THE BATTLE of Clontarf in 1014 was fought nowhere near the seafront of Dublin Bay as we know it. Over the past 1,000 years, the topography of the bay has changed, not least the formation of Bull Island as a result of the construction of the Bull Wall in 1825.
Climate change has now rendered Clontarf and other low-lying areas around the bay vulnerable to flooding as extreme weather events – and, ultimately, rising sea levels – take their toll. Indeed, it was after two such events (in February 2002 and October 2004) that Dublin City Council’s engineers began considering plans to improve flood defences, combined with the installation of a new arterial water main along the promenade.
The joint project, estimated to cost €10 million, seemed to make sense. But the devil, as ever, is in the detail. The proposed embankment would be up to 2.75 metres in height, obliterating views of the bay that author Roddy Doyle described as “literally magical” at a rally attended by some 3,000 people in Clontarf on Sunday. Expressions of outrage were the order of the day, with a large turnout by indignant public representatives including Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton. He called for a balanced response by council management that would reflect concerns of households at risk of flooding as well as those who want to maintain sea views from the promenade.
Public reaction to the flood defence plan is coming very late in the day with a contract for the controversial works on the verge of being signed. After all, the council sought permission for its scheme in December 2007. It was approved by An Bord Pleanála in June 2008. Significantly, not a single objection or submission was made by anyone in the area – not the Clontarf Residents Association, nor the Clontarf Business Association, nor any of the TDs or councillors now climbing on the bandwagon of protest. They simply missed the boat.
Why? It is clear public consultation on the planning application was inadequate, to say the least. Indeed, officials have accepted that the process at the time was “minimal” and “didn’t work”.
The 325-page environmental impact statement contained no photomontages showing what the flood defences would look like, compared to the existing situation; indeed, the council is still unable to supply such images. It now needs to sit down with representatives of local residents and business people to seek a consensus on what needs to be done.