3 site specific flood risk assessment

National Paediatric

Hospital Project

Planning Application

Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment

August 2015

SITE-SPECIFIC FLOOD

RISK ASSESSMENT

NOTICE

This document has been produced by O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates for its client National Paediatric Hospital Development Board (NPHDB). It may not be used for any purpose other than that specified by any other person without the written permission of the authors.

Job No. N187 Document Ref.: B:\N__JOBS\N187 - New Childrens Hospital\001 - Documents\Word\Flood Risk Assessment\N187 FRA 20150731.doc

Rev. Status Authors Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 For Planning NMM KC NMM PH August 2015

SITE-SPECIFIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NATIONAL PAEDIATRIC HOSPITAL PROJECT,

AT ST. JAMES’S HOSPITAL, DUBLIN 8

CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ................................................................................................ 3

3. SITE CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................ 5

4. LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................................................................................ 7

5. FLOOD RISKS & MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................... 10 5.1 Fluvial Flooding ....................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Tidal Flooding .......................................................................................................................... 14 5.3 Pluvial Flooding ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.4 Existing Drainage .................................................................................................................... 22 5.5 Proposed Drainage Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 24 5.6 Groundwater Flooding ............................................................................................................. 25 5.7 Flooding from the Grand Canal ............................................................................................... 27

6. JUSTIFICATION TEST ........................................................................................................... 28

7. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 31

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 1: Location of Sites ........................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2: Site of new children’s hospital and the FAU .............................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Site of the CRIC ........................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4: Site of the Davitt Road compound ............................................................................................. 4 Figure 5: Site Context ............................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Existing Ground Levels at the site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU ......................... 6 Figure 7: Extract from Dublin Corporation report showing extent of flooding in Hurricane Charley ........ 10 Figure 8: Extract from ECFRAMS Flood Extent Map at SJH campus .................................................... 11 Figure 9: Extract from ECFRAMS Flood Extent Map at Davitt Road ...................................................... 11 Figure 10: Extract from ECFRAMS 0.1% AEP Flood Depth Map at SJH campus ................................... 12 Figure 11: Extract from ICPSS Tidal Flood Extent Map ........................................................................... 14 Figure 12: Extract from ECFRAMS Tidal Flood Extent Map ..................................................................... 15 Figure 13: Extract from MyPlan.ie showing extent of pluvial flooding ....................................................... 16 Figure 14: Extract from Flood ResilienCity Project Pilot Study ................................................................. 17 Figure 15: Existing overland flow routes, based on existing topography .................................................. 18 Figure 16: Proposed overland flow routes at ground level ....................................................................... 19 Figure 17: Proposed overland flow routes at basement level ................................................................... 20 Figure 18: Image showing proposal for extensive roof gardens ............................................................... 21 Figure 19: Extract from GDSDS Sewer Performance drawing for 2031 scenario .................................... 22 Figure 20: The Planning System and Flood Risk Management ............................................................... 28

LIST OF TABLES FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Table 1: Summary of Level of Service .................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Climate Change - Impact on Design Parameters ...................................................................... 7 Table 3: Flood Risk Zones ...................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Development Vulnerability Class .............................................................................................. 8 Table 5: “Appropriateness” Matrix ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: ECFRAMS predicted flood levels at 09CAMM00356 .............................................................. 11 Table 7: ECFRAMS flood depths and levels at Mount Brown Road ..................................................... 12 Table 8: Fluvial Flood Zoning ................................................................................................................ 13 Table 9: ICPSS Tidal Flood Levels ....................................................................................................... 14 Table 10: ECFRAMS Tidal Flood Levels ................................................................................................ 15 Table 11: Sewer Flooding Reduction between Pre- and Post-Development .......................................... 23 Table 12: Storm Flows from new children’s hospital site to Receiving Sewers/River .............................. 24 Table 13: Storm Flows from CRIC site to Receiving Sewer .................................................................... 24 Table 14: Site Geological Summary ........................................................................................................ 25

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: OPW floodmaps.ie MapReport and Supplementary Reports APPENDIX B: Extracts from OPW’S Draft Preliminary FRA APPENDIX C: Extract from Eastern CFRAMS – River Camac Fluvial Flooding APPENDIX D: Extracts from OPW Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study APPENDIX E: Extract from Eastern CFRAMS – River Liffey Tidal Flooding APPENDIX F: Extract from Flood ResilienCity Project Final Report APPENDIX G: DCC Report on Pluvial Flooding of 24th October 2011 APPENDIX H: GDSDS Sewer Performance Assessment Drawings APPENDIX I: Geological Survey of Ireland Maps APPENDIX J: Extract from Waterways Ireland Preliminary Flood Risk Analysis Report

O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment Multidisciplinary Consulting Engineers National Paediatric Hospital Project at St. James’s Hospital

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 O’Connor Sutton Cronin (OCSC) was appointed by the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board (NPHDB) to carry out a site-specific flood risk assessment for the proposed development of the National Paediatric Hospital Project (NPHP) at St. James’s Hospital, Dublin 8. The proposed NPHP at the St James’s Hospital (SJH) development site comprises: • the main new children’s hospital building located in the west of the SJH campus; • the Family Accommodation Unit (FAU) located at the western edge of the SJH campus; • the Children’s Research and Innovation Centre (CRIC) site located near the James’s Street

entrance of the SJH campus and; • the Davitt Road site located on Davitt Road between the Sperrin Road and Kilworth Road

junctions.

1.2 The locations of the development sites are illustrated on Figure 1. O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates (OCSC) has undertaken an assessment of the flood risks associated with each of the sites.

Figure 1: Location of Sites

1.3 The Flood Risk Assessment was conducted in accordance with: • The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities

(Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office of Public Works);

• C624 Development and Flood Risk (Construction Industry Research and Information Association, CIRIA) and;

• Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017.

1.4 The Flood Risk Assessment was based on the following information: • Architectural drawings of the development proposals; • OPW Floodmaps.ie; • OPW National Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment; • OPW Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study; • OPW Eastern CFRAM Study; • DCC Drainage Records; • Development Impact Assessment for Irish Water (conducted by WS Atkins International

Ltd); • Topographical and Utility Surveys of the sites; • Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) Maps.

Children’s Research and Innovation Centre (CRIC)

Davitt Road site

new children’s hospital

Family Accommodation Unit (FAU)


2

1.5 OCSC carried out site inspections in March and April 2015 to identify potential sources and pathways for floodwater to enter the sites. The inspection consisted of a walkover and visual inspection of the sites and in the vicinity of the sites.

1.6 The Office of Public Works (OPW) collates available reports on flooding from all sources (e.g. fluvial, pluvial, coastal, infrastructure) on a nationwide basis. The OPW’s floodmaps.ie website was consulted to obtain reports of historical flooding within the vicinity of the subject site. The Map Report in Appendix A lists reports of historical flooding within 2.5km of the subject site. Flooding in the areas nearby is recorded at several locations, none of which is reported to have directly impacted the subject sites. Also included in Appendix A are reports on specific flood events that have occurred in the vicinity of the sites – these are discussed in more detail in Section 5.0 later.


3

2. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

2.1 The site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU is currently occupied by a number of single- and two-storey buildings (accommodating hospital administration, clinical services, information centre, estate management, ambulance centre and other functions), extensive surface car parking, site access roads and below-ground utility services. These will be relocated, demolished, diverted and cleared to facilitate the proposed NPHP.

2.2 The proposed new children’s hospital comprises a 7-storey hospital building with a 2-3 storey lower-ground floor and basement and associated infrastructure. The proposed Family Accommodation Unit (FAU) provides 53nr bedrooms for the families of patients. The development is located in the west of the St. James’s Hospital campus. The site is bounded to the north by Mount Brown Road and by the existing SJH Energy Centre, to the east by houses on O’Reilly Avenue and by St. James Hospital, to the south by a DCC Linear Park and the Luas Red Line (Rialto Stop) and to the west by South Circular Road, Brookfield Road, the Brookfield Clinic and by houses at Cameron Square – see Figure 2.

Figure 2: Site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU

2.3 The site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU comprises approximately 4.85 hectares. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from Brookfield Road/South Circular Road, Mount Brown Road and from the SJH campus. The ground floor level of the new children’s hospital will be accessed from South Circular Road and the SJH campus; the lower basement level will be accessed from Mount Brown Road.

2.4 In general, traditional basements are particularly sensitive to flood risk as they are confined on all sides by higher ground levels that would prevent flood water from naturally draining away from the basement. It is important to note that, while the proposed lower-ground and basement levels of the new children’s hospital are lower than the ground level at South Circular Road, the proposed basement floor level is higher than the ground level at Mount Brown Road, from

Existing SJH Energy Centre

DCC Linear Park

Site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU

O’Reilly Avenue

Luas Red Line

South Circular Road

Brookfield Road

Brookfield Clinic

Cameron Square

Mount Brown Road

River Camac

St. James’s Hospital Campus


4

which direct access is proposed. Therefore, as the proposed basement is above ground level at Mount Brown Road, it is not a traditional confined basement.

2.5 The proposed Children’s Research and Innovation Centre (CRIC) will provide 3,017m2 floor space in a four-storey building. The site is bounded to the north by James’s Street, to the east by the existing Trinity Centre for Health Sciences within the SJH campus, to the south by the Haughton Institute within the SJH campus and to the west by houses McDowell Avenue – see Figure 3. The site of the CRIC comprises approximately 0.14 hectares.

Figure 3: Site of the CRIC

2.6 The Davitt Road site (former Unilever site) is intended as a temporary construction compound which will be made available to the works contractor during the construction works; there are no proposals for permanent use at the site. The site comprises approximately 0.81 hectares and is bounded to the north by Davitt Road, to the east and south by vacant land (bounded by houses on Galtymore Road and Carrow Road) and to the west by the site of a proposed Ambulance Centre (planning permission granted, ref 2309/15) – see Figure 4.

Figure 4: Site of the Davitt Road compound

Site of the CRIC

Trinity Centre

Haughton Institute

James’s Street

River Camac

McDowell Avenue

Site compound

Vacant land

Galtymore Road

Davitt Road

Grand Canal

Carrow Road

Site of Ambulance Centre (planning ref 2309/15)


5

3. SITE CONTEXT

3.1 All the subject sites are zoned for development in the current Dublin City Development Plan. All the subject sites are brownfield sites, i.e. have a history of development and there is current occupancy/use of the sites of the new children’s hospital, the FAU and the CRIC.

3.2 The subject sites are shown in relation to major surface water bodies in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Site Context

3.3 The site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU is approximately 60m south of the River Camac, 680m south of the River Liffey and 470m east of the Grand Canal. The subject site comprises approximately 4.85 ha in area. A detailed topographical survey shows that much of the site varies in level between 20.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and 21.0m AOD – see Figure 6. The average gradient is approximately 1-in-300 for 300m from the southern boundary. At the northern extremity of the site, existing ground levels drop significantly from a level of 20.0m AOD at the southern side of the existing SJH Energy Centre to a level of 7.8m AOD on Mount Brown Road, giving an average gradient of approximately 1-in-4.6.

Site of the CRIC

Davitt Road site


River Camac

River Liffey Estuary

Grand Canal

River Camac


6

Figure 6: Existing Ground Levels at the site of the

new children’s hospital and the FAU

3.4 The site of the CRIC is 90m southeast of the River Camac, 500m south of the River Liffey and 900m northeast of the Grand Canal. Existing ground levels vary between 20.0m AOD and 20.5m AOD, giving an average gradient of approximately 1-in-80. The site boundary with James’s Street comprises an existing retaining wall, with footpath levels across the site frontage varying between 15.75m AOD and 17.70m AOD.

3.5 The compound site at Davitt Road is 320m east of the River Camac, 1.1km south of the River Liffey and 22m south of the Grand Canal. Davitt Road and the Luas Red Line tram tracks separate the site from the Grand Canal. In general, ground levels vary from 31.0m AOD at the southern boundary to 29.8m AOD at the northern boundary with Davitt Road, giving an average gradient of approximately 1-in-70. An existing topsoil heap located within the site boundary is approximately 3m high.

7.9m AOD on Mount Brown Road

20.0m AOD

20.0m AOD

20.0m AOD at Brookfield Road

21.0m AOD


7

4. LEVEL OF SERVICE

4.1 The risk of a flood event is a function of the probability of occurrence in any given year. Traditionally, this has been expressed as a return period (e.g. 1-in-100-year return period). However, this has led to misconceptions about the likelihood of repeat occurrences. A less ambiguous expression of probability is the Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), which may be defined as the probability of a flood event being exceeded in any given year. A 1-in-100-year return period flood event is therefore expressed as a 1% AEP flood event. Likewise, a 1-in-1-year return period flood event is expressed as a 100% AEP flood event.

4.2 The Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (published by the Local Authorities in the Greater Dublin Region) and The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (published by DOEHLG, November 2009) set out the best practice standards for flood risk in Ireland. These are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Level of Service

Flooding Source Drainage Fluvial (River) Tidal (Coastal)

Residential 1% AEP 0.1% AEP 0.1% AEP

Commercial 1% AEP 1% AEP 0.5% AEP

Water-compatible – >1% AEP >0.5% AEP

4.3 In addition, the GDSDS requires that ground floor levels of houses be provided with a 500mm freeboard over the 1% AEP fluvial flood level.

4.4 Both the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study and The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities require that account be taken of the effects of climate change over the design life of a development, normally 100 years. Design parameters to take account of climate change were established in the GDSDS and revised following later studies (as advised by Dublin City Council). These parameters are set out in Table 2.

Table 2: Climate Change - Impact on Design Parameters

Design Category Impact of Climate Change

Drainage 10% increase in rainfall

Fluvial (River) 20% increase in flood flow

Tidal/Coastal Min FFL of 4.0-4.15m AOD

4.5 The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the PSAFRM Guidelines) adopt a sequential approach to managing flood risk by reducing exposure to flooding through land-use planning. The approach adopted by the PSAFRM Guidelines establishes three zones (PSAFRM Guidelines paragraph 2.23) on a sliding scale of flood risk – see Table 3.

Table 3: Flood Risk Zones

Zone A High Probability of Flooding Where the annual probability of flooding is: greater than 1% AEP for fluvial flooding or greater than 0.5% AEP for coastal flooding

Zone B Moderate Probability of Flooding Where the annual probability of flooding is: between 0.1% AEP and 1% AEP for fluvial flooding or between 0.1% AEP and 0.5% AEP for coastal flooding

Zone C Low Probability of Flooding Where the annual probability of flooding is: less than 0.1% AEP for fluvial flooding and less than 0.1% AEP for coastal flooding


8

4.6 Flood risk zones are determined on the basis of the probability of river and coastal flooding only (PSAFRM Guidelines paragraph 2.24). Other sources of flooding (such as groundwater, infrastructure and pluvial) do not affect the delineation of flood risk zones. These other sources of flooding should be considered and mitigated in design. Flood risk zones are determined on the basis of the current flood risk, i.e. without the inclusion of climate change factors (PSAFRM Guidelines paragraph 2.24).

4.7 The PSAFRM Guidelines classify potential development in terms of its vulnerability to flooding. The types of development falling within each vulnerability class are described in Table 3.1 of the PSAFRM Guidelines, which is reproduced in Table 4.

Table 4: Development Vulnerability Class

Vulnerability Class Land uses and types of development which include:

Highly vulnerable development (including essential infrastructure)

Garda, ambulance and fire stations and command centres required to be operational during flooding; Hospitals; Emergency access and egress points; Schools; Dwelling houses, student halls of residence and hostels; Residential institutions such as residential care homes, children’s homes and social services homes; Caravans and mobile home parks; Dwelling houses designed, constructed or adapted for the elderly or, other people with impaired mobility; and Essential infrastructure, such as primary transport and utilities distribution, including electricity generating power stations and sub-stations, water and sewage treatment, and potential significant sources of pollution (SEVESO sites, IPPC sites, etc.) in the event of flooding.

Less vulnerable development

Buildings used for: retail, leisure, warehousing, commercial, industrial and non-residential institutions; Land and buildings used for holiday or short-let caravans and camping, subject to specific warning and evacuation plans; Land and buildings used for agriculture and forestry; Waste treatment (except landfill and hazardous waste); Mineral working and processing; and Local transport infrastructure.

Water-compatible development

Flood control infrastructure; Docks, marinas and wharves; Navigation facilities; Ship building, repairing and dismantling, dockside fish processing and refrigeration and compatible activities requiring a waterside location; Water-based recreation and tourism (excluding sleeping accommodation); Lifeguard and coastguard stations; Amenity open space, outdoor sports and recreation and essential facilities such as changing rooms; and Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by uses in this category (subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan).

4.8 The PSAFRM Guidelines define the zones in which each class of development is appropriate – this is summarised in Table 5. The PSAFRM Guidelines recognise that flood risks should not be the only deciding factor in zoning for development; the PSAFRM Guidelines recognise that circumstances will exist where development of a site in a floodplain is desirable in order to achieve compact and sustainable development of the core of urban settlements. In order to allow consideration of such development, the PSAFRM Guidelines provide a Justification Test, which establishes the criteria under which desirable development of a site in a floodplain may be warranted.


9

Table 5: “Appropriateness” Matrix

Flood Zone A Flood Zone B Flood Zone C

Highly Vulnerable Development Justification Test Justification Test Appropriate

Less Vulnerable Development Justification Test Appropriate Appropriate

Water-compatible Development Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate

4.9 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing buildings, associated infrastructure, diversion of essential utilities and the construction of a 7-storey over basement hospital building. The proposed development is a hospital and can therefore be classed as a “highly vulnerable development” in accordance with Table 3.1 of the PSAFRM Guidelines.


10

5. FLOOD RISKS & MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Fluvial Flooding

5.1.1 As was discussed in Section 3.0 earlier, extracts from the OPW’s Floodmaps.ie website are included in Appendix A. Specific reports relating to historic flooding from the River Camac are also included in Appendix A. The report on the flooding resulting from Hurricane Charley in August 1986 was compiled by Dublin Corporation (now Dublin City Council). The report includes a map of the affected areas – see extract in Figure 7. Additional reports included in Appendix A relate to the flood event of October 2011 and indicate no flooding impacting on the subject sites.

Figure 7: Extract from Dublin Corporation report showing extent of flooding in Hurricane Charley

5.1.2 The OPW’s Draft Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (DPFRA) includes an assessment of fluvial flood plains and produces the indicative national flood risk mapping – refer to OPW DPFRA drawing 2019/MAP/238/A in Appendix B. The OPW’s report National Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment Overview Report (August 2011, Draft), describes the method used to develop these maps – extract included in Appendix B. The method omits from the assessment the impact of hydraulic structures such as bridges. Furthermore, the method used involves making assumptions, including that river channel capacity is sufficient only to convey the Mean Annual Flood (MAF) and that all excess flow is carried in the floodplain. Therefore, the PFRA provides only a “preliminary” assessment of flood risk based on indicative flood mapping. As such, the maps are primarily used for scoping purposes only. In this instance, there are other available sources of flood risk mapping based on more detailed and rigorous assessment.

5.1.3 The Eastern Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study (ECFRAMS) is being carried out on behalf of the OPW. The study commenced in June 2011 and is expected to continue until the end of 2016. Draft flood risk mapping has been published showing the results of this study for the River Camac – see extracts in Appendix C. An extract of the fluvial flood extent map with the subject site boundary is shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.

Flood extent shown hatched

River Camac

Site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU outlined in red

Site of the CRIC outlined in red


11

Figure 8: Extract from ECFRAMS Flood Extent Map at SJH campus

Figure 9: Extract from ECFRAMS Flood Extent Map at Davitt Road

5.1.4 Predicted flood levels are provided on the ECFRAMS drawing for particular locations in the river. The nearest location to the SJH campus (sites of the new children’s hospital, the FAU and the CRIC) is identified as 09CAMM00084. The nearest location to the Davitt Road site is identified as 09CAMM00356. The predicted flood levels are reproduced in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 6: ECFRAMS predicted flood levels at 09CAMM00356

Site Nearest Node Label Flood Water Levels

10% AEP 1.0% AEP 0.1% AEP

SJH campus sites 09CAMM00084 6.88m AOD 7.68m AOD 8.49m AOD

Davitt Road Site 09CAMM00356 25.55m AOD 26.09m AOD 26.83m AOD

River Camac

Flood extents: 10% AEP (dark blue) 1.0% AEP (medium blue) 0.1% AEP (light blue)

Compound Site at Davitt Road

Davitt Road

10% AEP Floodplain (dark blue)

River Camac


1.0% AEP Floodplain (medium blue)

0.1% AEP Floodplain (light blue)



12

5.1.5 At the Compound Site at Davitt Road, the ECFRAMS flood extent mapping shows that the site is remote from any fluvial flooding. As described earlier in Section 3.0, the Davitt Road site varies in ground level between 29.8m AOD and 31.0m AOD.

5.1.6 Mount Brown Road is predicted to be inundated during the 10% AEP, 1.0% AEP and 0.1% AEP flood events. The mapping shows some incursion of floodwater onto the northern fringe of the site of the new children’s hospital. In addition to the flood extent mapping, the ECFRAMS also contains flood depth mapping. The flood depth mapping for the 10% AEP, 1.0% AEP and 0.1% AEP flood events are included in Appendix C and an extract for the 0.1% AEP event is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Extract from ECFRAMS 0.1% AEP Flood Depth Map at SJH campus

5.1.7 The flood depth mapping indicates a colour-coded depth range for each of the design probability events. The topographical survey indicates that the ground level in Mount Brown Road at the site boundary is 7.8m AOD. When compared to the topographical survey, a predicted flood level may be inferred – see Table 7.

Table 7: ECFRAMS flood depths and levels at Mount Brown Road

Probability Event

Mount Brown Road Ground

Level Flood Depth

Range Predicted Flood

Level Range Assumed Flood

Level

(m AOD) (m) (m AOD) (m AOD)

10% AEP 7.80 0.00-0.25 7.80-8.05 8.05

1.0% AEP 7.80 0.25-0.50 8.05-8.30 8.30

0.1% AEP 7.80 1.00-1.50 8.80-9.30 9.30

5.1.8 It should be noted that the assumed flood levels shown in Table 7 are the upper end of the predicted range and that the actual predicted flood level may be lower. Notwithstanding this, comparison of these assumed flood levels with the topographical survey allows determination of the extent of fluvial flooding and, therefore, the Flood Zoning (for fluvial flooding) in accordance with the PSAFRM Guidelines – see Table 8.

River Camac



Mount Brown Road ground level 7.70m AOD


13

Table 8: Fluvial Flood Zoning

Site Total Site Area Flood Zone A Flood Zone B Flood Zone C

(m2) (m2) (m2) (m2)

New children’s hospital and FAU 48,530 100

(0.2% of site) 180

(0.4% of site) 48,250

(99.4% of site)

CRIC 1,400 0 0 1,400

Compound Site at Davitt Road 8,100 0 0 8,100

5.1.9 It should be noted that the entire building footprint of the proposed new children’s hospital, the FAU and the CRIC are located within Flood Zone C (i.e. outside the 0.1% AEP flood extent). The proposed basement to the new children’s hospital will have a floor level of 10.2m AOD, which is 1900mm higher than the 1.0% AEP flood level and 900mm higher than the 0.1% AEP flood level. These freeboards far exceed the requirements as set out in Section 4.0 earlier.

5.1.10 The proposed access road at Mount Brown Road ties in to the existing road level and is therefore within Flood Zones A&B at the boundary with Mount Brown Road; however, the proposed road rises up quickly towards the proposed basement at 10.2m AOD. The proposed road accesses from South Circular Road and from the James’s Street (via the SJH campus) are located within Flood Zone C; these are the identified access routes for emergency vehicles. Vehicular ramps within the basement car-parks provide vehicular connectivity from the basement levels to the upper levels (South Circular Road and James’s Street), so that alternative access/egress routes are available.

5.1.11 As described earlier in Section 3.0, the existing ground levels within the site rise from Mount Brown Road at a gradient of approximately 1-in-4.6. The proposed access road will rise from Mount Brown Road at a maximum gradient of 1-in-20. Therefore, the proposed road will involve a reduction in ground levels immediately adjacent to Mount Brown. This means that there is no ground-raising proposed within the existing floodwater storage zone and, therefore, there will be no displacement of flood water as a result of the proposed development.

5.1.12 Based on the above, it is concluded that the sites of the proposed new children’s hospital building, the FAU building and the CRIC building are within Flood Zone C for fluvial flooding, in accordance with the PSAFRM Guidelines and there is no significant risk of fluvial flooding to the buildings. As the existing Mount Brown Road is located within Flood Zones A&B, a very small part of the access road to Mount Brown Road is located within Flood Zones A&B.


14

5.2 Tidal Flooding

5.2.1 The potential pathway for tidal/coastal flooding to impact on the proposed NPHP sites at the SJH campus is via the River Liffey Estuary and the River Camac.

5.2.2 The OPW’s Draft Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (DPFRA) includes an assessment of tidal flood plains and produces the indicative national flood risk mapping – refer to OPW DPFRA drawing 2019/MAP/238/A in Appendix B. The data is based on the OPW’s ongoing Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study (ICPSS). Phase 3 of this Study, which covers the Irish north-east coast (including Dublin City), has been completed – refer to OPW ICPSS drawing NE/RA/EXT/19 in Appendix D. An extract of the tidal flood extent map with the subject site locations is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Extract from ICPSS Tidal Flood Extent Map

5.2.3 The OPW ICPSS drawing shows the subject sites to be outside of the current 0.5% AEP and 0.1% AEP tidal events. Predicted flood levels are provided on the ICPSS drawing for particular locations in the river. The nearest location to the subject sites is identified as Point 22 on ICPSS drawing NE/RA/EXT/19. The predicted flood levels are reproduced in Table 9.

Table 9: ICPSS Tidal Flood Levels

Nearest Node Label Flood Water Levels

10% AEP 0.5% AEP 0.1% AEP

Point 22 2.67m AOD 3.07m AOD 3.28m AOD

5.2.4 The Eastern Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study (ECFRAMS) is being carried out on behalf of the OPW. The study commenced in June 2011 and is expected to continue until the end of 2016. Draft flood risk mapping has been published showing the results of this study for the River Camac and the River Liffey. However, none of the ECFRAMS maps for the River Camac show tidal flood extents. Tidal flooding at the River Liffey Estuary is shown on ECFRAMS drawing E09LIF_EXCCD_C0_SH02, which is included in Appendix E - an extract of the tidal flood extent map with the subject site locations is shown in Figure 12.

Site of the CRIC

Davitt Road site

Site of the new children’s hospital and th FAU



15

Figure 12: Extract from ECFRAMS Tidal Flood Extent Map

5.2.5 The Séan Heuston Bridge (carrying the Luas Red Line tramway) is identified in the ECFRAMS as the upstream limit of tidally influenced flooding. Drawing E09LIF_EXCCD_C0_SH02 notes: “Tidally influenced flooding does not extend upstream of this point. Please refer to fluvial flood maps.” The River Camac joins the River Liffey upstream of the Séan Heuston Bridge.

5.2.6 The ECFRAMS drawing shows the subject sites to be outside of the current 0.5% AEP and 0.1% AEP tidal events. Predicted flood levels are provided on the ECFRAMS drawing for particular locations in the river. The nearest location to the subject sites is identified as 09LIFF00513 on ECFRAMS drawing E09LIF_EXCCD_C0_SH02. The predicted flood levels are reproduced in Table 10.

Table 10: ECFRAMS Tidal Flood Levels

Nearest Node Label Flood Water Levels

10% AEP 0.5% AEP 0.1% AEP

09LIFF00513 2.86m AOD 3.266m AOD 3.48m AOD

5.2.7 As described earlier in Section 3.0, the majority of the site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU varies in ground level between 20.0m AOD and 21.0m AOD, dropping off to Mount Brown Road at 7.8m AOD. The site of the CRIC building varies between 20.0m AOD and 20.5m AOD and the Compound Site at Davitt Road varies between 29.8m AOD and 31.0m AOD.

5.2.8 Based on the above, it is concluded that all of the sites of the proposed development are within Flood Zone C for tidal flooding, in accordance with the PSAFRM Guidelines.

5.2.9 As a result of climate change and vertical landmass movement, the sea level is expected to gradually rise in future. For new-build development, Dublin City Council recommends a minimum habitable floor level of 4.00-4.15mAOD.

5.2.10 The proposed ground floor of the new children’s hospital is 21.0mAOD. The proposed lower basement B02 level is 10.20mAOD. The lower ground floor level of the CRIC building (accessed from James’s Street) is 15.85m AOD. Therefore, the proposed floor levels of the hospital, the lower basement and the CRIC provide suitable protection from tidal flood risk in the current climate and future climate scenarios.

James’s Street entrance to SJH campus (subject sites are beyond the scope of the tidal flood map)



16

5.3 Pluvial Flooding

5.3.1 The OPW’s Draft Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (2011) includes an assessment of pluvial flood risk. The DPFRA flood risk map 2019/MAP/238/A included in Appendix B shows the predicted flood risk areas at very low resolution. The OPW’s data on pluvial flood risk is included in the MyPlan.ie website, which is managed by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government – see extract in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Extract from MyPlan.ie showing extent of pluvial flooding

1.0% AEP pluvial flooding is shown in orange Extreme event pluvial flooding is shown in yellow

5.3.2 The OPW PFRA data on pluvial flood risk indicates no risk at the CRIC site, some existing pluvial flood risk at the site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU and no risk at the Compound Site at Davitt Road. The data indicates some pockets of existing pluvial flood risk at the edge of the former Unilever site on Davitt Road, but the proposed storage compound does not extend to the edges of the former Unilever site.

5.3.3 As part of the European Union’s Flood ResilienCity Project, Jacobs Consulting, on behalf of Dublin City Council, conducted an investigation and assessment of pluvial flooding in Dublin City. As part of this study, pilot risk assessments of pluvial flooding were carried out for parts of Dublin City. The results for the pilot study of Dublin South Central are included in the Flood ResilienCity Project Final Report, Volume 4 Appendix C. Pluvial flood mapping from the pilot study is included in Appendix F and is reproduced in Figure 14.

Site of the CRIC

Davitt Road site



17

Figure 14: Extract from Flood ResilienCity Project Pilot Study showing

extent of pluvial flooding predicted for the 2.0% AEP event Light blue indicates shallow depth of flooding

Darker blue/purple indicates deeper flood depths

5.3.4 Overland flow results when rainfall-runoff from surfaces flows overland before entering a watercourse or sewer or when it cannot enter because the drainage system is already full to capacity. The Flood ResilienCity Pilot Study indicates a significant area of pluvial flooding on Brookfield Road, which is highlighted in Figure 14. Brookfield Road falls from a level of 20.7m AOD at the junction with South Circular Road down to a level of 8.9m AOD at the junction with Mount Brown Road. However, at the junction with Brookfield Street, there is a localised low point at a level of 19.6m AOD. The Flood ResilienCity study identifies this localise low point as a potential pluvial flooding risk. The low point in the road would be expected to fill up before spilling over at the northern end at a level of 20.0m AOD. As the ground floor level of the proposed new children’s hospital and FAU is 21.0m AOD, the proposed development is adequately protected from this existing pluvial flood risk.

5.3.5 A heavy rainfall event that occurred on 24th October 2011 resulted in pluvial flooding at numerous locations across Dublin City. A report on this event prepared by DCC Environment and Engineering Department is included in Appendix G. The report describes pluvial flooding at Faulkner’s Terrace as “probably from road flooding”, which implies pluvial flooding, rather than fluvial flooding from the River Camac.

5.3.6 The Flood ResilienCity Project Pilot Study indicates that the depth of pluvial flooding on Mount Brown Road is 0-0.2m, with more severe pluvial flooding occurring to the rear of properties on the northern side of Mount Brown Road. There are a number of laneways and archways between the buildings on the northern side of Mount Brown Road that provide an overland flow route for pluvial floodwater on Mount Brown Road to drain to the River Camac. This results in the relatively shallow depths predicted in the Flood ResilienCity Project Pilot Study. The topographical survey indicates that the ground level in Mount Brown Road at the site boundary is 7.8m AOD. The proposed access road from Mount Brown Road will rise up to the basement level at 10.2m AOD.

5.3.7 The OPW PFRA maps, the Flood ResilienCity maps, the detailed topographical survey and a walkover of the site by OCSC personnel were used to assess the potential pluvial flood risks and identify existing overland flow routes – see Figure 15.

Flood ResilienCity Pilot Study Area outlined in red

Site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU outlined in

Pluvial flooding on Brookfield Road


18

Figure 15: Existing overland flow routes, based on existing topography

5.3.8 Note that the existing overland flow routes identified in Figure 15 are based on the existing “lie of the land” as indicated in the detailed topographical survey and illustrate the path that overland flow would take in the event that rainfall exceeds the capacity of the existing drainage system on the subject site. The vast majority of the site would shed surface water to the northeast corner of the site, from where water would move towards Mount Brown Road via the laneway at the back of St. John’s Terrace. A small proportion of the site around the Rialto Gate entrance would shed surface water onto Brookfield Road and the northwest corner of the site would shed surface water directly onto Mount Brown Road.

5.3.9 As part of the proposed new children’s hospital, a new access road from Brookfield Road on the west of the site will loop around the northern end of the site and tie in to the existing SJH campus access road to the east of the site. This road has been designed to provide a constant fall from both sides of the site to a new low point at the northern end of the proposed building. From here, overland flow will pass westwards to the new access road from Mount Brown Road and then northward onto Mount Brown Road – see Figure 16.

Mount Brown Road


Luas Red Line

St. John’s Terrace

Garden Hill House


19

Figure 16: Proposed overland flow routes at ground level

5.3.10 In general, traditional basements are particularly sensitive to flood risk as they are confined on all sides by higher ground levels that would prevent flood water from naturally draining away from the basement. It is important to note that, while the proposed lower-ground and basement levels of the new children’s hospital are lower than the ground level at South Circular Road, the proposed basement floor level is higher than the ground level at Mount Brown Road, from which direct access is proposed. Therefore, as the proposed basement is above ground level at Mount Brown Road, it is not a traditional confined basement.

5.3.11 For much of the boundary of the new building, it is proposed to provide open vents to basement level car-parks and plant rooms and to provide natural light to the lower ground floor. The vents will be protected from overland flow at ground level by a low level upstand dado wall. As rainfall will enter the vents, it is proposed to provide a surface water drainage system at basement level to drain the area exposed to rainfall. Apart from surface grading of the floor slab around car-park and floor gullies, the proposed basement level will be flat. At the northern end of the basement, a ramp down to Mount Brown Road will provide vehicular access. This ramp down will also allow excess rainfall-runoff flow out from the basement level to Mount Brown Road – see Figure 17. Therefore, as an overland flow route from the basement is available, surface water within the basement will not be confined.

Low point on proposed new access road

Overland flow will follow the proposed new access road

Vents to basement level shown in green

Mount Brown Road


Luas Red Line



20

Figure 17: Proposed overland flow routes at basement level

5.3.12 The site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU comprises 4.85 hectares. Approximately 2 hectares of the roof will comprise extensive green roof with mature trees and, in places, up to 1m depth of soil – see Figure 18. The roof gardens will be contoured to create a gently sloped undulating landscape that will serve to intercept rainfall and slow down rainfall runoff.

Overland flow to ramp down to Mount Brown Road

Vents to basement level shown in green

Mount Brown Road


Luas Red Line



21

Figure 18: Image showing proposal for extensive roof gardens

5.3.13 Overland flow results when rainfall-runoff from surfaces flows overland before entering a watercourse or sewer or when it cannot enter because the drainage system is already full to capacity. The proposed development will be provided with a new high-quality drainage system with capacity meeting modern design parameters; this will serve to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of overland flow. Following the proposed development, a small proportion of the site will continue to shed overland flow towards Brookfield Road. The majority of the site will continue to shed overland flow to Mount Brown; however, as a result of the proposed development, the area draining via the laneway at St. John’s Terrace will reduce, thereby reducing the flood risk to St. John’s Terrace. The extensive roof gardens will serve to reduce rainfall runoff volumes and slow down the rate of runoff.


22

5.4 Existing Drainage

5.4.1 In the vicinity of the subject site, there is an extensive network of combined sewers (collecting both foul sewage and surface water) in the ownership of Irish Water (IW) that is operated and maintained in conjunction with Dublin City Council (DCC). Drainage Record Plans provided by DCC indicate that there are no foul sewers (collecting only foul sewage) in the vicinity of the subject site. The existing combined sewers provide services to domestic, commercial and industrial customers in the immediate vicinity of the site and in the Rialto area. A trunk sewer, known as the Drimnagh Sewer, runs across the site of the new children’s hospital from south to north.

5.4.2 According to ‘Our Good Health - A History of Dublin’s Water and Drainage’ by Michael Corcoran (published by DCC, 2005), the Drimnagh Sewer was constructed around 1925-1926 to facilitate the drainage of the Drimnagh, Crumlin and Rialto areas. When constructed, the sewer crossed beneath the Grand Canal at Harberton Bridge before taking a course northward. It was constructed as a tunnel under the old branch of the Grand Canal (now used as the course of the Luas Red Line). The tunnel then entered the grounds of the hospital and followed a northerly route to Mount Brown Road. From Mount Brown Road, the combined sewer flows north to the South City Interceptor Sewer, the main trunk sewer in the area.

5.4.3 The Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme, which was completed in the 1980s, included the construction of a new trunk sewer adjacent to the Grand Canal. This new sewer (the Grand Canal Tunnel Sewer) intercepted the Drimnagh Sewer and collected flows from its upper catchment. As a result of this, the Drimnagh Sewer at the new children’s hospital site now serves primarily the catchment north of the Grand Canal, i.e. Rialto.

5.4.4 From Rialto and northwards through the subject site, the Drimnagh Sewer comprises two pipelines. One of the pipelines is designated for surface water and the other is a combined/foul pipeline. Each of the manholes on the Drimnagh Sewer provides access to both the storm pipeline and the combined/foul pipeline. In each of the manholes, a low wall separates the two pipelines; this low wall behaves as an overflow weir in high flow conditions and so each of the manholes acts as a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO).

5.4.5 GDSDS Sewer Performance drawings are included in Appendix H. Drawing GDSDS/MAR3079/F001/P3-002_TILE0 shows the predicted 2011 performance scenario and drawing GDSDS/MAR3079/F001/P3-003_TILE03 shows the expected performance of the sewerage system in the future scenario (year 2031) – see extract in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Extract from GDSDS Sewer Performance drawing for 2031 scenario

5.4.6 The assessment shows that the existing sewers in James’s Street perform well, with no

No predicted surcharge in James’s Street sewer



Predicted flooding at Brookfield Road

Predicted surcharge of existing Drimnagh Sewer


23

surcharge indicated for the year 2011 and year 2031 scenarios. It is proposed to drain the CRIC building to the sewers in James’s Street.

5.4.7 The GDSDS assessment shows that the existing Drimnagh Sewer is expected to surcharge for a 1-in-2-year return period event. However, as a result of the depth of the sewers, there is no flooding expected. Furthermore, it is proposed to partially divert the Drimnagh Sewer and to reduce the hydraulic loading on this sewer – discussed later in this Section.

5.4.8 The GDSDS assessment shows that the existing sewer in Brookfield Road is expected to flood for a return period event of 1-in-30-years or less. However, it is proposed to reduce the hydraulic loading on this sewer – discussed later in this Section. Due to the existing ground levels on Brookfield Road, any flooding that occurs on this sewer will flow northwards away from the proposed new access to the new children’s hospital.

5.4.9 The proposed development and diversion of the Drimnagh Sewer was subjected to a Development Impact Assessment (DIA) conducted by WS Atkins International Ltd on behalf of Irish Water. The DIA was conducted using the hydraulic model prepared for the City Centre Sewerage Scheme, on behalf of Irish Water (IW). The City Centre Sewerage Scheme (CCSS) is a city-wide assessment of the public sewerage infrastructure with the aim of identifying areas of the City Centre Drainage Area catchment that are under capacity and to propose solutions.

5.4.10 The purpose of the DIA was to determine the impact of the proposed development on the city’s sewerage system and existing CSOs remote from the site. A report prepared by WS Atkins on the findings of the DIA is appended to the Engineering Services Report submitted with this planning application. The findings of the DIA show that, in the vicinity of the site, “there is a reduction in overall flooding as a result of the [new children’s] hospital drainage proposals” – see Table 11 (extracted from DIA report).

Table 11: Sewer Flooding Reduction between Pre- and Post-Development

Return Period Pre-development Flood Volume m³

Post-development Flood Volume m³

Pre Climate Change Application:

5 year 7,259 7,107

30 year 19,048 18,577

100 year 35,886 35,034

Post Climate Change Application:

5 year 9,176 9,036

30 year 23,513 22,868

100 year 44,271 43,451

5.4.11 The DIA report for Irish Water identifies “some localised increases in flood volume between the pre and post-developments; in general these increases in flood volume are low”. Personnel from DCC Drainage Services Division investigated a number of these locations for evidence of surcharge and/or flooding.

5.4.12 In summary, the DIA report for Irish Water concludes that “the development of the NPHP results in a reduction of storm run-off to the combined sewer network, with attenuation provided on site to limit run-off to the River Camac. This results in negligible changes to environmental spills, some localised surcharging, but an overall reduction in flood volume in the vicinity of the NPHP.”

5.4.13 Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed development is not impacted by flooding from existing sewerage. Furthermore, the proposed development has an overall positive impact on flooding by reducing total flood volumes in the vicinity of the site.


24

5.5 Proposed Drainage Infrastructure

5.5.1 The removal from the combined/foul sewerage infrastructure of surface water runoff from the subject site will reduce the hydraulic loading on the public sewerage infrastructure during the critical times of rainfall. The proposed surface water drainage system will incorporate runoff control in the form of attenuation, which will restrict discharge from the development to equivalent green field levels. This will ensure that peak discharges to the River Camac will be less than the existing runoff from the subject site, resulting in an improvement in the general surface hydrology.

5.5.2 The DIA report for Irish Water identifies changes to the surface water flow from the site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU to the receiving sewers and watercourse as a result of the proposed development – see Table 12 (extracted from WS Atkins report). The report notes that “there is a 100% reduction in storm run-off entering the combined network at Mount Brown and Brookfield Road”.

Table 12: Storm Flows from new children’s hospital site to Receiving Sewers/River

Critical Storm Event (Return Period and Duration)

Mount Brown Sewer

Brookfield Road Sewer River Camac

Pre-dev (l/s)

Post-dev (l/s)

Pre-dev (l/s)

Post-dev (l/s)

Pre-dev (l/s)

Post-dev (l/s)

5 year 120min 84 0 73 0 71 9.9

30 year 120min 126 0 112 0 112 9.9

100 year 240min 97 0 109 0 97 9.9

5.5.3 The CRIC site will also be provided with a surface water drainage system incorporating runoff control in the form of attenuation, which will restrict discharge from the development to equivalent green field levels. The changes to the surface water flow from the site of the CRIC to the receiving sewer as a result of the proposed development have been calculated using the Modified Rational Method – see Table 13.

Table 13: Storm Flows from CRIC site to Receiving Sewer

Critical Storm Event (Return Period and Duration)

James’s Street Sewer

Pre-dev (l/s)

Post-dev (l/s)

5 year 120min 4.3 4.0

30 year 120min 7.0 4.0

100 year 120min 9.7 4.0

5.5.4 The design of the proposed drainage adheres to the hydraulic performance criteria set out in the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study and in the Building Regulations Part H, in order to achieve self-cleansing velocity, minimising the potential for blockages leading to flooding. The proposed drainage system incorporates Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in the form of extensive green roofs, petrol interceptors, discharge flow control and attenuation storage.

5.5.5 The proposed development is designed to attenuate all surface water runoff from the site to DCC requirements. The existing site provides no attenuation and, as such, there will be a reduction in the risk of flooding, on and off the site, as a result of the proposed drainage infrastructure.


25

5.6 Groundwater Flooding

5.6.1 The OPW’s Draft Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (DPFRA) includes an assessment of groundwater flood risk. The DPFRA flood risk map included in Appendix B indicates no groundwater flood risk to the site or to the surrounding area.

5.6.2 Mapped data obtained from the Geological Survey of Ireland is included in Appendix I. The subject site is located over a bedrock of limestone “calp” with an underlying aquifer described as a locally important aquifer bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones. Groundwater vulnerability is classed as Medium for the CRIC site and almost the entire Site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU; a small proportion of the site is classed as High. There are no karst features in the vicinity of the sites.

5.6.3 There is no record of groundwater flooding for the subject sites.

5.6.4 A number of phases of site investigations and studies have been carried out on the project site since 2014. Geotechnical investigations and reports were undertaken by Roughan O’Donovan Consulting Engineers with Causeway Geotechnical Ltd in 2014. Causeway Geotechnical Ltd carried out site investigations between June and August 2014. In order to further characterise the bedrock geology and hydrogeology regime in terms of groundwater levels and yields a bedrock drilling and testing programme was commissioned and carried out by Meehan’s Drilling in 2015.

5.6.5 The site-specific site investigations have proven the made ground, Dublin Boulder Clay and Lucan formation. Extensive testing and characterisation of the boulder clay in terms of geotechnical properties was carried out during the 2014 investigations and assessments. A summary of the soils encountered is detailed in Table 14.

Table 14: Site Geological Summary

Typical Depth Proven (mbgl)

Geological Unit/Strata General Description

0 - 3.6 Made Ground Topsoil, tarmac, concrete overlying gravel fill/hardcore or sandy gravelly CLAY with low cobble content, occasional pieces of cinders, brick and/or concrete. The majority of the site is under tarmac or concrete which is impermeable. The made ground is variable and can be considered unconsolidated with moderate permeability. The made ground will contain some perched water as it sits on the low permeability boulder clay.

1.4 - 2.7 Dublin Boulder Clay 1 (Upper Brown)

Brown or light brown sandy gravelly CLAY. Clay gets more compact with depth. Some areas can be quite soft and will contain some perched water.

2.7 - 5.5 Dublin Boulder Clay 2 (Upper Black)

Grey/dark grey and black sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional low cobble and boulder contents. Clay increases in strength, stiffness and compaction with depth. Permeability also expected to be low except in areas with high gravel content. Gravel pockets encountered in some locations.

9.5-14.8 Gravels (in north of site)

Clayey sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content. A number of gravel lenses of varying thickness were encountered within the lower boulder clay. These lenses are up to a couple of meters thick. Standpipe installation within the lenses were consistently dry. Permeability is as low as consolidated clay (10-9) indicating very localised and isolate nature of the lenses. All gravel layers were underlain by boulder clay again i.e. did not appear in connectivity with boulder clay in the areas investigated.

5.5 - 19.3 Dublin Boulder Clay 3 (Lower Black)

Dark brownish grey or greyish brown and black sandy gravelly CLAY. Cobble content varies low to high. Boulder content varies low to high. Clay increases in strength, stiffness and compaction with depth. Permeability also expected to be low except in areas with high gravel content. Gravel pockets encountered in some locations.


26

Typical Depth Proven (mbgl)

Geological Unit/Strata General Description

10.8 – 19.3

Calp Limestone bedrock

Thinly to medium bedded, fine to medium grained LIMESTONE, partially weathered, occasionally distinctly weathered, interbedded with very thin beds of extremely weak to weak MUDSTONE. Occasional to frequent calcite veining. Weathered zone was thin and generally less than 2m.

5.6.6 The boulder clays generally exhibited very low permeability (in the order of 1x10-9 m/s or lower), which is in line with reported findings elsewhere for the same unit. The glacial boulder clay will tend to act as an aquitard or aquiclude between the other more permeable formations including the limestone bedrock. The glacial boulder clay will also act as a confining layer where the groundwater head in an underlying more permeable layer is above the base of the boulder clay layer. The local pockets and lenses/layers of sands and gravels found within the overburden have a higher permeability than the boulder clay but may be hydraulically isolated if they are surrounded by the boulder clay.

5.6.7 Intergranular groundwater flow will primarily dominate in the overburden deposits with flow rates expected to be extremely low. There is no identifiable pattern or gradient of the water levels measured from the monitoring installations within the boulder clay. The water levels recorded represent the water table in the immediate vicinity of the monitoring installation. Some water can be expected at the interface of the made ground, upper boulder clay and the lower boulder clay within 1-3m of ground level. This water is perched and can be considered to be relatively isolated vertically and horizontally.

5.6.8 Apart from where existing ground levels drop down to Mount Brown Road at the northern end of the site, the proposed lower-ground and basement levels of the new children’s hospital will be surrounded and contained by continuous secant piled curtain retaining wall. The basement level floor slab will extend to the retaining wall and the joint will be sealed, providing a watertight barrier to the ingress of groundwater.

5.6.9 The probability of groundwater entering the basement is considered extremely low. In any such event, water would follow overland flow routes (see Section 5.3 earlier) and not collect within the basement.


27

5.7 Flooding from the Grand Canal

5.7.1 The Grand Canal is located approximately 470m to the west of the site of the new children’s hospital and the FAU. The Grand Canal is 20m north of the compound site at Davitt Road.

5.7.2 The Grand Canal is a man-made waterway which is approximately 132km long and runs between Shannon Harbour in Co. Offaly and the River Liffey (Grand Canal Dock). The Luas Red Line tram way follows a disused arm of the canal which historically passed the back of the SJH campus and ended at Grand Canal Harbour (now Grand Canal Place).

5.7.3 Waterways Ireland is the responsible body for the Grand Canal. To inform the OPW’s National PFRA, Waterways Ireland produced a PFRA for the canal system, including the Grand Canal. This report was completed in 2011 and examined the historical flooding events, potential flooding mechanisms and the possible future flooding events.

5.7.4 The Waterways Ireland report lists the following potential flooding mechanisms: • Failure or breach of an embankment; • Overtopping of the banks; • Operational issues (e.g. vandalism).

5.7.5 The Waterways Ireland report identifies historic instances of flooding from the Grand Canal. Only one identified event occurred in Dublin City: at Bluebell, in 2005, “some damage was caused to 5 business premises due to vandalism at locks which resulted in bank overtopping”. The report states that “where there is a risk or history of vandalism, locks are placed on the sluices to prevent interference”.

5.7.6 Appendix 1 of the Waterways Ireland Report (included as Appendix J) details the locks and reaches of the Grand Canal. The lock at Suir Road Bridge is the closest lock to the sites at the SJH campus. The upstream canal water level is 24.9m AOD and the reach (the canal between consecutive locks) contains 14,328m3 water. Waterways Ireland has identified a spread radius of 135m. In the event of canal lock failure, water would be released into the downstream canal reach and likely cause overtopping of the banks along the full length of the canal reach. Any floodwater that entered the linear park beside the Luas red line at Suir Road would flow towards the SJH campus. Over the distance between Suir Road and the SJH campus, the floodwater would tend to spread out and dissipate. The South Circular Road rises over the Luas Red Line tram way and the so would act as a partial barrier flood water. The Luas Red Line tram way dips into a hollow beneath the South Circular Road and so flood water would pond at this location. Floodwaters reaching beyond South Circular Road would flow along the Luas tram way. Due to the distance from Suir Road and the obstacles to flood flow, any canal floodwater reaching the SJH campus would likely be shallow overland flow and would follow the overland flow routes identified in Section 5.3 earlier.

5.7.7 As described in Section 3.0 earlier, the lowest ground level at the compound site at Davitt Road is 29.80m AOD. The canal reach at this location is 28.90m AOD, which is 900mm lower than the site compound. The canal is separated from the site by the Luas Red Line tram way and Davitt Road, which is lower than the subject site. Any overtopping of the canal south bank would flow along Davitt Road eastwards, away from the site. There is no proposal for permanent occupancy of the Davitt Road site.


28

6. JUSTIFICATION TEST

6.1 In November 2009, new Planning Guidelines on The Planning System and Flood Risk Management were published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DOEHLG).

Figure 20: The Planning System and Flood Risk Management

6.2 As discussed in Section 4.0 earlier, the proposed development is a hospital and is classed as a “highly vulnerable development” in accordance with Table 3.1 of the PSAFRM Guidelines.

6.3 As noted in Section 5.1 earlier, the entire building footprint of the proposed new children’s hospital, the FAU and the CRIC are located within Flood Zone C (i.e. outside the 0.1% AEP flood extent). The proposed basement to the new children’s hospital will have a floor level of 10.2m AOD, which is 1900mm higher than the 1.0% AEP flood level and 900mm higher than the 0.1% AEP flood level.

6.4 Only 280m2 (0.6% of the total site for the new children’s hospital) is located within Flood Zones A&B; this area, adjacent to Mount Brown Road, will be occupied by a small part of one of the access roads to the site. For this area, the following Justification Test in accordance with the PSAFRM Guidelines is provided.

6.5 The Justification Test is divided in two: (1) Justification Test for Development Plans and (2) Justification Test for Development Management. The Justification Test for Development Plans is intended to inform land-use zoning decisions in the preparation of a Development Plan. The subject site is zoned for development in the current Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, which was published after the publication of the PSAFRM Guidelines. Notwithstanding this, the following Justification Test for Development Plans is provided.

JUSTIFICATION TEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS

1. Urban settlement is targeted for growth.

Yes: The subject site is within Dublin City, which is targeted for growth in the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020, Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 and in the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017.


29

2. The zoning or designation of the lands for the particular use or development type is required to achieve the proper planning and sustainable development of the urban settlement and, in particular:

Yes: The site is zoned with the rest of St. James’s Hospital Campus for “institutional, educational, recreational, community, green infrastructure and health uses” in the current Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. The site of the new children’s hospital is currently occupied by low-density one- and two-storey buildings and extensive surface car parking, which represents an under-utilisation of lands within the city. The proposed development of a new children’s hospital represents appropriate use of lands within the city. The proposed development provides land-use consistent with the surrounding area of the St. James’s Hospital Campus and the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. The area of 280m2 within Flood Zones A&B will accommodate road access from Mount Brown Road to the new children’s hospital, which will be consistent with proper planning and sustainable development.

i. Essential to facilitate regeneration and / or expansion of the centre of the urban settlement.

Yes: With the increased accommodation, the proposed new children’s will attract increased staff and visitor numbers to the area, which will contribute to the regeneration of this area.

ii. Comprises significant previously developed and / or underutilised lands.

Yes: The site of the new children’s hospital is currently occupied by low-density one- and two-storey buildings and extensive surface car parking, which represents an under-utilisation of lands within the city. The proposed development of a new children’s hospital represents appropriate use of lands within the city.

iii. Is within or adjoining the core of an established or designated urban settlement.

Yes: The subject site is within the urban core of Dublin City.

iv. Will be essential in achieving compact and sustainable urban growth.

Yes: The proposed development of a new children’s hospital represents appropriately high-density use of lands within the city. Multiple bus routes operated by Dublin Bus run through the St. James’s Hospital Campus and, it is expected, will run through the site of the new children’s hospital. The site is located alongside the Luas Red Line tram way and is immediately adjacent to the Rialto stop, with Fatima stop and James’s stop also in close proximity. It is within walking distance of Heuston Railway Station. High density development of the site will contribute to sustainable travel patterns. The site is well serviced by existing utilities and water services infrastructure, so a minimum of new infrastructure will be required.

v. There are no suitable alternative lands for the particular use or development type, in areas at lower risk of flooding within or adjoining the core of the urban settlement.

Yes: The new children’s hospital has been the subject of detailed site selection process that recommended tri-location of paediatric, adult and maternity hospital services at one site. There are no suitable alternative lands in Dublin City Centre available for this development.

2. A flood risk assessment to an appropriate level of detail has been carried out.

Yes: The current report comprises a detailed site-specific flood risk assessment for the subject site that identifies and recommends mitigation measures.

Conclusion: The subject site passes the Justification Test for Development Plans.


30

JUSTIFICATION TEST FOR DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1. The subject lands have been zoned for the particular use.

Yes: In the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, the site is zoned Z11 for “institutional, educational, recreational, community, green infrastructure and health uses”.

2. The proposal has been subject to an appropriate flood risk assessment that demonstrates:

Yes: This report comprises a site-specific flood risk assessment – see preceding sections.

(i) The development proposed will not increase flood risk elsewhere and, if practicable, will reduce overall flood risk;

Yes: The preceding sections of this report demonstrate that the permitted development will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

(ii) The development proposal includes measures to minimise flood risk to people, property, the economy and the environment as far as reasonably possible;

Yes: The drainage proposals involve removing surface water runoff from the combined sewerage system, which will result in an overall reduction in flooding of the sewerage system. The proposed drainage system includes attenuation of surface water runoff, which reduces the peak flows to the River Camac, thus reducing downstream flood risk.

(iii) The development proposed includes measures to ensure that residual risks to the area and/or development can be managed to an acceptable level as regards the adequacy of existing flood protection measures or the design, implementation and funding of any future flood risk management measures and provisions for emergency services access; and

Yes: The preceding sections of this report describe mitigation measures to minimise flood risk.

(iv) The development proposed addresses the above in a manner that is also compatible with the achievement of wider planning objectives in relation to development of good urban design and vibrant and active streetscapes.

Yes: The measures are contained within the development site and have no impact on the character of the proposed development.

Conclusion: The subject site passes the Justification Test for Development Management.


31

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1 This report identifies the flood risks at the sites of the proposed development of the National Paediatric Hospital Project at St James’s Hospital Campus.

7.2 The proposed development is a hospital and is considered to be a highly vulnerable development, in accordance with The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities.

7.3 The available data indicates that the proposed hospital buildings are located within Flood Zone C for fluvial and tidal flooding. The ground floor level of 21.0m AOD and the B02 basement level of 10.2m AOD are both above the predicted fluvial and tidal flood levels in the River Camac and the River Liffey. A very small part of the access road at Mount Brown Road is within Flood Zones A&B and a Justification Test has been provided.

7.4 The assessment of pluvial flood risk shows that the proposed hospital is not exposed and that adjacent properties are not adversely affected. The pluvial flood risk to the rear of St. John’s Terrace will be reduced by the proposed development.

7.5 The public sewerage system has been assessed for flood risks. A Development Impact Assessment conducted on behalf of Irish Water has found that the proposed development will result in an overall reduction in flood risk from the sewerage network. The proposed new children’s hospital development will not be exposed to flood risk from the sewerage system.

7.6 The proposed drainage system has been designed in accordance with the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study, the Greater Dublin Code of Practice for Drainage Works and with DCC requirements. Attenuation of surface water runoff will reduce the peak flow from the site compared to the pre-development scenario. Extensive green roofs in the form of roof gardens will intercept rainfall and slow down rainfall runoff.

7.7 The flood risk represented by ground water has been assessed. There are no karst features in the vicinity of the site and no historic reports of groundwater flooding. The proposed basement floor slab will form a watertight seal with the surrounding curtain wall and an overland flow route from the basement is available via the ramp down to Mount Brown Road. Therefore, it is concluded that there will be negligible risk of groundwater flooding the proposed development.

7.8 The flood risk from the Grand Canal has been assessed on the basis of topographical data, site inspection and a flood risk analysis prepared by Waterways Ireland. Between the Grand Canal and the SJH campus, the distance, the topography, the obstacles and the potential volume of water from the canal indicates that the risk is negligible. At Davitt Road, the risk is considered negligible due to the general topography of the area.

APPENDIX A

OPW floodmaps.ie Map-Report

Summary Local Area Report

Map Scale

This Flood Report has been downloaded from the Web site www.floodmaps.ie. The users should take account of the restrictions and limitations relating to the content and use of this Web site that are explained in the Disclaimer box when entering the site. It is a condition of use of the Web site that you accept the User Declaration and the Disclaimer.

28 Results

This Flood Report summarises all flood events within 2.5 kilometres of the map centre.

Map Legend

Flood Points

Multiple / Recurring Flood Points

Areas Flooded

Hydrometric Stations

Rivers

Lakes

River Catchment Areas

1:14,954

Land Commission *

Drainage Districts *

Benefiting Lands *

* Important: These maps do not indicate flood hazard or flood extent. Thier purpose and scope is explained in the Glossary.

Dublin

O 135 335

The map centre is in:County:

NGR:

1. Flooding at Lady's Lane, Kilmainham, Co. Dublin on 24th Oct 2011

24/Oct/2011Start Date:

County: Flood Quality Code:

Additional Information: Reports (1) More Mapped Information

Dublin 2

2. Flooding at Kearns Place, Kilmainham, Dublin 8 on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2

3. Flooding at Harold’s Cross, Dublin City on 24th Oct 2011 24/Oct/2011Start Date:



Dublin 3

4. Flooding at Bow Lane, Kilmainham, Dublin 8 on 24th Oct 2011 24/Oct/2011Start Date:



Dublin 3

5. Flooding at Blarney Park, Crumlin, Dublin 12 on 24th Oct 2011 24/Oct/2011Start Date:

County: Flood Quality Code:Dublin 3

Report Produced: 30-Jul-2015 10:25


6. Dublin City Tidal Feb 2002 01/Feb/2002Start Date:


Additional Information: Photos (32) Reports (10) Press Archive (27) More Mapped Information

Dublin 1

7. Liffey Lower - Dec 1954 08/Dec/1954Start Date:


Additional Information: Reports (4) Press Archive (2) More Mapped Information

Kildare, Dublin 2

8. Flooding at Mount Argus Road and Kimmage Road Lower on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2

9. Poddle August 1986 25/Aug/1986Start Date:



Dublin 2

10. Camac August 1986 25/Aug/1986Start Date:



Dublin 2

11. Camac Turvey Ave Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

12. Camac Bow Bridge Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

13. Camac Carrickfoyle Terrace Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

14. Camac Kearns Place Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

15. Camac Goldenbridge Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

16. Clanbrassil Street June 1963 11/Jun/1963Start Date:



Dublin 3

17. Kimmage June 1963 11/Jun/1963Start Date:



Dublin 3

18. Mount Jerome Harold's Cross June 1963 11/Jun/1963Start Date:



Dublin 3


19. Kimmage Mount Argus June 1963 11/Jun/1963Start Date:



Dublin 3

20. Grafton Street June 1963 11/Jun/1963Start Date:



Dublin 3

21. Poddle Tributary Marrowbone Lane Jan 1941 21/Jan/1941Start Date:



Dublin 4

22. Poddle St Claires Ave Sept 1931 03/Sep/1931Start Date:



Dublin 3

23. Poddle Limekiln Lane Sept 1931 03/Sep/1931Start Date:



Dublin 3

24. Poddle Limekiln Lane Aug 1905 24/Aug/1905Start Date:



Dublin 3

25. Poddle Larkfield Mills Undated 1940s Start Date:



Dublin 4

26. Poddle Harold's Cross undated 1940's Start Date:



Dublin 4

27. Flooding at Bridgewater Quay Apartments, Islandbridge, Dublin 8. on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2

28. Flooding at Ashling Hotel, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8 on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2


Summary Local Area Report

Map Scale

This Flood Report has been downloaded from the Web site www.floodmaps.ie. The users should take account of the restrictions and limitations relating to the content and use of this Web site that are explained in the Disclaimer box when entering the site. It is a condition of use of the Web site that you accept the User Declaration and the Disclaimer.

15 Results

This Flood Report summarises all flood events within 2.5 kilometres of the map centre.

Map Legend

Flood Points

Multiple / Recurring Flood Points

Areas Flooded

Hydrometric Stations

Rivers

Lakes

River Catchment Areas

1:14,914

Land Commission *

Drainage Districts *

Benefiting Lands *

* Important: These maps do not indicate flood hazard or flood extent. Thier purpose and scope is explained in the Glossary.

Dublin

O 118 328

The map centre is in:

County:

NGR:

1. Flooding at Lady's Lane, Kilmainham, Co. Dublin on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2

2. Flooding at Kearns Place, Kilmainham, Dublin 8 on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2

3. Flooding at Bow Lane, Kilmainham, Dublin 8 on 24th Oct 2011 24/Oct/2011Start Date:



Dublin 3

4. Flooding at Blarney Park, Crumlin, Dublin 12 on 24th Oct 2011 24/Oct/2011Start Date:



Dublin 3

5. Liffey Lower - Dec 1954 08/Dec/1954Start Date:

County: Flood Quality Code:Kildare, Dublin 2



6. Flooding at Walkinstown Crescent, Walkinstown, Dublin 12 on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 3

7. Camac August 1986 25/Aug/1986Start Date:



Dublin 2

8. Camac Turvey Ave Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

9. Camac Goldenbridge Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

10. Camac Bow Bridge Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

11. Camac Carrickfoyle Terrace Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

12. Camac Kearns Place Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

13. Flooding at Bridgewater Quay Apartments, Islandbridge, Dublin 8. on 24th Oct 2011




Dublin 2

14. Robinhood Stream Walkinstown Recurring Start Date:



Dublin 3

15. Camac Culvert Old Naas Road recurring Start Date:



Dublin 4


Flooding at Bow Bridge, Kilmainham 24th October 2011

The information contained in this report has been extracted from a Flood Data Collection Form submitted to The Office Of Public Works (OPW) by Consultants working on the Eastern River Basin District (RBD) Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) Project.

• Location and date of flood event: Location: Bow Bridge, Kilmainham, Dublin 8. Irish Grid Co-ordinates – 313,500 233,800 This flooding event started and ended on 24th October 2011, the peak flood occurred during this time.

• Source and cause: The source of the flood waters was the Camac River, which was overtopped. The river overtopped into Murray’s Bar at Kearns Place. The watercourse is heavily canalised at this location.

• Flood data: The following flood information was provided: Flood Parameter Max Value Typical Value Comments Flood Level (metres OD Malin)

Flood Depth (metres) 0.4 0.15 Overtopped into basement.

Flood Flow (m3/s) Flood Velocity (m/s) It is not known if flooding has previously occurred at this location.

• Impacts of flooding event: Impacts to people: There was no loss of life or serious injury as a result of this flooding event. Impacts to property: Residential – The basement of Bow Bridge House apartments and the ground floor of Murray’s bar was affected by this event.

• Documents attached A map and photographs of the affected area are attached.

H

7 89

2

5

6

H

H

Mh

Mh

LS

LS

LS

LS

ES

13

12

15

2018

10

Mh

Mh

Mh

Mh

Mh

Mh

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

1-6

Bow

BOW

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

6.1

7.1

14.3

Hall

AptsApts

1-20

1-42

1-16

10.3

Manor

21-40

35-59

47-53

Place

Hostel

BridgeBRID

GE

Cam

mock

BOW

BRIDGE

Bow Bridge

IRWIN COURT

IRWIN STREET

Bowbridge H

ouse

Business Centre

Cromwells Quarters

Bow Bridge C

ourt 1-46

ELMW

OO

D H

OU

SE

74 BO

UC

HE

R R

OAD

BELFAS

T BT12 6R

Z

TEL : 028 9066 7914

FAX : 028 9066 8286

ww

w.rpsgroup.com/Ireland

Draw

ing No. :

Draw

n By :C

hecked By :Approved B

y :D

ate :

BQAJMB

24/01/2012

SC

ALE

:IB

E0600_FE

R_030

PRO

JEC

T

TITLE

EASTE

RN

CFR

AM

S

FLOO

D E

XTEN

TSBO

W BR

IDG

E, KILM

AINH

AM

CLIEN

T

1:500

04

2M

eters

¯

LegendFlow of W

ater

Flooding Recorded B

y

LOC

AL C

OU

NC

IL

RP

S

UN

CO

NFIR

ME

D

River C

entreline

Flood Extent

Flooding at Kearns Place, Kilmainham 24th October 2011


1 Location and date of flood event: Location: Kearns Place, Kilmainham, Dublin 8. Irish Grid Co-ordinates – 312,975 233,665 This flooding event started on 24th October 2011, the peak flood also occurred on the 24th October 2011.

2 Source and cause: The source of the floodwaters was the Camac River, which was overtopped. The river water overtopped walls at Kearns Place. The watercourse is heavily canalised in this area.

3 Flood data: The following flood information was provided: Flood Parameter Max Value Typical Value Comments Flood Level (metres OD Malin)

Flood Depth (metres) 0.15 Overtopped walls and filled basement floors.

Flood Flow (m3/s) Flood Velocity (m/s) It is not known if flooding previously occurred at this location.

4 Impacts of flooding event: Impacts to people: There was no loss of life or serious injury as a result of this flooding event. Impacts to property:

Residential – Approximately 10 residential properties were affected with the ground floors of Kearns Court and the basements of Old Camac Court Apartments being flooded. Impacts to transport infrastructure: Road – Water overtopped walls and spilled on to the road at Kearns Place (Local) for a distance of 100 metres.

5 Additional information: Flooding may have impacted on the basement of the Old Camac Bridge Apartments

6. Documents Attached: Photographs and a map of the affected area attached.

H

H

H

H

H

H

16

7

1

2

9

6

7

87

8

4

YD

Mh

Mh

Mh

Mh

LS

LS

ES

LS

LS

LSLS

LSLS

LS

LS

32

11

34

56

11

10

16

14

18

57

23

9.9

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

Mhs

31A

34A

1-7

11.5

8-12

PLACE

Tow

er

Cou

rt

15-1

6

Kear

ns

Terr

ace

KEARN'S

War

d B

dy

THE

STE

PS

OLD

KIL

MA

INH

AM

RO

WSE

RS

TOW

N L

AN

E

Old

Cam

moc

k B

ridge

ELM

WO

OD

HO

US

E74

BO

UC

HE

R R

OAD

BE

LFAS

T B

T12

6RZ

TEL

: 028

906

6 79

14FA

X :

028

9066

828

6w

ww.

rpsg

roup

.com

/Irel

and

Dra

win

g N

o. :

Dra

wn

By :

Che

cked

By

:Ap

prov

ed B

y :

Dat

e :

BQ AJ MB

24/0

1/20

12

SC

ALE

:IB

E06

00_F

ER

_029

PRO

JEC

T

TITL

E

EAST

ER

N C

FRA

MS

FLO

OD

EXT

EN

TSKE

ARN

S P

LAC

E, K

ILM

AIN

HA

M

CLI

ENT

1:50

0

04

2M

eter

s

¯

Lege

nd Flow

of W

ater

Floo

ding

Rec

orde

d B

y

LOC

AL

CO

UN

CIL

RP

S

UN

CO

NFI

RM

ED

Riv

er C

entre

line

Floo

d E

xten

t

Flooding at Lady’s Lane, Kilmainham 24th October 2011


1 Location and date of flood event: Location: Lady’s Lane, Kilmainham, Co. Dublin Irish Grid Co-ordinates – 312,843 233,648 This flooding event started on 24th October 2011. The peak flood also occurred on the 24th October 2011.

2 Source and cause: The source of the flood waters was the Camac River, which was overtopped.

3 Flood data: The following flood information was provided: Flood Parameter Max Value Typical Value Comments

Flood Level (metres OD Malin)

Flood Depth (metres) 2 Flood Flow (m3/s) Flood Velocity (m/s) It is not known if flooding has previously occurred at this location.

4 Impacts of flooding event: Impacts to people: There was no loss of life or serious injury as a result of this flooding event. Impacts to property: Residential – 29 residential properties were flooded.

5 Additional information: Residents commented that the flood levels rose very quickly and that they thought a floodwall may have collapsed. 6 Documents attached: Photographs and a map of the area are attached.

ELMW

OO

D H

OU

SE

74 BO

UC

HE

R R

OAD

BELFAS

T BT12 6R

Z

TEL : 028 9066 7914

FAX : 028 9066 8286

ww

w.rpsgroup.com/Ireland

Draw

ing No. :

Draw

n By :C

hecked By :Approved B

y :D

ate :

BAAJMB

16/01/2012

SC

ALE

:IB

E0600_FE

R_012

PRO

JEC

T

TITLE

EASTE

RN

CFR

AM

S

FLOO

D E

XTEN

TLA

DYS

LAN

E

CLIEN

T

1:500

020

10M

eters

¯

LegendFlooding R

ecorded By

LOC

AL C

OU

NC

IL

RP

S

UN

CO

NFIR

ME

D

River C

entreline

Flood Extent

APPENDIX B

Extracts from OPW Draft Preliminary FRA

kj

kj

kj

j

No

Fluv

ial D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e Fo

r Are

aN

o Fl

uvia

l Dat

a A

vaila

ble

For A

rea

No

Fluv

ial D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e Fo

r Are

a

No

Fluv

ial D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e Fo

r Are

a

No

Fluv

ial D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e Fo

r Are

a

No

Fluv

ial D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e Fo

r Are

a

No

Fluv

ial D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e Fo

r Are

a

CLO

NTA

RF

DU

BLIN

CIT

Y

FIN

GLA

S, G

LASN

EVIN

0.5

00.

51

1.5

22.

53

3.5

44.

55

0.25

Kilo

met

ers

¯© G

over

nmen

t of I

rela

ndO

si p

erm

it nu

mbe

r E

N-0

02-1

011

Impo

rtant

Use

r Not

e:

The

flood

ext

ents

sho

wn

on th

ese

map

s ar

e ba

sed

on b

road

-sc

ale

sim

ple

anal

ysis

and

may

not

be

accu

rate

for

a s

peci

ficlo

catio

n.

Info

rmat

ion

on

the

purp

ose,

de

velo

pmen

t an

dlim

itatio

ns o

f th

ese

map

s is

ava

ilabl

e in

the

rel

evan

t re

ports

(see

ww

w.c

fram

.ie).

Use

rs s

houl

d se

ek p

rofe

ssio

nal a

dvic

e if

they

inte

nd to

rely

on

the

map

s in

any

way

.

If yo

u be

lieve

that

the

map

s ar

e in

accu

rate

in s

ome

way

ple

ase

forw

ard

full

deta

ils b

y co

ntac

ting

the

OP

W (

refe

r to

PFR

AIn

form

atio

n le

afle

ts o

r ‘H

ave

Your

Say

’ on

ww

w.c

fram

.ie).

1:50

,000

MA

Figu

re B

y :

Che

cked

By

:

Plo

t Sca

le :

1:1

@ A

3D

raw

ing

Sca

le :

Figu

re N

o. :

PJW

Pro

ject

:

PRE

LIM

INA

RY

FLO

OD

RIS

K A

SS

ESM

EN

T (P

FRA

)

Map

:

PFR

A In

dica

tive

exte

nts

and

outc

omes

- Dra

ft fo

r Con

sulta

tion

Lege

nd:

Loca

tion

Plan

:

2019

/ M

AP

/

Dat

e :

Dat

e :

July

201

1

July

2011 R

evis

ion

0/ A

238

Floo

d Ex

tent

sFl

uvia

l - In

dica

tive

1% A

EP

(100

-yr)

Eve

nt

Fluv

ial -

Ext

rem

e E

vent

Coa

stal

- In

dica

tive

0.5%

AE

P (2

00-y

r) E

vent

Coa

stal

- E

xtre

me

Eve

nt

Pluv

ial -

Indi

cativ

e 1%

AE

P (1

00-y

r) E

vent

Pluv

ial -

Ext

rem

e E

vent

Lake

s / T

urlo

ughs

Gro

undw

ater

Flo

od E

xten

ts

PFR

A O

utco

mes

kjP

roba

ble

Are

a fo

r Fur

ther

Ass

esm

ent

kjP

ossi

ble

Are

a fo

r Fur

ther

Ass

esm

ent

Offi

ce o

f Pub

lic W

orks

Jona

thon

Sw

ift S

treet

Trim

Co

Mea

thIre

land

THE NATIONAL PRELIMINARY FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

(PFRA)

OVERVIEW REPORT

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

AUGUST 2011

2019/RP/001/B

FLOOD RELIEF & RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION ENGINEERING SERVICES

OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS

PFRA Main Report Page 12 of 32 July 2011

Figure 4.1: Example of Flood Map

Flood maps can be developed in a range of ways, using different levels of analysis. Detailed flood maps, such as that shown in figure 4.1, are developed using hydraulic modelling, which is a complex and expensive process, and is the level of analysis that is being, or will be, undertaken for the AFAs during the CFRAM Studies. However, for the PFRA, which is a screening exercise based on available or readily-derivable information, a simpler and less expensive process is required to prepare the flood mapping information.

