APPENDIX C. KILKENNY NORTHERN RING ROAD EXTENSION - HEARING PROCEEDINGS. 14TH AND 15TH APRIL, 2014.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
APPENDIX C.
KILKENNY NORTHERN RING ROAD
EXTENSION
HEARING PROCEEDINGS.
14TH AND 15TH APRIL, 2014.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 1Introductory Note.
1. A Hearing was held at the River Court Hotel, Kilkenny on Monday, 14th and
Tuesday, 15th April, 2014.
The Inspector on opening proceedings briefly outlined the scheme and the
purpose and nature of the Hearing with regard, both to the application of the
Approval of the scheme and Environmental Impact Assessment and
Appropriate Assessment in respect of which an Environmental Impact
Statement and Natura Impact Statement (NIS) had been provided and with
regard to the proposal for Confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order
and Extinguishment of Rights of Way.
Following the opening of the Hearing the Inspector, invited the Local Authority
to present their case following which the Parties would be invited to contribute
observations and to ask Questions.
Mr. John Harte, Solicitor led the Local Authority in presentation of evidence.
outset Mr. Michael Delahunty, County Secretary at the request of Mr. Harte
confirmed on behalf of the County Council, the Approval of the Orders for the
Compulsory Acquisition of Lands and Extinguishments of Rights of Way, the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Natura Impact Statement. (NIS).
Note 1. The following account is not chronological and has been adapted
so to allow for account of the discussions on each issue to be gathered
together, in so far is possible under a single subheading.
Note 2. An electronic recording is available. However due to a technical
fault some of the recording of proceedings from the first day are inaudible and
a small part is unavailable and time-log is also inaccurate.
Note 3. A list of documentary submissions is set out in Appendix D of the
main report and they been placed, in a pouch on the file.
Day One 14th April, 2014.
2. Statement of Evidence – Mr. Denis Malone, Senior Planner Kilkenny
County Council.
Mr. Malone circulated and read his statement of evidence (Document 1
Appendix D) He described the main features of the scheme. Mr Malone
outlined the strategic policy objectives and vision for the city and county which
had been incorporated in the development plans since the late 1970s on an
ongoing basis. The objective for western by-pass was first included in the
Kilkenny City and Environs Plan in 2002.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 2The wider policy context at national, regional and local levels particularly in
regard to the designation and role of Kilkenny as a ‘hub’ is outlined and
discussed. The development strategy provided for in the current and draft
Kilkenny City and Environs plans, (2008 – 2014 and 2015-2021) respectively
are also outlined. The faster population growth rate which is higher than the
national average and good performance of the city are noted along with the
city’s compact form, good infrastructure in the form of the orbital road, the
M9/10 an renewed rail infrastructure. The Local Area Plan for Kilkenny City
Centre, according to the statement is incorporated, by inclusion of specific
objectives: E31 into the Kilkenny City and Environs Plan and reinforced in
sections 2 and 3 of the Draft Plan.
Mr Malone stated that the proposed scheme meets all relevant development
plan objectives. He referred to a number of county development plan
objectives (IE1, - IE4 which include integrated sustainable transport systems
involving road rail, bus cycling and walking, efficiency and integration in land-
use planning, environmental quality and economic competitiveness and
transport.
He stated that the proposed scheme facilitates the objective “to seek and
upgrade of the Kilkenny to Urlingford Road (R693) to National Secondary
status and to improve the road’s realignment in entirety”. Mr Malone said
that the proposed scheme supports development plan policies and objectives
and he urged the Board to consent to it.
3. Statement of Evidence. