverting the attention away from their appeal for the infill of the of the 52 Acres.
    Guest houses with'Exotic Views' of Dollymount Strand was  an advertisement placed in the holiday section of The Irish Independent not so long ago.
    'Exotic views' will become 'Toxic Views'.I feel I have a democratic right as a citizen of Dublin to oppose any destruction or construction of this wonderful city.
  118. I would appreciate being kept up to date on this. I use the promenade for walking/running/cycling almost every day. It is, I believe, the most valuable asset this community has. To put up a wall so that the walk would be enclosed would for me not only ruin the aesthetics of the area but I would also feel quite uncomfortable walking the prom in an enclosed area for security reasons and feeling insecure/uncomfortable would clearly reduce enormously the value of the asset in terms of recreation.
    Myself and my husband will attend any of the public meetings called and will be of assistance if any is required. There has to be other options!
  119. I understand that the proposal is based on a one in 200year event. this ios more conservative than New Orleans. The proposal appears to be based on Barrier onlywhich is a long outdated approach. Most of the flodding over the last two decades has been caused by the failure of the surface drainage system and not by the sea.
  120. I fear the real objective here is to find a cheap way to run the new pipeline along the seafront and it is being done under the cover of providing what is (pardon the pun) a well over the top solution with an 8ft high mound and an even higher new wall in places - see the plan at Vernon Ave end. By simply placing the pipeline on the ground and cover over with the mound the cost savings over having to dig a deep hole and bury the pipe in it must be considerable. Also it means that any existing services currently buried underground do not need to be disturbed. So the choice is a cheaper cost to run the pipeline or the loss of a very considerable amenity.
  121. One further question we should ask ourselves  - Is the Council/Dublin Port suggesting "if you can no longer see the bay why not fill it in?" - could this huge mound be linked to a new way to get around objections to filling in the bay? Hmmm - I wonder!!
  122. We will all have to stick together to make sure this does not happen
  123. The idea to build a seawall on top of what is already a seawall between Alfie Byrne rd and the wooden bridge is  ludicrous as,should flooding occur it would be a useless barrier,the innundation would happen all along that coastal stretch therby rendering 'The seawall' as described. It begs the question.What is the real reason for this construction? A screen perhaps?
  124. I oppose this disruption of the sea view  why cant this be tackled further out at sea making a marina at Clontarf bay this would be a better idea it would benefit the area not disrupt the setting! Every day I see people enjoying the beautiful walk we all enjoy at the sea front.
  125. Where were our elected local representatives when this was being passed, the planning for this was passed in 2008 by An Bord Plannala and Sean Haughey stated on the 28th of May 2009 Dublin North Central T.D., Sean Haughey has welcomed some recent news on the Clontarf Flood Defence Project.
    The Clontarf Flood Defence Project comprises a series of flood bunds and walls along Clontarf promenade between Alfie Byrne Road and the Bull Wall. The objective of the project is to protect nearby roads and properties from coastal flooding. The total length of area involved is 3km.
    No doubt residents in Clontarf will welcome the news that construction of the Flood Defence Project will begin next year. They have waited patiently over the years
    Obviously Mr Haughey didnt even bother to look at the drawings of the flood defense before he started mouthing. Its the public representatives that are at fault for taking their eye off the ball and if its passed planning it WILL go ahead.
  126. Surely the city engineers can come up with a more creative flood control solution which preserves the wonderful amenity of Clontarf promenade. Could the low wall adjacent to the footpath alongside the road not be raised a foot instead?  Or create some kind of  one way drainage holes to divert the water back into the sea. The current plan appears to be a very blunt instrument to deal with infrequent crises. Would residents on the south side of Dublin Bay tolerate such a plan? I doubt it.
  127. I consider that a much more open and public debate is need for a project of this scale which will change the character and use of the area in a very permanent way.  More time is essential to allow all concerned to participate.
  128. Surely the proposal is over kill! The 1 ton sandbags used to date for this flood defence were no more than a metre high and were not placed all along this area.
    Is the new water main to be placed at the present ground level and the mound an excuse not to have to excavate for it? What is the diameter of this pipe? Is it possible to get a copy the engineering drawings for possible assesment by an indepent expert and in order to see the full impact of this proposal?
  129.  I have observed the Clontarf sea front in many different weather conditions for over fifty years.Flooding has occured on the actual sea front approximately three times when a high tide coincided with a strong south wind. Houses were not effected and the road remained open on these occasions.The two occasions I recall (in fifty years) when some seafront houses were damaged, resulted from heavy downpours with the backing-up of the Tolka River and-allegedly-the blockage or incapacity of foul water drains in the Clontarf area. The proposal is excessive. An increase of-say-fifty centimetres to the wall and regular attention to the local drains should keep everyone dry and leave the main feature of Clontarf intact.
  130. I am deeply opposed to the plans. I have a number of issues surrounding DCC's plans; it goes without saying that the beautiful vista from the grass would be completely undone; not to mention the fact that a wall at any point would attract vandalism (as is the case with the baths, the green shelters or the side of the pump house); finally, anyone wanting to use this PUBLIC amenity will be cut off from the view of the road. Anti social behaviour would surely be a much bigger problem than the small and rare issues that exist already, and as such, create an unpleasant environment despite the view of the sea. In short, it would turn Clontarf's best asset into an eyesore and an intimidating place to be.
  131. If the sea wall is to be raised then the promenade and walkway should be raised accordingly so we continue to keep our view
  132. I am worried about any anti-social behavior that may occur behind the wall. I feel that the wall is unnecessary as we have not seen a major flood in 10 years.
  133. There are plenty of new age designs for flood barriers that would fit in with the surrounding landscape.  We need to get architects that specialise in that area to submit alternative designs and see what's out there and what would work best for Clontarf.  We can't allow them to destroy our beautiful seafront.
  134. I think that the mound idea is just an excuse to cut costs of placing the watermain elsewhere.  The proposed development is an environmental and social disaster and would have a detrimental affect for all of the people who use this amentity throughout the year. It would be the ruination of the Clontarf Seafront. Tell them to go back to the drawing board. NOT HAPPY WITH THIS PROPOSED PLAN AT ALL!!!!!!

The above list is just a selection of comments received. As of Sunday 9th October, we've had 260 submissions and numerous public comments below. 

Please continue to send us your views.