At the outset of the PFRA, flood maps with a national coverage were not available for any source of flooding. This section outlines the processes undertaken to prepare indicative flood maps for a range of flood sources, as set out in Section 2.3.

It should be stressed that the PFRA flood maps are indicative. They have been developed using simple and cost-effective methods that are suitable for the PFRA. They should not be used for local decision-making or any other purpose without verification and seeking the advice of a suitable professional.

4.2.1. Indicative Fluvial Flood Mapping A project was commissioned, and undertaken by Compass Informatics, to prepare indicative fluvial flood maps suitable for the PFRA. A Technical Report6describes the process for the development of these maps in detail. Set out below is a summary description of the process and the mapping produced.

6 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Fluvial Flood Hazard Mapping – Normal Depth Mapping, Compass Information, 2011


To determine fluvial flood levels and then flood extents, using any level of hydraulic analysis, estimates of the flood flows are required. The OPW generated flood flow estimates for a range of flood event probabilities at major nodes every 500m, and upstream and downstream of confluences, on the entire river network in the country (based on the EPA ‘blue-line’ GIS data). These were generated using equations derived through the OPW Flood Studies Update research programme. A typical Irish river will carry what is called the ‘mean annual flood’ in-bank, with flows greater than this spilling out as flood water. The out-of-bank, or flood, flow was hence determined at the nodes by deducting the mean annual flood flow from the derived flood flow for the relevant flood event probability.

At each major node, and at intermediate nodes at 100m spacing, a floodplain cross-section was derived from the OPW’s national Digital Terrain Model (DTM), which is a computer model of the topography of surface of the land. A hydraulic calculation, using Manning’s equation, was then used to calculate a flood level for the given out-of-bank flood flow, based on the cross-section, slope and resistance to flow. This level was extrapolated across the cross-section derived as above to identify the outer extents of the flood on that cross-section. The outer extents of the flood were then joined up (linearly) to create a map of the projected flood extents. This process was undertaken, for the national river network for all nodes with a catchment area greater than 1 km2,for three flood event probabilities (the 10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP events) to create the indicative national fluvial flood maps.

It should be noted that the maps have certain limitations and potential sources of local error, notably:

Local errors in the DTM: For example, where bank-side vegetation was not filtered out of the DTM, the flood levels are likely to be over-estimated

Local channel works: The method assumes a certain channel capacity, so the flood levels are likely to be over-estimated where works have been carried out to enhance channel capacity (e.g., where arterial drainage schemes have been completed)

Flood defences: The method does not take account of flood defences

Channel structures: The method does not take account of structures in or over the channel, and so where such structures exist and constrict flow capacity, the flood levels may be under-estimated

Further, Some buildings and other infrastructure may be shown as being within the flooded area, but may in reality be above the flood level.

The indicative national fluvial flood maps are included in the Draft PFRA Maps, provided in a separate volume, for the purposes of consultation on the PFRA.


4.2.2. Indicative Seawater Flood Mapping Consultants RPS, in conjunction with the OPW, undertook a project to develop maps indicating coastal and estuarine areas prone to flooding from the sea. The predicted flood extents which were produced under the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study (ICPSS)7 are based on analysis and modelling. The project included:

Analysis of historic recorded sea levels

Numerical modelling and statistical analysis of combined tide levels and storm surges to estimate extreme water levels along the national coastline for defined probabilities

Calculation of the extent of the predictive flooding, by comparing calculated extreme tide and surge waters levels along the coast with ground level based on a Digital Terrain Model (DTM).

The maps have been produced at a strategic level to provide an overview of coastal flood hazard and risk in Ireland. It should be noted that the maps have certain limitations and potential sources of local error, notably:

The flood extents are determined by horizontal projection in-land of the extreme sea levels. This may over-estimate the extent of flooding in large, flat areas as the method does not account for the inland propagation and then recession of the flooding following the rise and fall of the water levels according to the tidal cycle

Flood defences, structures in or around river channels and other minor or local features have not been included in the preparation of the maps

The methods (and maps) do not take account of (or represent flooding from) wave action or overtopping

These indicative national coastal flood maps are included in the Draft PFRA Maps, provided in a separate volume, for the purposes of consultation on the PFRA.

4.2.3. Indicative Groundwater Flood Mapping A project was commissioned, and undertaken by Mott MacDonald Ltd, to prepare indicative groundwater flood maps suitable for the PFRA. A Technical Report8 describes the process for the development of these maps in detail. Set out below is a summary description of the process and the mapping produced.

The methodology used to map areas potentially prone to groundwater flooding was evidence-based and incorporates the experience of groundwater experts at the Geological Survey of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of extensive, recurring groundwater floods originate at turloughs, and so this was the focus of the groundwater mapping project.

7 Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study, Phase 2, 3a and 3b – South East, North East and South Coasts – Technical Reports, RPS Consultants, 2010 & 2011

8 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Groundwater Flooding, Mott Macdonald, 2010

APPENDIX C

Extract from Eastern CFRAMS – River Camac Fluvial Flooding

!(

!(

!(

09C

AM

M00

125

09C

AM

M00

084

09C

AM

M00

027I

3130

00

3130

00

3132

00

3132

00

3134

00

3134

00

3136

00

3136

00

3138

00

3138

00

3140

00

3140

00

3142

00

3142

00

3144

00

3144

00

233600

233600

233800

233800

234000

234000

234200

234200

234400

234400

234600

234600

234800

234800

[0

100

200

300

400

500

50M

etre

s©

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y Ire

land

. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

. Li

cenc

e nu

mbe

r EN

002

1014

/Offi

ceof

Pub

licW

orks

.

F.M

.C.

A.S

.20

th M

arch

201

520

th M

arch

201

520

th M

arch

201

5S.

P.

EXTE

NT

FLU

VIA

LH

PWC

UR

REN

T

Cam

ac F

luvi

al F

lood

Ext

ent

E09C

AM

_EX

FCD

_C1_

SH24

Dra

win

g N

o. :

Map

:

Map

Typ

e:So

urce

:M

ap A

rea:

Scen

ario

:D

ate

:D

raw

n B

y :

Map

Ser

ies

:

Dra

win

g Sc

ale

:

Che

cked

By

:D

ate

:D

ate

:A

ppro

ved

By

:

The

view

er o

f thi

s m

ap s

houl

d re

fer t

o th

eD

iscl

aim

er, G

uida

nce

Not

es a

nd C

ondi

tions

of

Use

that

acc

ompa

ny th

is m

ap. T

his

draf

t map

isfo

r con

sulta

tion

purp

oses

onl

y, a

nd s

houl

d no

tbe

use

d fo

r any

oth

er p

urpo

se.

The

Offic

e of P

ublic

Wor

ksJo

natha

n Swi

ft St

reet

Trim

Co M

eath

Elmw

ood H

ouse

74

Bou

cher

Roa

dBe

lfast

BT12

6RZ

T +44

(0) 2

8 90

6679

14F

+44(

0) 2

8 90 6

6828

6W

www

.rpsg

roup

.com

E ire

land@

rpsg

roup

.com

NO

TE:

REV

:D

ATE:

DR

AF

T

1:5,

000

24 o

f 24

Nod

e ID

1% A

EP

1% A

EP

Lege

nd Sta

ndar

d of

Pro

tect

ion

of

Floo

d D

efen

ce(W

alls

/ E

mba

nkm

ents

)

Def

ende

d A

rea

Em

bank

men

t

Wal

l

10%

Flu

vial

AE

P E

vent

1% F

luvi

al A

EP

Eve

nt

0.1

% F

luvi

al A

EP

Eve

nt

Mod

elle

d R

iver

Cen

trelin

e

AFA

Ext

ents

Nod

e La

bel

!(N

ode

Poi

nt

@A

3

Nod

e La

bel

Nod

e La

bel

Wat

er L

evel

(OD

) 1

0% A

EP

Flo

w (m

³/s)

10%

AE

P W

ater

Lev

el (O

D)

1%

AE

P F

low

(m³/s

) 1

% A

EP

Wat

er L

evel

(OD

) 0

.1%

AE

P F

low

(m³/s

) 0

.1%

AE

P09

CA

MM

0008

46.

88n/

a7.

68n/

a8.

49n/

a

09C

AM

M00

027I

3.29

324.

3750

.76.

0988

.709

CA

MM

0012

59.

61n/

a10

.18

n/a

10.9

3n/

a

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

SO10327209

SO10312826

09CA

MM

00404

09CA

MM

00356

09CR

UM

00035J

09CA

MM

00513J

09CA

MM

00417J

310200

310200

310400

310400

310600

310600

310800

310800

311000

311000

311200

311200

311400

311400

311600

311600

311800

311800

231600

231600

231800

231800

232000

232000

232200

232200

232400

232400

232600

232600

232800

232800

[0

100200

300400

50050

Metres

© O

rdnance Survey Ireland. A

ll rights reserved. Licence number E

N 0021014/O

fficeofPublicW

orks.

F.M.C

.A

.S.20th M

arch 201520th M

arch 201520th M

arch 2015S.P.

EXTENT

FLUVIA

LH

PWC

UR

REN

T

Cam

ac Fluvial Flood Extent

E09CA

M_E

XFC

D_C

1_SH22

Draw

ing No. :

Map:

Map Type:

Source:M

ap Area:

Scenario:D

ate :D

rawn B

y :

Map Series :

Draw

ing Scale :

Checked B

y :D

ate :D

ate :A

pproved By :

The viewer of this m

ap should refer to theD

isclaimer, G

uidance Notes and C

onditions of U

se that accompany this m

ap. This draft map is

for consultation purposes only, and should notbe used for any other purpose.

The Office of Public Works

Jonathan Swift StreetTrimCo Meath

Elmwood House 74 Boucher RoadBelfastBT12 6RZ

T +44(0) 28 90 667914F +44(0) 28 90 668286W

www.rpsgroup.comE ireland@

rpsgroup.com

NO

TE:R

EV:D

ATE:

DR

AF

T

1:5,000

22 of 24

Node ID

1% A

EP

1% A

EP

LegendStandard of P

rotection of Flood D

efence(W

alls / Em

bankments)

Defended A

rea

Em

bankment

Wall

10% Fluvial A

EP

Event

1% Fluvial A

EP

Event

0.1% Fluvial A

EP E

vent

Modelled R

iver Centreline

AFA E

xtents

Node Label

!(N

ode Point

@A

3

Node Label

Node Label

Water Level (O

D)

10% A

EP

Flow (m

³/s) 10%

AE

P W

ater Level (OD

) 1%

AE

P Flow

(m³/s)

1% A

EP

Water Level (O

D)

0.1% A

EP

Flow (m

³/s) 0.1%

AE

P09C

AM

M00417J

30.2624.03

30.6436.1

30.9247.69

09CA

MM

0035625.55

n/a26.09

n/a26.83

n/a09C

AM

M00513J

37.58n/a

38.13n/a

38.81n/a

09CA

MM

0040429.3

26.629.8

40.5130.18

55.72

09CR

UM

00035J34.55

n/a34.73

n/a34.95

n/aSO

1031282639.63

22.2140.44

33.1841.7

46.05

SO10327209

34.02n/a

34.53n/a

36.16n/a

3130

00

3130

00

3132

00

3132

00

3134

00

3134

00

3136

00

3136

00

3138

00

3138

00

3140

00

3140

00

3142

00

3142

00

3144

00

3144

00

233600

233600

233800

233800

234000

234000

234200

234200

234400

234400

234600

234600

234800

234800

F.M

.C.

A.S

.20

th M

arch

201

520

th M

arch

201

520

th M

arch

201

5S.

P.

DEP

THFL

UVI

AL

HPW

CU

RR

ENT

Bal

ivor

Flu

vial

Flo

od D

epth

E09C

AM

_DPF

CD

100_

C0_

SH24

Dra

win

g N

o. :

Map

:

Map

Typ

e:So

urce

:M

ap A

rea:

Scen

ario

:D

ate

:D

raw

n B

y :

Map

Ser

ies

:

Dra

win

g Sc

ale

:

Che

cked

By

:D

ate

:D

ate

:A

ppro

ved

By

:

The

view

er o

f thi

s m

ap s

houl

d re

fer t

o th

eD

iscl

aim

er, G

uida

nce

Not

es a

nd C

ondi

tions

of

Use

that

acc

ompa

ny th

is m

ap. T

his

draf

t map

isfo

r con

sulta

tion

purp

oses

onl

y, a

nd s

houl

d no

tbe

use

d fo

r any

oth

er p

urpo

se.

[

The

Offic

e of P

ublic

Wor

ksJo

natha

n Swi

ft St

reet

Trim

Co M

eath

010

020

030

040

050

050

Met

res

© O

rdna

nce

Sur

vey

Irela

nd.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Lice

nce

num

ber E

N 0

0210

14/O

ffice

ofP

ublic

Wor

ks.

1:5,

000El

mwoo

d Hou

se

74 B

ouch

er R

oad

Belfa

stBT

12 6R

Z

T +44

(0) 2

8 90

6679

14F

+44(

0) 2

8 90 6

6828

6W

www

.rpsg

roup

.com

E ire

land@

rpsg

roup

.com

NO

TE:

REV

:D

ATE:

DR

AF

T

Page

24

of 2

4

Lege

nd Mod

elle

d R

iver

Cen

trelin

eAF

A E

xten

ts

10%

AEP

Flu

vial

Flo

od D

epth

0 - 0

.25m

0.25

- 0.

5m

0.5

- 1m

1.0

- 1.5

m

1.5

- 2m

>2m

@A

3

313000

313000

313200

313200

313400

313400

313600

313600

313800

313800

314000

314000

314200

314200

314400

314400

233600

233600

233800

233800

234000

234000

234200

234200

234400

234400

234600

234600

234800

234800

F.M.C

.A

.S.20th M

arch 201520th M

arch 201520th M

arch 2015S.P.

DEPTH

FLUVIA

LH

PWC

UR

REN

T

Cam

ac Fluvial Flood Depth

E09CA

M_D

PFCD

010_C0_SH

24D

rawing N

o. :

Map:

Map Type:

Source:M

ap Area:

Scenario:D

ate :D

rawn B

y :

Map Series :

Draw

ing Scale :

Checked B

y :D

ate :D

ate :A

pproved By :

The viewer of this m

ap should refer to theD

isclaimer, G

uidance Notes and C

onditions of U

se that accompany this m

ap. This draft map is

for consultation purposes only, and should notbe used for any other purpose.

[

The Office of Public Works

Jonathan Swift StreetTrimCo Meath

0100

200300

400500

50M

etres©

Ordnance S

urvey Ireland. All rights reserved. Licence num

ber EN

0021014/OfficeofP

ublicWorks.

1:5,000

Elmwood House 74 Boucher RoadBelfastBT12 6RZ

T +44(0) 28 90 667914F +44(0) 28 90 668286W

www.rpsgroup.comE ireland@

rpsgroup.com

NO

TE:R

EV:D

ATE:

DR

AF

T

Page 24 of 24

LegendModelled R

iver Centreline

AFA Extents

1% A

EP Fluvial Flood Depth

0 - 0.25m

0.25 - 0.5m

0.5 - 1m

1.0 - 1.5m

1.5 - 2m

>2m

@A

3

3130

00

3130

00

3132

00

3132

00

3134

00

3134

00

3136

00

3136

00

3138

00

3138

00

3140

00

3140

00

3142

00

3142

00

3144

00

3144

00

233600

233600

233800

233800

234000

234000

234200

234200

234400

234400

234600

234600

234800

234800

F.M

.C.

A.S

.20

th M

arch

201

520

th M

arch

201

520

th M

arch

201

5S.

P.

DEP

THFL

UVI

AL

HPW

CU

RR

ENT

Cam

ac F

luvi

al F

lood

Dep

th

E09C

AM

_DPF

CD

001_

C0_

SH24

Dra

win

g N

o. :

Map

:

Map

Typ

e:So

urce

:M

ap A

rea:

Scen

ario

:D

ate

:D

raw

n B

y :

Map

Ser

ies

:

Dra

win

g Sc

ale

:

Che

cked

By

:D

ate

:D

ate

:A

ppro

ved

By

:

The

view

er o

f thi

s m

ap s

houl

d re

fer t

o th

eD

iscl

aim

er, G

uida

nce

Not

es a

nd C

ondi

tions

of

Use

that

acc

ompa

ny th

is m

ap. T

his

draf

t map

isfo

r con

sulta

tion

purp

oses

onl

y, a

nd s

houl

d no

tbe

use

d fo

r any

oth

er p

urpo

se.

[

The

Offic

e of P

ublic

Wor

ksJo

natha

n Swi

ft St

reet

Trim

Co M

eath

010

020

030

040

050

050

Met

res

© O

rdna

nce

Sur

vey

Irela

nd.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Lice

nce

num

ber E

N 0

0210

14/O

ffice

ofP

ublic

Wor

ks.

1:5,

000El

mwoo

d Hou

se

74 B

ouch

er R

oad

Belfa

stBT

12 6R

Z

T +44

(0) 2

8 90

6679

14F

+44(

0) 2

8 90 6

6828

6W

www

.rpsg

roup

.com

E ire

land@

rpsg

roup

.com

NO

TE:

REV

:D

ATE:

DR

AF

T

Lege

nd Mod

elle

d R

iver

Cen

trelin

eAF

A E

xten

ts

0.1%

AEP

Flu

vial

Flo

od D

epth

0 - 0

.25m

0.25

- 0.

5m

0.5

- 1m

1.0

- 1.5

m

1.5

- 2m

>2m Pa

ge 2

4 of

24

@A

3

APPENDIX D

Extracts from OPW Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study

!Po

int 2

2

0.5

00.

51

1.5

20.

25Ki

lom

eter

s

±© G

over

nmen

t of I

rela

ndO

si p

erm

it nu

mbe

r E

N-0

02-1

010

(1 in

200

cha

nce

in a

ny g

iven

yea

r)

(1 in

100

0 ch

ance

in a

ny g

iven

yea

r)

Elm

woo

d H

ouse

74 B

ouch

er R

oad

Bel

fast

BT

12 6

RZ

Nor

ther

n Ir

elan

d

Offi

ce o

f Pub

lic W

orks

17-1

9 Lo

wer

Hat

ch S

treet

Dub

lin 2

Irela

nd

Hig

h W

ater

Mar

k (H

WM

)

Nod

e P

oint

0.5%

AE

P F

LOO

D E

XTE

NT

US

ER

NO

TE :

US

ER

S O

F T

HE

SE

MA

PS

SH

OU

LD R

EFE

R T

O T

HE

DE

TAIL

ED

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

OF

THE

IR

DE

RIV

ATIO

N,

LIM

ITAT

ION

S

INA

CC

UR

AC

Y

AN

D

GU

IDA

NC

E

AN

D

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

O

F U

SE

PR

OV

IDE

D A

T T

HE

FR

ON

T O

F T

HIS

BO

UN

D V

OLU

ME

. IF

TH

ISM

AP

D

OE

S

NO

T FO

RM

PA

RT

OF

A B

OU

ND

V

OLU

ME

, IT

SH

OU

LD N

OT

BE

US

ED

FO

R A

NY

PU

RP

OS

E.

