Global Warming

[descartes]

JC please see this?

[ibis]

Or this?

Thanks Ibis this is what I was looking for.
If this linear projection applies locally, why are we allowing development on flood plains? Is there an allowed development time? i.e. no development where Sea Level will rise within 100 years?

Hmm. We're allowing flood plain development because that's where people really want to live, and planning is in the hands of local councillors, who may or may not have allowed climate change to seep into their noggins yet. There is no current time limit, and no market force, because flood insurance is, as far as I know, not risk-related. In the UK, they're beginning to talk about not building in vulnerable areas, but I'm not aware of anything happening here outside academia.

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years - it was certainly well-known when I did my environmental MSc. Putting houses on a flood plain means building flood defences (usually walls or embankments), and building flood defences means making the flooding worse upstream (because the built-up area is a bottleneck). But then, "build more roads and people drive more" has been known for equally long, yet curiously it does not seem to be factored in to road planning.

[morryah]

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years

I knew this since I was 5. And I'm older than 25. I learned it building sandcastles on rossbeigh strand.

[Gimpanzee]

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years

I knew this since I was 5. And I'm older than 25. I learned it building sandcastles on rossbeigh strand.

All the more insightful of you, as Rossbeigh strand isn't a flood plain...

[morryah]

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years

I knew this since I was 5. And I'm older than 25. I learned it building sandcastles on rossbeigh strand.

All the more insightful of you, as Rossbeigh strand isn't a flood plain...

In truth, they weren't 'real' buildings either. Temporary sand based structures modelled from buckets in fact!

But you know yourself. It was more projecting based on some modelling work.

[Lennon]

Or this?

Thanks Ibis this is what I was looking for.
If this linear projection applies locally, why are we allowing development on flood plains? Is there an allowed development time? i.e. no development where Sea Level will rise within 100 years?

Hmm. We're allowing flood plain development because that's where people really want to live, and planning is in the hands of local councillors, who may or may not have allowed climate change to seep into their noggins yet. There is no current time limit, and no market force, because flood insurance is, as far as I know, not risk-related. In the UK, they're beginning to talk about not building in vulnerable areas, but I'm not aware of anything happening here outside academia.

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years - it was certainly well-known when I did my environmental MSc. Putting houses on a flood plain means building flood defences (usually walls or embankments), and building flood defences means making the flooding worse upstream (because the built-up area is a bottleneck). But then, "build more roads and people drive more" has been known for equally long, yet curiously it does not seem to be factored in to road planning.

An Bord Pleanala also do not seem to be aware of the implications of Climate Change in regard to rising sea levels. Some of their planning decisions are nothing more than reckless.

[bryannavaro]

Who cares, as long as the brown envelopes are in watertight safes.

[descartes]

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years

Hi Ibis,
From your knowledge in this area are you suggesting that this information is not feeding into the Planning and development? Is there anybody that could give me the annual average sea level rise measured anywhere in this country over the last 10-20 years.
The graph would appear to prove the rise in sea level. This would appear to be of the order of 150mm per 20 years. If this were to continue at this rate our infrastructure/developments will have to be compromised.
Why am I not surprised if this is not being looked at

[ibis]

Frankly, building on flood plains has been known to be a bad idea for at lest 20 years

Hi Ibis,
From your knowledge in this area are you suggesting that this information is not feeding into the Planning and development?

I may be doing the planners a disservice, but as far as I can identify we are currently at the stage where academic and agency studies are 'recommending' no building within 100m of soft coastlines. There's a 2003 case in Tralee where the person appealing against planning permission cited the 2003 EPA on sea-level rise. The following is quoted from the case:

In addition, it is necessary, in my view, in assessing proper planning and sustainable development with regard to this site, to consider the potential impacts of climate change. The appellant supported his arguments by citing extracts from the EPA commissioned report, ‘Climate Change, Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland’ (CCSII) which was published in July 2003.