1:25

,000

JMC

Figu

re B

y :

Che

cked

By

:

Plo

t Sca

le :

1:1

@ A

3D

raw

ing

Sca

le :

Figu

re N

o. :

PJW

Pro

ject

:

IRIS

H C

OA

STA

L P

RO

TEC

TIO

N S

TRAT

EG

YST

UD

Y -

PH

ASE

III

Map

:

NO

RTH

EA

ST

CO

AS

T FL

OO

D E

XTEN

T M

AP

TID

AL

FLO

OD

ING

Map

Typ

e :

Sou

rce

:

Map

are

a :

FLO

OD

EX

TEN

T

RU

RAL

AR

EAC

UR

REN

TS

cena

rio :

Very

Low

Con

fiden

ce (

0.1%

AE

P)

Low

Con

fiden

ce (

0.1%

AE

P)

Hig

h C

onfid

ence

(0.1

% A

EP

)

Med

ium

Con

fiden

ce (

0.1%

AE

P)

Very

Hig

h C

onfid

ence

(0.1

% A

EP

)

Very

Low

Con

fiden

ce (

0.5%

AE

P)

Low

Con

fiden

ce (

0.5%

AE

P)

Med

ium

Con

fiden

ce (

0.5%

AE

P)

Hig

h C

onfid

ence

(0.5

% A

EP

)

Very

Hig

h C

onfid

ence

(0.5

% A

EP

)

0.1%

AE

P F

LOO

D E

XTE

NT

Nod

e La

bel (

refe

r to

tabl

e)P

oint

34

Lege

nd:

EXTE

NT

MA

P

Loca

tion

Pla

n :

NE

/ R

A / E

XT

/ 19

Dat

e :

Dat

e :

Jan

2010

Jan

2010 R

evis

ion

1

Wat

er L

evel

(mO

D M

alin

) per

AEP

Nod

e La

bel

WL

10%

WL

0.5

%W

L 0.

1 %

Poin

t 22

2.67

3.07

3.28

NO

TE: M

OR

E D

ETA

ILE

D M

AP

S S

HO

WIN

GC

OM

BIN

ED

TID

AL

AN

D F

LUV

IAL

FLO

OD

H

AZA

RD

FO

R P

AR

T O

F TH

IS A

RE

A (D

OD

DE

R C

ATC

HM

EN

T O

NLY

)H

AVE

BE

EN

PR

EPA

RE

D U

ND

ER

TH

ER

IVE

R D

OD

DE

R C

ATC

HM

EN

TFR

AM

STU

DY.

PLE

AS

E R

EFE

R T

O

WW

W.D

UB

LIN

CIT

Y.IE

/PA

GE

S/D

OD

DE

RFL

OO

DIN

GS

TUD

Y.A

SP

XFO

R M

OR

E IN

FOR

MAT

ION

APPENDIX E

Extract from Eastern CFRAMS – River Liffey Tidal Flooding

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

0.5%

AE

P

Cur

rent

ly U

ndef

ende

d - C

onta

ct D

CC

for f

urth

er in

form

atio

n

For r

iver

Cam

ac fl

ood

exte

nts

and

dept

hsR

efer

to C

amac

HP

W m

aps

Tida

lly in

fluen

ced

flood

ing

does

not

ex

tend

ups

trea

m o

f thi

s po

int.

Pl

ease

ref

er to

fluv

ial f

lood

map

s.

09LI

FF00

452

09LI

FF00

400

09LI

FF00

513

09LI

FF00

419

09LI

FF00

469

3134

00

3134

00

3136

00

3136

00

3138

00

3138

00

3140

00

3140

00

3142

00

3142

00

3144

00

3144

00

3146

00

3146

00

3148

00

3148

00

233800

233800

234000

234000

234200

234200

234400

234400

234600

234600

234800

234800

235000

235000

[0

100

200

300

400

500

50M

etre

s©

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y Ire

land

. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

. Li

cenc

e nu

mbe

r EN

002

1014

/Offi

ceof

Pub

licW

orks

.

R.C

.A

.S.

10th

Mar

ch 2

015

10th

Mar

ch 2

015

10th

Mar

ch 2

015

S.P.

EXTE

NT

TID

AL

CO

AST

AL

CU

RR

ENT

Liffe

y Ti

dal F

lood

Ext

ent

E09L

IF_E

XCC

D_C

0_S

H02

Dra

win

g N

o. :

Map

:

Map

Typ

e:So

urce

:M

ap A

rea:

Scen

ario

:D

ate

:D

raw

n B

y :

Map

Ser

ies

:

Dra

win

g Sc

ale

:

Che

cked

By

:D

ate

:D

ate

:A

ppro

ved

By

:

The

view

er o

f thi

s m

ap s

houl

d re

fer t

o th

eD

iscl

aim

er, G

uida

nce

Not

es a

nd C

ondi

tions

of

Use

that

acc

ompa

ny th

is m

ap. T

his

draf

t map

isfo

r con

sulta

tion

purp

oses

onl

y, a

nd s

houl

d no

tbe

use

d fo

r any

oth

er p

urpo

se.

The

Offic

e of P

ublic

Wor

ksJo

natha

n Swi

ft St

reet

Trim

Co M

eath

Elmw

ood H

ouse

74

Bou

cher

Roa

dBe

lfast

BT12

6RZ

T +44

(0) 2

8 90

6679

14F

+44(

0) 2

8 90 6

6828

6W

www

.rpsg

roup

.com

E ire

land@

rpsg

roup

.com

NO

TE:

REV

:D

ATE:

DR

AF

T

1:5,

000

2 of

8

Nod

e ID

1% A

EP

1% A

EP

Lege

nd Sta

ndar

d of

Pro

tect

ion

of

Floo

d D

efen

ce(W

alls

/ E

mba

nkm

ents

)

Def

ende

d A

rea

Em

bank

men

t

Wal

l

10%

Tid

al A

EP

Eve

nt

0.5%

Tid

al A

EP

Eve

nt

0.1

% T

idal

AE

P E

vent

Mod

elle

d R

iver

Cen

trelin

e

AFA

Ext

ents

Nod

e La

bel

!(N

ode

Poi

nt

@A

3

Nod

e La

bel

Nod

e La

bel

Wat

er L

evel

(OD

) 1

0% A

EP

Flo

w (m

³/s)

10%

AE

P W

ater

Lev

el (O

D)

0.5

% A

EP

Flo

w (m

³/s)

0.5

% A

EP

Wat

er L

evel

(OD

) 0

.1%

AE

P F

low

(m³/s

) 0

.1%

AE

P09

LIFF

0046

92.

82N

/A3.

241

N/A

3.46

N/A

09LI

FF00

419

2.77

N/A

3.19

4N

/A3.

41N

/A09

LIFF

0051

32.

8611

2.55

3.26

611

5.00

233

3.48

116.

33

09LI

FF00

400

2.75

N/A

3.18

1N

/A3.

4N

/A

09LI

FF00

452

2.71

118.

39N

/A12

1.24

3.23

123.

62

APPENDIX F

Extract from Flood ResilienCity Project Final Report

DO

LPH

IN

DR

IVE

Bridge

Herberton

RIA

LTO

DOLP

RO

AD

DOLPHIN

OAD

GALTYMORE ROAD

GA

LT

YM

OR

E R

OA

D

IEVENAMON ROAD

GALTYMORE ROAD

RIALTO

RIA

LTO

C

RIA

LTO

RIA

LTO

CO

TT

AG

ES

RIALTO STREET

DO

NE

LAN

OWEN'S

AVENUE

PLA

CE

BR

OW

N

BU

RK

E

HE

RB

ER

TO

N P

AR

K

HERBERTON PARK

CIR

CU

LAR

Car

ES

JAM

ES

'S

WA

LK

TK

St Jam

es's Hospital

TK

ES

Church(R

.C.)

Tank

PLA

CE

T RA

YN

OR

MO

UN

T

AVENUE

O'REILLY

Tank

Car P

ark

WB

Mast

PARK

GLENM

ALURE

SOUTH

HERBERTON ROAD

St Joh

n's Tce

Car P

ark

RO

AD

RO

AD

PORTMAHON DRIVE

CR

OSS

RO

AD

IRE

LAN

D

IRE

LAN

D

UPPER

Factory

IRWIN STREET

BR

IDG

E

Tank

BO

W

River

Cam

mock

IRW

IN C

OU

RT

Tank

Willie

Be

r min

gham P

lace

Kn

ocknar ow T

ce

Factory

LAN

E

Car P

ark

St John's T

er race Tank

KILM

AIN

HA

MLA

NE

WEST

JOH

N'S

RO

AD

KILM

AIN

HA

M

MILITARY

ROAD

Oil T

anks R

amp

Telecom E

ireann Depot

RO

YA

L HO

SP

ITA

L

ST

RO

AD

Bridge

Ri al to

MO

UN

TS

HA

NN

ON

MAYFIELD

Tank

ES

MADISON

Factory

Factory

SHANNON TCE

ES

SQ

UA

RE

CA

ME

RO

N

ROAD

St M

aignenn's Tce

Factory

Lorne

Terra

ce

BROO

KFIELD

ALMEIDA AVE

LB

RO

AD

ST

RE

ET

Te

rrace

BR

OO

KF

IELD

ROAD

ROAD

Alm

eid

a

Chap

el

St P

atrick's House

NE

W

NE

W

Garda

Station

ES

KILM

AIN

HA

M

Tk

Factory

Factory

Factory

PO

Ward B

dy

ES

Tennis C

ourt

CIR

CU

LAR

ES

Factory

Factory

River

Ca

mm

o c k

(Disused)

Burial G

round

(Shaft)

High C

ross(D

isused)

Burial G

round

Factory

OLD

KEARN'S

PLACE

LAN

E

RO

AD

SO

UT

H

DO

LPH

IN

RO

TH

E A

BB

EY

SLIEVENAMON ROAD

GA

A

Sports G

round

Tanks

RO

WS

ER

ST

OW

N

Grotto

Tank

Factory

1st Lock

Lock

ES

Ground

Burial

Rothe

Lib rary

Tank

(Dublin C

orporation)

Depot

Tk

Factory

Wa

rd B

dy

CA

NA

L

Cam

mock R

iver

Factory

Factory

GR

AN

D

Footbridg

e

ES

Factory

Clancy B

arracks Grave

ES

(Cong

l)

Church

TE

RR

AC

E

Ashm

ount

LADY'S

LANE

Griffith

SUIR ROAD

Pro

spec t T

ce

CARRICKFOYLELADY'S

SUIR RD

Court H

ouse

Technical

SC

HO

OL

Playg

round

SchoolT

ks

Chapel

Tank

Tank

Sports G

round

Tk

School

Fn

Fn

Monum

ent

Fn

Monum

ent

Unit

Central

Com

puter

Tk

ES

Central

Kilm

ainham Jail

ME

MO

RIA

L PA

RK

Burial

Fn

al

ES

ES

2nd

L ock

Pla

tf or m

Stores

Tk

Tk

Po

s ts

Ram

p

(Flats)

Playg

roundT

k

Car P

ark

Car P

ark

Hall

(Flats)

Warehouse

CA

NA

L Stand

Burial

Church

Richm

ond Park

Cam

mock

Rive

r

Health C

entre

Factory

ES

School

Play

ES

Mortuary

Car P

ark

Playground

Car P

ark

School

Goldenbridge C

emetery

ES

Playground

Playground

St M

ichael's Estate

ES

e

ES

Wa rd B

d y

(Catholic)

Grotto

Stand

Tanks

(Youth C

lub)

Davitt H

ouse

Hall

GR

AN

D

School

PO

GR

AN

D

CAN

AL

ES

Sports G

round

Stores

RO

AD

RO

AD

AD

SUIR

GO

LDE

NB

RID

GE

AV

EN

UE

ROAD

KICKHAM ROAD

ANNER ROAD

AVENUE

O'LEAR

Y RO

AD

KICKHAM RD

O'LEARY R

OAD

DE

VO

Y R

OA

D

DA

VIT

T RO

AD

ST

EP

HE

NS

RO

AD

STEPHENS ROAD

SOUTHERN CROSS AVE

DR

IVE

GA

LTY

MO

RE

GALTYM

ORE

KILM

AIN

HA

M

ROAD

CIRCULAR

RO

AD

BULFIN GARDENS

INC

HIC

OR

E

EM

ME

T R

OA

D

LUBY

ROAD

BU

LFIN

RO

AD

TU

RV

EY

AVENUE

SOUTH

He

uston Sq

uare

RO

AD

CA

MA

C C

OU

RT

Beaconsfield

CO

LBE

RT

STE

PH

EN

S R

OA

D

Co

tt s

Mill vie

w

GO

LDE

NBR

IDGE TER

RA

CE

CONNOLLY AVENUE

St H

el en' s Tce

CROSS

SOUTHERN

GARDENS

CONNOLLY

CONNOLLYAVENUE

BENBULBIN

ROAD

RO

AD

BE

NM

AD

IGA

N

ROAD

RO

AD

CO

N

MEMORIAL ROAD

INC

HIC

OR

E

EM

ME

T RO

AD

C

AM

AC

CLO

SE

ST

VINCENT

STREETWEST

VINCENT STREETWEST

Gol de

nbri dge W

alk

RO

AD

DA

VITT

GA

LTY

MO

RE

Existin

g S

ituatio

n (D

o M

inim

um

)F

loo

d D

epth

Map

- Du

blin

So

uth

Cen

tral

This draw

ing is not to be used in whole or part other than for the intended purpose

and Project as defined on this draw

ing. Refer to the contract / associated R

eport for full term

s and conditions of use.

Pro

ject

Title

Draw

ing Status

Job No.

Figure N

o.R

evision

Scale

FloodR

esilienCity P

rojectT

ype 2 Model - F

lood Depth M

ap (2% A

EP

)D

ublin South C

entral Pilot A

rea

FIN

AL

32102500

FIG

UR

E C

3.4BD

ate :

Clien

t Du

blin

City C

ou

ncil b

ou

nd

ary

Draw

nC

heckerR

eviewA

pprovedM

MM

VR

FK

K

0

0250m

Copyright ©

Ordnance S

urvey Ireland. Licence number 2010/22/C

CM

A/ D

ublin City C

ouncil

09/12/111:4500

Leg

end

Flo

od

Dep

th (m

)

0.1 m to

0.2 m

0.2 m to

0.3 m

0.3 m to

0.5 m

0.5 m to

1.0 m

1.0 m to

2.0 m

> 2.0 m

Rep

orted

Flo

od

Incid

ents (A

ug

2008 & Ju

ly 2009)

Typ

e 2 Mo

del B

ou

nd

ary

Rep

orted

Flo

od

Incid

ents¹ (O

ctob

er 2011)

Notes:

1 - Reported flood incident locations w

ere provided by DC

C and are up to date as of 22/06/12.

APPENDIX G

DCC Report on Pluvial Flooding of 24th October 2011

Environment and Engineering Department Block 1, Floor 6, Civic Offices

Christchurch, Dublin 8

An Roinn Comhshaoil agus Innealtóireachta Bloc 1,Urlár 6 Oifigí na Cathrach

Teampall Chríost, Baile Átha Cliath 8 To Each Member of the Environment & Engineering Strategic Policy Committee

Progress Report on Extreme Event Pluvial Flooding 24th October 2011 Report No. 338/2011 to the November Dublin City Council meeting gave an interim report on the extreme pluvial flooding event which affected the East Coast of Ireland and Dublin City on 24th October 2011. This report and accompanying presentation was considered by the Council at the Monthly Meeting held on 7th November 2011 (Report 338/2011 is appended as Appendix 1 of this report). It was agreed that Emergency Motions 1, 2, 3 (Amended), 8 and Motion 64 from the North Central Area Committee be referred to the Environment and Engineering Strategic Policy Committee for further consideration at a meeting of the SPC scheduled for 15th December 2011. This report is intended to :

Brief the SPC on progress since Meeting of City Council on 7th November 2011. Brief SPC on meetings with OPW in relation to Capital Funding for Flood Relief

Schemes Address motions referred by Council to SPC.

Introduction. This report is to be read as a follow up report to the report No. 338/2011 made to the City Council Meeting on 7th November 2011 covering Dublin Flood Risk and interim report on extreme pluvial flooding event affecting the East Coast and Dublin City on 24th October 2011. The cause of the flooding on 23rd and 24th November was extreme pluvial rainfall which exceeded the capacity of the Drainage system and in turn gave rise to fluvial flooding, which was particularly evident in the River Dodder and in the smaller Dublin Rivers especially in the Camac, Poddle, Wad, Bradog, Zoo Stream. River Catchments do not align with political boundaries and most Dublin Rivers originate in other Local Authority Areas. For this reason flood risk reduction schemes require generally full catchment studies before significant capital works can be constructed. Any significant Capital works must have full regard to EU procurement (Consultants and Contractors), Statutory and Legal Requirements, National Regulations and Environmental compliance as well as meeting National funding requirements. Existing Local Authority staff resources are also significant (see reference in report 338/2011) and additional staff will retire before end February 2012 which will impact on Capital works programmes. All schemes must comply with Environmental Legislation and a full EIA is required for many requiring submission to An Bord Pleanala. For this reason the following timescales are referred to in the report:

Short Term works – Works likely to be constructed in 0- 3 years (Subject to funding)

Medium Term works – Works likely to be constructed in 3-7 years (Subject to Funding).

Long Term works – Works likely to be constructed in 5-11 years (Subject to funding).

Progress and activity since 24th October 2011. Strategic issues.

1. Dublin Flood Initiative – Flood Resilient City Project As outlined to Dublin City Council an EU funded Project Flood Resilient Cities is addressing how to adapt to extreme events. Dublin City Council as part of this project is examining the best strategy to protect against the threat of Pluvial flooding. This is the risk of flooding due to extreme event rainfall of an intensity which exceeds the capacity of the drainage system and in many cases results in overland flows of rainwater with consequent risk of flooding. The Dublin City study is due for completion in mid 2012 and will report on :

Areas at particular risk of Pluvial Flooding Code of practice for new development to mitigate this risk Code of practice for making existing development more flood resilient.

In advance of completion of this study an interim report was commissioned and this interim report and accompanying presentation will brief the SPC in advance of completion of the study in 2012. It is expected that this interim Report will issue in January 2012. In this regard a model has been developed in Scotland by the Scottish Flood Forum that has enabled over 200 Community Flood Groups to plan and prepare for flood events. Recently the Flood Resilient City Office (FRCO) in conjunction with the Central Area Office invited the Scottish Flood Forum to meet with residents in the East Wall area with a view to establishing a Community Resilience Group to deal with floods. This type of model provides individuals and communities with an effective and efficient means of protecting properties from floods by:

Establishing local area flood watch systems

Establishing awareness of factors contributing to flood risks.

Developing local community flood action

Minimizing the danger of flooding within the local area.

Assisting at times of flooding and supporting people who have experienced flooding to ensure effective support is available to assist recovery.

Meeting regularly to ensure that flood preventive methods are being maintained and monitored.

Monitoring and reporting to the City Council those areas which are at risk of flooding through lack of maintenance or repair.

Raising the awareness of personal and collective actions to limit the occurrences of flooding.

Engaging with the City Council and other organisations to reduce the risk of flooding.

Developing a local community flood awareness training programme

Promoting flood protection equipment and materials to prevent further flooding to property

Arranging free surveys of properties and giving specific advice on the most appropriate means of flood protection.

Providing advice on the type of protection and suitability of products that will minimize the risk of flooding to properties.

Making recommendations on minor repairs to properties that may prevent entry of water.

Facilitating substantial reductions in the cost of flood defence products such as flood gates through bulk buying.

The City Council will explore the possibility of establishing Flood Resilience Groups in the recently flooded areas as the most appropriate means of facilitating the protection of homes and businesses from flood events.

2. Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Studies (CFRAMS) The SPC has received briefings on works currently underway as part of the Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Studies (CFRAMS). These studies are a key component of Ireland’s response to the EU Floods Directive. The studies will:

Identify areas at risk of flooding Propose strategies and works (where possible) to mitigate this risk. Identify flood capital projects Progress these to construction ( Including meeting all relevant Statutory, legal and

procurement requirements). To date the flood protection scheme on the River Tolka has been completed and there were no flooding issues associated with the River Tolka on 24th October despite it having the fifth highest recorded flow on record. The River Dodder CFRAM Study is at an advanced stage and will report in 2012 on flood risk and proposed schemes to address risks where possible. Following a meeting held with OPW to consider the flooding on 24th October the OPW are prepared as part of the River Liffey CFRAMS, which is at an early stage and due to report in December 2015 (earliest), to bring forward a study of the Camac River and the Poddle River in order to identify potential improvement schemes. Both these rivers experienced significant flooding and both involve works in more than one Local Authority. Officials are working to see what needs to be examined as part of studies on both rivers and a further report will issue in the new year. The OPW have responsibility for co-ordinating flood works by central Government Agencies and have agreed to discuss with Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) how to address schemes which may not fall under OPW remit but which might be eligible for funding under DECLG Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP). This particularly refers to flooding associated with underground “rivers” many of which are fully culverted. In particular flooding associated with River Swan, River Bradog, River Naniken and the Clontarf drainage area have been referred to OPW to determine eligibility for capital funding from the appropriate Government Department.

3. Support from Department of Social Protection A high level Inter Departmental and Inter Agency Working Group has been set up to review the October flood event. Dublin City Council has provided that Committee with full details of all known flooding locations. This information was provided to the Department of Social Protection (DSP) Community Welfare Officers (CWO’s) in order that those affected might have direct access to support and funding provided by the State. Dublin City Area offices have also ensured that the Community welfare Officers are made aware of requests for assistance. Please note that eligibility criteria are attached to this scheme for assistance.

4. Major Emergency Plan The flooding on 23/24 October affected the East Region and included Wicklow, South Dublin County, Dublin City and Monaghan in particular. Dun Laoghaire, Kildare and Fingal were less severely impacted. In accordance with National Framework for Emergency Management HSE, Garda Síochana and Local Authorities worked together in accordance with the Plan and in the case of South Dublin and Dublin City the formal declaration of a major Emergency was made. However, the three Principal Response Agencies were working together before, during and after this declaration. The Major Emergency Plan is published on the City Council website and addresses the strategic response of the three Principal Response Agencies only. Operational responses are in accordance with the operational plans of Principal Emergency services. Meetings have taken place with Garda and HSE to review at Strategic level the Major Emergency Plan response. In addition an intra Departmental workshop is taking place on 13th December to review operational level responses to pluvial flood risk. Both of these are intended to identify actions for the City and Local Communities and will be reported to future meeting of SPC.

5. Advance forecasting of Pluvial Flooding by MET EIREANN Ireland has a National Weather Forecasting service provided by MET Eireann. Weather warnings are provided to the public through RTE which is the National Public Service Broadcaster. It is not possible in advance to predict when, where and to what extent flooding will occur. MET Eireann, in a post event analysis, have stated that: The limits on the available forecasting/ modelling systems do not permit the fine detail on the locations of the intense bursts of heavy rain that actually fell on 24 October in Dublin to be predicted by MET Eireann. The primary computer model used by Met Éireann for shorter-term forecasts (within 48hrs) is the HirLAM model, developed and maintained by a consortium of ten European Met Services. The HirLAM model at Met Éireann runs on a grid of 10km spacing; that is, the atmospheric calculations performed by the model are at points 10km apart. Thus the model cannot provide any fine detail below 10km; indeed the nature of weather models is that the effective ability to resolve detail in the weather is greater than the 10km grid spacing; 20km would be more realistic. Further, when forecasting for extreme events, while forecasters can identify that an event is likely to produce extreme rain, the complexity of the processes that can occur in the interaction between atmosphere, land (particularly hilly land) and sea is considerable and can result in specific phenomenon occurring which affect the impact of the predicted event. It appears that in the period between 16.00 hrs and 22.00 hours on Monday 24 October 2011, when the worst of the rain ceased, cumulative amounts of typically between 60 and 90 mm of rain fell, indicating an average rainfall intensity of 15mm per hour sustained for between a four and six hour period. Rainfall of 60 to 90 mm over a four to six hour period is a very unusual occurrence. Most rainfall events in Ireland will give typically 5mm-10mm of rain in total, perhaps up to 20mm for the heavier events.

6. Progress and activity since 24th October 2011. Operational issues. Much of Dublin City Council’s resources have been put into flood investigations. In most cases these investigations have confirmed that the drainage network was overloaded and often surcharged with resultant flooding.

In addition the following works and investigation works have been carried out or are about to be put in place.

Removal of Damaged Wall at and provision of sandbags at Gandon Close, Harolds Cross

Screen works at Gandon Hall

Repositioning of screen at Ravensdale.

New Gullies and Surface Water Connection at Carnlough Road, Cabra.

New Combined Sewer at Annamoe Road, Cabra, to relieve the 375mm Sewer on Cabra Road.

Provision of sandbags at LadysLane

Gully work at West Road, East Wall

CCTV surveys have been carried out a number of locations as a condition survey on various sewers at locations including:

Strandville Avenue, East Wall

West Road, East Wall

Foxfield Grove, Raheny

Cremore Crescent, Glasnevin.

Naniken and Blackbanks streams are currently in the process of having CCTV surveys carried out.

CCTV of Wolfe Tone Quay

Siphon works at Brookwood Avenue

Villa Park Gardens. Installation of pressure plate.

Protocol reviewed and put in place for tidal gates on River Dodder

Extensive investigate works at various flooding locations.

7. Flooding Reports

The urban drainage system of culverts, pipes and road drainage gullies has been constructed over the last 200 + years. Drainage networks will all flow full in a 1-5 year rainfall event. In a more extreme event these will be surcharged up to road level where no more flow can enter through road gullies. In a 10-30 year rainfall event and events higher than these severe road flooding and property flooding will result. During the extreme event on 24th several thousand reports of minor road flooding were reported and the current figures stand at 1,008 reports of property flooding and 318 reports of significant road flooding. On the night in question there was a two weekly hightide with a level of 2.13m Malin recorded at Alexandra Basin at virtually the same time as the peak river flow. This raised the estuary levels of the river and caused local surcharging with discharges to them from the drainage network. No tidal flooding was reported.

8. Response priorities The response to flooding by Local Authorities has, in general, two strategic priorities namely:

Rescue of those at risk – Lead by Dublin Fire Brigade. Maximising capacity of Drainage System to accept floodwaters – Lead By Drainage

Division.

All other actions are in support of those two primary objectives. As advised to City Council it is hazardous to enter floodwaters and the City Council are conscious of their obligations as employers under Health & Safety.

9. Overview In general the open rivers in the city have flood defences, which can accommodate approximately all 1 in 25 year flood events. The Tolka river and the Lower Tidal region of the River Dodder on completion of the works currently under construction and planned for 2012 can now cope with 100 year river events and 200 year tidal events. Capacity of the City’s Drainage network:-

(1) Each storm is unique and brings with it slightly different flooding threats to any previous event or any computer modelled event.

(2) During these storms significant amounts of silt/debris, etc. get into the drainage network which reduces its capacity to operate at maximum efficiency.

(3) The drainage network is designed broadly to International best practice, however some of it is very old. It is taking both foul and surface water sewage within the Canal areas which has reduced the possibilities for its upgrading.

River Dodder Flooding. The peak flow in the Dodder at Orwell Bridge weir was estimated by the EPA at 213m3/s which is around 80% of that of Hurricane Charlie. The peak flow in the Dundrum Slang at the Frankfort river gauge was however estimated above that of Hurricane Charlie. The Dundrum Slang joins the main Dodder below the Orwell weir and therefore from previous events the flow in the tidal region of the Dodder is estimated at greater than 250m3/s. The three tidal flood gates located at Londonbridge Road, Lansdowne Village and Newbridge Avenue were closed at approximately 10PM on the evening of 24th October. The two demountable flood barriers located on the Aviva Stadium side of the river were erected approximately half an hour later. There was a delay in closing the tidal flood gates as difficulties were encountered in retrieving the locking pins which were stored in a kiosk adjacent to the Aviva Stadium. The Drainage Division has reviewed its protocol for closure of these gates and will in future be closing the gates on foot of both tidal and pluvial adverse weather forecasts subject to staff availability. Between Newbridge and the Railwaybridge water got into the swimming pool in Marian College and the residential building which normally has 6 inhabitants. The school was not flooded. In Canon Place all of the lower apartments estimated at 12 were flooded together with No.1 Herbert Road. 15 residential buildings on Railway Cottages were also reported flooded to a low level. Flood water got out onto Lansdowne Road from the pedestrian way beside the railway bridge and travelled into the AVIVA stadium car park and grounds. Between the Railway Bridge and Ballsbridge floodwater is reported as getting into the ground floors of the sweepstakes site, which was recognised in the Planning Permission as a flood plain and flooded approximately 130 of these some to a depth of 2.5m to 3m. The car parks of the three apartment blocks on Ballsbridge Park were flooded to estimate depths of 1.2m. Herbert Cottages, 26 residential dwellings were reported flooded to a significant depth.

Ballsbridge Avenue, 18 residential dwellings were reported flooded to a significant depth, Dodder View Cottages, 43 residential dwellings were reported flooded to a significant depth. Beatty’s Avenue, 8 residential dwellings were reported flooded to a significant depth. Granite Place, No.7 was reported as flooded. There was significant road flooding in this area with over 200 vehicles reported as being severely damaged. There are to date no reports of river flooding on the Estate Cottages side. From Ballsbridge to Donnybrook bridge, flood waters got onto Anglesea Road and into the RDS entrance flooding around 15% of the main RDS building. Flood waters came out of the river over the floodwall north of the Licensed Vintners. 54 residential dwellings along Anglesea Road as well as Dunluce and Somerset and the cricket club pavilion were flooded. A 25m section of grounds wall at the edge of the Licensed Vintners land and at the rear of the Hazeldene development collapsed where flood waters were reported to reach 1.5m in depth. The non-residential basement/ground floor of the LVA was also flooded. The Church of Ireland near the junction of Anglesea Road and Simmonscourt Road was also flooded. On the opposite side of the river the Leinster Rugby Ground, Bective Rangers,Grounds, Old Wesley Ground and Bective Tennis Courts were all flooded with various buildings including a large ESB sub-station surrounded by flood waters. Again in this area there was significant vehicle damage. Between Donnybrook and Clonskeagh bridges. 4,6,8 Eglington Road flooded back gardens to houses, water may have made its way out to Brookvale Road. Road and footpath flooding in Simmonscourt Terrace. Between Clonskeagh Bridge and Dundrum Road bridge. Clonskeagh Public House flooded. Strand Terrace No.1,4,5,6 and 7 reported flooded. Between Classon’s Bridge and Orwell Bridge. The Dropping Well Public House was reported as flooded and four houses on Dartry Cottages, No. 5,4,3 and 2. This gives a current estimated total of 192 Dwellings and 136 other buildings/non-residential ground floors flooded from the river during this event. Camac River There are no reports of building flooding in the tidal region of the Camac River below Bowbridge to date from the 24th October event. Between Bow Bridge and the Bridge at Kearn’s Place Bowbridge Dock and Bowbridge House Apartments are reported as flooding. The carparks of 60 apartments downstream of Faulkner’s Terrace in Mount Brown. 3 houses on Faulkner’s Terrace probably from road flooding. Building upstream of No.1 Faulkner’s Terrace. Carpark below St.John’s Well Way apartments. Old Cammock Bridge Apartment Block carpark. Between Kearn’s Place Bridge and South Circular Road. 11 dwellings on Kearn’s Place were reported flooded. 12 apartments just upstream of Kearn’s Place. Motor Repair Shop downstream of Millbrook Terrace. 28 dwellings on Milbrook Terrace, Lady’s Lane and Carrickfoyle Terrace. Reports of 2 buildings flooded on Rowserstown Lane are not confirmed as yet. Between SCR and Turvey Avenue. 13 dwellings, No.1 to 25 Emmet Road reported as flooded from river.

Three dwellings on Tyrconnell Street to be confirmed. There was also considerable vehicular damage reported due to this flooding event. 64 residential dwellings reported as flooded to date. River Poddle The flow of water from the Tymon Stream splits upstream of the housing development at Kimmage Manor into 2 sections:

River Poddle Lakelands overflow.

On October 24th. the bulk of the flow in the River Poddle coming from South Dublin County Council flowed directly into the City Council area. River screens were blocked with debris carried down during the flood at the Lakelands overflow. The river burst its banks resulting in the flow making its way overland. In turn the screen at Gandon Hall became blocked by debris brought down during the floods giving extensive downstream flooding. Flooding took place at the following locations:

Between Sundrive Road and Kimmage Road West (boundary). 12 riverside apartments adjacent to Poddle Park were flooded.

Russian Orthodox Church on Mount Argus Road. 17 apartments and one dwelling on Mount Argus Road. Flower shop on Harold’s Cross Road. One factory adjacent to Gandon Close. Gandon Close car park. 13 dwellings on Harold’s Cross Road. 21 dwellings on St.Clare’s Avenue. 12 dwellings on Greenmount Avenue. 13 apartments on Boyle Court. 11 dwellings on Limekiln Lane. Four houses on Parnell Road with one fatality.

This gives a total of 113 dwellings to date. A large amount of vehicular damage was also reported. Options for flow management and attenuation in the catchment will have to be examined. South Dublin is examining extra storage in Tymon Park to reduce the significant flooding in their area which will also benefit the city. The design of river screens is currently being examined and minor alterations have been made to the Gandon Hall screen. The operation of all screens and the installation of screens that allow for overtopping, is currently being examined. East Wall Road Area Extensive flooding occurred in the East Wall area. Among the areas badly affected were:

Seaview Avenue St. Muras Terrace Hawthorn Terrace Oxford Terrace Church Road

St. Mary’s Road Irvine Terrace Bessborough Avenue Shamrock Cottages Strandville Avenue East Road

The volume and intensity of the rainfall caused the drainage infrastructure in the area to surcharge causing widespread flooding at the above areas. River Swan / Ballsbridge / Pearse St. / Sandymount areas. Extensive flooding, including basement flooding took place in local areas covering

Lansdowne Road Pearse Square Grosvenor Place Effra Road area Ringsend Ballsbridge Havelock Square Sandymount, St. John’s Road

Surcharging sewers caused by pluvial rain caused serious road and basement flooding in the Pearse Square area. The Swan River, which is culverted, has been referred to OPW as a candidate scheme for central funding. Santry River The basements at seven business premises opposite the Catholic Church in Raheny were flooded on the 24th October from the river. In addition a number of business premises in the shopping centre beside the church were also flooded. The OPW have agreed to consider application for a minor works scheme to increase the flood protection of these properties and others along the Santry. Wad River Reports of flooding included:

10 dwellings on Clanmoyle Road 4 on Collins Avenue East, 12 dwellings on Castle Court/Auburn and one underground carpark were flooded. Severe road flooding on Collins Park provided 13 under floor water and one near

miss. Elm Mount Avenue 3 under floor and 1 near miss. St. Kevin’s soccer club, Larkhills west of M1 was flooded.

This gives a current total 26 dwellings with a very large number of under floor flooding and near misses. A €20m scheme is being developed with the OPW to alleviate this flooding. The Clanmoyle portion of this is due to start construction subject to finance and planning permission.

Naniken River Reports of flooding included:

5 dwellings on Maryfield Crescent. 5 dwellings on Brookwood Rise. Maryfield Crescent suffered severe road and garden flooding.

Glendhu Park. The two swales at Glendhu Park and Park Road appear to have operated well for the 60-90 minute thunder storm event they were designed for, however the event of the 24th October was of much longer duration than this. 6 dwellings on Glendhu park were flooded to a low level compared to 8 in August 2008 to a deeper level. There was severe road flooding elsewhere in this sub-catchment. Plans are in train to extend the swale in Glendhu park to cater for such an event in the future. It is not recommended to reduce the storage capacity of the swale in Park Road at this time. Carnlough, Dingle and Drumcliffe Roads, Cabra West. 29 dwellings reported flooding on Dingle Road (11 in August 2008), 8 on Drumcliffe Drive ( 5 in August 2008) and one on Carnlough Road ( 6 in August 2008 ). Works carried out by Drainage division, Designed by Flood Defence Unit and availability of sandbags to residents significantly reduced house flooding on Carnlough Road.

Two flood retention swales and associated pipework, planned for construction at Drumcliffe Road and Killala Road in 2012, will further reduce the risk of house flooding to these properties. Planning for these was passed by the City Council on 7th November 2011. Leix, Offally, Imaal Roads Cabra East.

Reports of flooding included:

10 dwellings on Leix Road, the same number as in August 2008. 19 dwellings were reported as flooded on Cuala Road ( one in August 2008). 6 dwellings on Offaly Road (1 in August 2008). 2 dwellings on Imaal Road (none in August 2008).

The drainage network in this area is mainly combined so the construction of flood retention swales is not an option. A small diversion from one combined drainage sub-catchment is currently under construction from the New Cabra Road to the junction of Annamoe Terrace and Annamoe Drive. This will slightly alleviate flooding in the area. Ballygall Crescent and Fairways, Finglas.

Reports of flooding included:

Approximately 7 houses were flooded in Ballygall Crescent.

4 in Fairways Estate on 24th October. This compares with 20 in total in August 2008. Improvements to the drainage network in the area and downstream are probably accountable for this reduction.

A large flood retention pond which will contain 2,300 cubic metres of flood water in such event is being developed with Parks and Landscape Services Division of DCC. Four possible locations for this are currently being analysed . With budgetary and planning constraints construction is currently programmed for 2013.