The authors of that report concluded that,
‘Decisions about what crops to grow, what landscapes to protect, where to build transport corridors in coastal zones and, perhaps most importantly of all, where to build new residential areas, urgently require to be ‘climate change proofed.’’ (9.4.2 p228, CCSII)

This was because (inter alia),
‘There is clear evidence from around the world that sea level rise is not just a perceived, but a very real threat. […] Areas in the south of the country are likely to feel the effects first, particularly low-lying coastal locations with little or no natural protection and located on ‘soft’ or easily eroded material. Coastal floodplains are especially at risk on occasions when a high tide and storm surge coupled with a period of intense rainfall lead to a breach in the carrying capacity of the drainage network, a situation in Ireland which has become evident over the last decade.’ (8.11 p218-219, CCSII)

Therefore, a ‘sensible approach to coastal management for sea level change’ was that there should be (inter alia) no new building or new development within 100m. of ‘soft’ shoreline’ and ‘no further reclamation of estuary land.’ (8.11 p220, CCSII)
All of this does suggest that the proposed development of this site could not be considered at all sustainable.

That suggests to me, from my experience, that the planners are certainly aware of sea-level rise, and prepared to take it into consideration, but that there are no mandatory guidelines in place.

Is there anybody that could give me the annual average sea level rise measured anywhere in this country over the last 10-20 years.

ENFO!

The graph would appear to prove the rise in sea level. This would appear to be of the order of 150mm per 20 years. If this were to continue at this rate our infrastructure/developments will have to be compromised.
Why am I not surprised if this is not being looked at

Ah, that would be our madly humorous political system, where in the face of climate change and sea-level rise our madcap politicos dole out grants for building sea-side developments.

[Lennon]

[quote=ibis]

I may be doing the planners a disservice, but as far as I can identify we are currently at the stage where academic and agency studies are 'recommending' no building within 100m of soft coastlines. There's a 2003 case in Tralee where the person appealing against planning permission cited the 2003 EPA on sea-level rise. The following is quoted from the case:

In addition, it is necessary, in my view, in assessing proper planning and sustainable development with regard to this site, to consider the potential impacts of climate change. The appellant supported his arguments by citing extracts from the EPA commissioned report, ‘Climate Change, Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland’ (CCSII) which was published in July 2003.

The authors of that report concluded that,
‘Decisions about what crops to grow, what landscapes to protect, where to build transport corridors in coastal zones and, perhaps most importantly of all, where to build new residential areas, urgently require to be ‘climate change proofed.’’ (9.4.2 p228, CCSII)

This was because (inter alia),
‘There is clear evidence from around the world that sea level rise is not just a perceived, but a very real threat. […] Areas in the south of the country are likely to feel the effects first, particularly low-lying coastal locations with little or no natural protection and located on ‘soft’ or easily eroded material. Coastal floodplains are especially at risk on occasions when a high tide and storm surge coupled with a period of intense rainfall lead to a breach in the carrying capacity of the drainage network, a situation in Ireland which has become evident over the last decade.’ (8.11 p218-219, CCSII)

Therefore, a ‘sensible approach to coastal management for sea level change’ was that there should be (inter alia) no new building or new development within 100m. of ‘soft’ shoreline’ and ‘no further reclamation of estuary land.’ (8.11 p220, CCSII)
All of this does suggest that the proposed development of this site could not be considered at all sustainable.

That suggests to me, from my experience, that the planners are certainly aware of sea-level rise, and prepared to take it into consideration, but that there are no mandatory guidelines in place.

Is there anybody that could give me the annual average sea level rise measured anywhere in this country over the last 10-20 years.

ENFO!

The graph would appear to prove the rise in sea level. This would appear to be of the order of 150mm per 20 years. If this were to continue at this rate our infrastructure/developments will have to be compromised.
Why am I not surprised if this is not being looked at

Ah, that would be our madly humorous political system, where in the face of climate change and sea-level rise our madcap politicos dole out grants for building sea-side developments.

There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that An Bord Pleanala have any concept of the dangers of rising sea levels in their conduct during their planning decision on the Greystones Harbour and North Beach Development.

The inspectors report on the Greystones Harbour and North Beach development concluded the following in regard to building high rise appartments in the sea at Greystones:

"While Section 6.18 of the Wicklow County Development Plan states that the Local Authority will protect private investments by limiting any new building or development within 50 metres of a soft shoreline, indicated on map 35B, this is not at issue with the proposed development. Where development occurs the new scheme will be protected by breakwaters and the sea wall. This will halt any further erosion. This section of coastline would therefore no longer be a soft shoreline. The proposed development therefore does not contradict Development Plan policies."

An Bord Pleanala therefore will allow building on soft shoreline as long as the developer builds a pier thereby converting the soft shoreline into a non soft shoreline. The logic of this completely escapes me.

The development will have under building car parks ar 1.5 metres OD - substantially below the 4 metres OD recommended. These car parks will become potential death traps should they be flooded.