Following the flooding which took place on 24/10/2011 a number of queries have been received with regard to the City Council’s gully cleaning programme and the use of sandbags as a flood prevention measure throughout the city.

10. Gully Cleaning. Dublin City Council radically revised its gully cleaning programme in 2004. A new database was introduced which records the date and location of every single gully cleaning operation. All of the city’s 54,000 gullies are cleaned on average once per annum. Gullies on the main thoroughfares are cleaned more frequently, in some cases once every six to eight weeks. In addition, during adverse weather conditions and in particular on receipt of severe weather forecasts, normal gully cleaning work is suspended and the crews travel to areas which have historically flooded in the past to deal with any visible flooding and also carry out precautionary gully cleaning. Current resources include one Supervising Inspector and ten General Operatives , four Gully Sucker heavy duty machines, five light duty vans which are used for manual gully cleaning and two jetting machines. Two days a week the crews commence work at 4am which facilitates gully cleaning in traffic sensitive areas. This gully cleaning programme has proved to be very successful in dealing with varying amounts of rain right up to the close on 60 mm of rain that fell on 2/10/2011. The events of the 24/10/2011 and in particular the quantity of rain that fell in the short space from 4 to 8pm of time meant that the drainage network filled, became surcharged and didn’t allow further flows into the drainage system. The evidence of this could be seen by the number of manhole covers which were lifted from their frames under the pressure of water from underneath. The sheer volume of rainwater falling on paved areas swept all debris including leaves into the roadways and in turn into the gullies. These gullies acted in a similar manner to drain holes in sinks that became blocked after a period of time by the debris. In turn the flow of water rushed past these blocked gullies and causing further flooding problems downstream. The flows into the network were so high that any easing of the road flooding could only come about when the flows in the sewers fell. The successful deployment of Drainage Division staff on the night to cope with such surcharging sewers only became successful after the drop in flows in the main sewers. With a total number of 54,000 gullies to be maintained and with such volumes of rainfall, it is not possible for Dublin City Council to clear debris from the grating of each individual gully.

11. Dublin City Council’s Sandbag Policy The City Council does not provide or distribute sandbags to individual premises at risk of flooding. The prime responsibility for the protection of such premises rests with the owners of those properties. The primary role of the City Council during pluvial events is to manage the drainage network in order to minimise the extent of flooding to the general public. The supply and distribution of sandbags would present a considerable impediment to this task. In addition the inevitable increase in telephone requests for sandbags to emergency call centres would seriously interfere with the ability of those centres to cope with major flooding events. The use of sandbags has become established in the public’s mind as an effective flood protection measure. This is reflected in demands for the City Council to make sandbags available to householders and businesses at risk of flooding. The Council maintains strategic stocks of sandbags at a small number of locations. These amount to around 9,000 at various locations including Clontarf, Sandymount, Glendhu Park, and the drainage depots at Marrowbone Lane and Bannow Road. The stocks at these sites are maintained for strategic purposes and play a useful role in areas when dealing with flood events which have sufficient advance warning. General advice to property owners on dealing with floods is provided by the OPW in booklet format and on the website www.flooding.ie. The OPW advice recommends property owners at risk of flooding to have a supply of sandbags close at hand. The advice notes also acknowledge that sandbags can be difficult to deploy during flood events and can also pose health risks if contaminated with sewage. A major report on of the serious pluvial flooding that occurred in the UK in 2007, known as The Pitt Review, concluded the following with regard to the role of sandbags as a means of protecting individual properties during flood events:

While it is clear that sandbags have a useful role in certain types of floods when used strategically, their benefits are less clear when they are used by householders to protect individual properties. This weakness is further heightened by their relative inefficiency when compared with alternative dedicated flood defence products that have been developed in recent years, such as floodgates and airbrick covers.

Extensive evidence of public over-reliance on sandbags which often proved of little value in protecting against flooding.

Many householders and business owners put time and energy into obtaining and installing sandbags which would have been better spent on other activity such as moving possessions to safety and deploying door boards.

Sandbags can be effective when it is marginal, as to whether water enters a house or not, but in relation to large volumes of water they are largely ineffective, contrary to public perception.

To supply sandbags to all properties at risk of flood during sudden rainfall events would require a level of resources that is much greater than is currently available to the City Council. Even if such resources were provided the deployment of sandbags in sufficient time

to prevent significant flooding of properties, particularly during monster rainfall events, would be logistically impossible. During a flood event, invariably the transport network is very busy, which means that DCC crews have great difficulty in reaching certain areas to deploy pumps, close flood gates, or deliver sandbags. If there is little notification that an event will occur, delivering sandbags would not be possible. The provision of sandbag stores at specific locations around the City that could be accessed locally by residents on foot of flood warnings would require considerable investment by the City Council to manage and maintain. The unpredictable nature of flood warnings which can average 4-5 a year would result in sandbags being deployed more often than required, leading to the unnecessary expense of maintaining the required stock of bags at each location. The transportation and placement of sandbags from local containers would still require a considerable effort by local residents and they would be unlikely to be in position in time to prevent flooding to most properties subject to sudden rainfall events. Furthermore, if sandbags were deployed at certain locations, there is no guarantee that the people who need them will get them. During a flood, panic generally sets in, and those who are not in risk of flood could easily exhaust the supply of bags at the expense of those in need. Owners of properties that are at risk of flooding are encouraged to keep where possible, their own stock of empty sandbags together with sufficient stocks of sand to fill bags at times of potential flooding. Preferably owners should invest in the provision of suitable proprietary flood gates and covers to protect openings such as doors, windows and vents. Dublin City Council does not have financial provision in the 2012 budget for purchase of any additional sandbags.

12. Basements The 2005 Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study highlighted a number of issues with regard to basements and their flooding risks. Throughout the city many properties have basements with connections to old sewers and culverts. When these sewers become surcharged the flows often enter basements as these basements are built below the surcharge levels. These basements can be protected by backflows from surcharged by the installation of small pumping stations or anti flooding devices. There was extensive basement flooding throughout the city on 24/10/2011.

13. Limited City Council Resources Dublin City Council has a very limited Engineering Staff resource to respond to requests for meetings. Existing engineering resources are prioritised to meet operational and legislative requirements. While every effort is being made to address the flood investigations required it will not be possible to divert limited resources to multiple individual meetings. The SPC report will be provided to Area Committees at which Engineering Staff will attend in order to provide the maximum response capability consistent with limited resources.. Seamus Lyons Assistant City Manager

Areas raised by Councillor in questions received by Drainage Division.

Ardlea Road, Artane, D 5 Ardmore Drive, Artane, D 5 Ardmore Park, Artane, D 5 Ashington Rise, Navan Road, D 7 Ballybough Road, Ballybough, D 3 Ballygall Crescent, Finglas, D 11 Ballygall Parade, Finglas, D 7 Bath Avenue, Sandymount, D 4 Bayview Avenue, North Strand, D 3 Bessborough Avenue, North Strand, D 3 Blackheath Park, Clontarf, D 3 Cabra Road, Cabra, D 7 Carndonagh Road, Donaghmede, D 13 Carrickfoyle Terrace, Kilmainham, D 8 Charleville Road, Rathmines, D 6 Chelmsford Road, Ranelagh, D 6 Chelmsford Road, Ranelagh, D 6. Clanmoyle Road, Donnycarney, D 5 Cloverhill Road, Ballyfermot, D 10 Collins Avenue, D 5 Coultry Road, Ballymun, D 9 Crumlin Road, Crumlin, D 12 Cuala Road, Cabra, D 7 Effra Rd, Rathmines, D 6 Elm Mount Avenue, Beaumont, D 5 Fairways Estate, Finglas, D 11 Faulkner’s Terrace, Kilmainham, D 8 Foxfield Green, Raheny, D 5 Foxfield Grove, Raheny, D 5 Foxfield Grove, Raheny, D 5 Gandon Hall, Gardiner Street, D 1 Glasilawn Road, Glasnevin, D 11 Glendhu Park, Ashtown, D 7 Grosvenor Place, Rathmines, D 6 Havelock Square, Sandymount, D 4 Imaal Road, Cabra, D 7 Johnstown Gardens, Finglas, D 11 Kearn’s Place, Kilmainham, D 8 Kincora Avenue, Clontarf, D 5 Kincora Court, Clontarf, D 3 Kincora Road, Clontarf, D 3 Kylemore Road, Ballyfermot, D 10 Lady’s Lane, Kilmainham, D 8 Lansdowne Road, Ballsbridge, D 4 Leix Road, Cabra, D 7 Millbrook Terrace, Kilmainham, D 8 Swan Place, Rathmines, D 6 Thornville Avenue, Kilbarrack, D 5. Tyrconnell Street, Inchicore, D 8 Villa Park Gardens, Navan Road, D 7

APPENDIX H

GDSDS Sewer Performance Assessment Drawings

APPENDIX I

Geological Survey of Ireland Maps

APPENDIX I

Extract from Waterways Ireland Preliminary Flood Risk Analysis Report

� ��

� � �!" #$�% #& �'� � �!� �()&*+ ,& �$- #(. �/! �()&*0 �1&*2 )� %3/&*4 5! 6$�7 1'�#/ 8 #/3 6,9 �':! 5;,8 �<�3 3 ()% #& �'= (& #. �,& 5> #(#!?3 ,& 5'3 <@! 55/3 ()

ABCD AE AFAAAG A

H IJKLM JKJNO PQRS>0T UTVW UXYZ U[\YZTXYYY]ZX

OMM_ PIaJ_ bIPc_d JNN ef KghbKL

ef KghbKL bJi PQRjH IJKLM JKJNO PQR h

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>kZ UWXY UXYX UYXWXZ\Tl]\

m JncJop I U

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>ql UV\Y UXYX UXYWX[Xl\\X

i I Um PcK__ Ibb_

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>rV U\[Y UZYX UXWWXWYlWTWWl

s tI Um PcK__ Ibb_

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>uWX UZ[Y UlYX UYlWXWZ\YTWT]

p JggP__ Ibb_

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>vW[ UWTY UlYW UVlWXWZWWVWTZ

i bbhPK_ Ibb_

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>wW\ UY[Y UZYX UWYWXWYYVZWWT

Mx JIN bPK__ U

Mf IQcN JIif Kb>yXY Ul\X UZYW UV]WX[l]Y]XlV

z PI_ P{ bNN P

m Jf Kif KbkXZ UVYY UlTYY|p} Jf IW UVVWXWZTX\WT[

^ cf Ie PJLp IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbqX\ UVYW UYVY|p} Jf IX Ul[WXTW\Z\XYW~ �bIdN Pa{ bN PaT ILi PQRM JJQef �bI

H PNL bK{ IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbrTZ U\]Y UZYW UV\WXVZVZWWY

pN JQRx PIhbp IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbuT\ U\YY UZZYY|pNf gx_N ob{ JKR bL} Jf IW UVlWXVZX]WWY

m Jf Kif KbvZW UVYY UZZYY|pjpNf gx_N o b{ JKR bL} Jf IX UlWWXWX[YZWXl � JR b �Pdd tPf K_O c{Nf KMf_ oM PcKQfN J{ P�b

[_xi PQR U� JR b �Pdd tPf K_d PIM��OMM�M��

m Jf Kif KbwZ[ UXWY U\lYY hNf gx_N ob{ JKR bLp} Jf IX UYZWXWVlWTW[\

}N PPLf KgPd[ KP U{ chf KbhhbhPQQcIIbLf KQN cLf KghPbL JJgbL cb_ P�JKL JNf hJ_N PQR hJKL{ JKR P�bI_ Pttf Kg

| P�XYY[ �bJhcIbhhf KQb_ JR bK_ PIbL cQbIf hR Pd_xf hIb �PQQcIIf Kg

m Jf Kif KbyZ\ U\VY U\WTY|pjp} Jf IW UV]WXW\VWXW[[

p JNN od bIP_p IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kb�[W U[VW U\YX UWVWXZ]TZ]XZl� JR b �Pdd tPf K_O c{Nf KMf_ oM PcKQfN J_}fN_ bI

{ bL hJ{ P�b\_xi PQROMM

m Jf Kif Kb�[l UWlY UZ[YY} Jf IX UY[WXV\T[WWX

MN PKL JNRf Kp IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbk�[V UTXY UZW\Y} Jf IX UX\WXWYVX[WW\

m Jf Kif KbkklX UZ]T UYYX UYXWX]XlZ\TYZH Ifdd bbK~ �bIdN PaH Ifdd bbKef �bI

m Jf Kif Kbkqll UY[] UZWZYY|pZ[Yp} Jf IW UVVWXW]l[TZZ]Zp bx JKhP�bIdN Paxf KR bbKef �bI

i cQJKe PJLp IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbkr ]W UWll UYWX[Y|pVYYp} Jf IX UY[WXWZ]lYYZTZ

m PIIbNN{ bN PaN PQRWZ}N PPLf KgPQQcIIbLf K� IL QN Pcgx �fNN Jgbf Kaf K_ bIXYYV �QJKJN{ JKR P�bI_ Pttf KgNfR bN oQPK_ If{ c_f Kg_ P_xf h �_x b

{ JKRx Jhhf KQb{ bbKIJf hbL U

m Jf Kif Kbku]T UWXY UlW\Y|pYp} Jf IX UYlWXWZ\WYWT]

O b�PKhxf Ibp IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbkv][ U]T] UXlYY|pTXYp} Jf IX UYWWXW]T\T]Z]Yi bf K� ncbL cQ_ P�bIdN Pa� P�bIdN Pa_ P

m PIIbNN�W[_xi PQRifdd bojm PIIbNN ef �bIhm PKIbJL bJh_ Pd JNNf Kh

m Jf Kif Kbkw]\ UTXW UYYW UVZWXXTTZYW]X

Of g{ op IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbky\W UY]W UZVY|p} Jf IX UY]WXTZ\WYXWW

i JKL bKh_ PaKp IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbk�\X UZ[l UlWWYY|pVYYpz PPIW UVTWXW[X]]]ZZW

mfNN_ PaK} bbL bI

p PgPdm PPL he P{ bIh_ PaK

| JJhp IJKQx" ##,�JIf bh[ UYYX UYYWXWXYYYYTVW~ �bIdN Pap b_ abbKi PQR h|Xj|T} IP{ otJhhL IJf K� e J_x JhR bIe J_x JhR bIf K| JJh� JI{ PcI

M PI{ JNN op IJKQx> 5'- #!! �K�R\ UYWXYY�pXYY�pW U[YWXWZZYYYZX\X~ �bIdN Pah�f JL IJf Kh_ Pifdd boX� K_ JR bh �M PI{ JNN o� JI{ PcIj

� PJIbhp IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbk�

Y

i Pa_ PaK� cf_i b�bN�

m Jf Kif Kbq�WZ U[WX[YYX[YY Pd_X UYYWXTZ\YYY

lll� ��

� cgVT� ttIP XYYYY �TYYYY QcbQhdN PPLf KgTx Pchbhf KQPK�bKf bKQbLL cIf KgIbtN JQbbK_ Pd QcN �bI_ �NN bKaPPL

�L bKL bIIop IJKQx

Y

�L bKL bIIo� JI{ PcI

m Jf Kif KbqkTW U[X[[YYXX[YY Pd_X UYYWX][lYYYV\W

� �� ¡� �¢ ��£� ¤ ¢ ��¥ ¦ §�� ©¢ ��¡£�ª« £¬�£� �� £¡® �� £¯ �� £°��£¥¢ �� ¬��£

�L bKL bIIo�O Jf KgbJK

m Jf Kif KbqqW UZWZYY

PNfLX UYYWXTTlYYXY]� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

p JNN oQPPK

m Jf Kif KbqrY UllYY

PNfLX UYYWXWZZYYWT[� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

M JttoIPbp IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbquTTYY

PNfLX UYYWX]XYYYTYT� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

m Jf Kif KbqvY UllYY

PNfLX UYYWXWZZYYWT[� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

m Jf Kif KbqwY U\\YY

Pd_X UYYWXWVXYYW[l� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

M Jttf KQcIp IfL gb

� cNN JPIbp IJKQx

Y

� cNN JPIb� JI{ PcI

m Jf Kif KbqyTX[YYW[YY Pd_X UYYWX]XYYYTYT

� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

� cNN JPIb

m Jf Kif Kbq�Y UZZYY

PNfLX UYYWX VlYYWWW

m Jf Kif Kbq�T UZTZYY

PNfLX UYYWX\WlYYTXX� �� ¦ §�� © ¢ ��¡£�� ¡

p JNN oQPaJKp IfL gb

m Jf Kif Kbr�]]YYY

PNfLX UYYWXWl\YYYZlX� �� ¡� �¦ §�� ¤ ±� �� °²©¢ ��¡£�� ¡| ba_ PaK^ cttN o

p JNNf KQN Pcgxf Kp IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbrkY U\\YY

PNfLX UYYWX WVXYYW[l� �� ¢ ��¡£�

M PIKJN PcIp IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbrqW[ UlWZ\YYWZYYY Pd_X UYYWXT]ZZYYlVY

� �� ¢ ��¡£� �� ¡O bIIoQPPN bo^ cttN o

z PNN Jgx

m Jf Kif KbrrXXYYY

PNfLX UYYWX Z\YYYXZ]� �� ¢ ��¡£�

p bN PK_p IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbruT UlX\YY

PNfLX UYYWX \lZYYTTX¢ ��¡£��

MN PKPKbop IfL gb

m Jf Kif KbrvX\YY

PNfLX UYYWX Z\YYYXZ]¢ ��¡£�©�² �££�£�� ¡

x JKKPK� JI{ PcI

m Jf Kif KbrwY UZXYYX UYYWX VlYYWWW

³ cKQ_f PKaf_xx JKKPK

p JIIPaif Kbk�X Ul[YY} Jf IX UYWX lXZYYX\X

i Pa_ PaK

p JIIPaif Kbq�T UZ\YY} Jf IX UYWX \WlYYTXX

p JIIPaif KbqkY UXXYY} Jf IX UYWX Z\YY]\

p JIIPaif KbqqZ U\Z\YY} Jf IX UYWX WW[XYYT\T

²�� µ �� §¶¶� �

p JIIPaif KbqrZ U\XlYY} Jf IX UYWX WW[XYYT\T

e J_x JKgJK

p JIIPaif Kbqu] UlTlYY} Jf IX UYWX W\XZYYZ\X

p JIIPaif KbqvX UZWYYY} Jf IX UYWX []lYYX]W

m PKJh_ bIb�f K

p JIIPaif KbqwXW UY\YYY} Jf IX UYWX [YZYYY\YW

· ££�¸ £�¬� §¶¶� �

p JIIPaif KbqyY U\YX UYWX WVXYYW[l

p JIIPaif Kbq�Y UZYX UYWX VlYYWWW

�_x o

| P_ bh¹"º »" 5'&*º #(. p �^ Pc_xp JKR9 <<#,3 5(#! 15(/3 ()#'56(/ #&! 5<. ,/ 6'3 ()- 5#& $5 �$�(& , »(5& <5(,3/ �'�/ #,:! 55/3 ()

+ $- #(. $�( &> 5(/3&3 5(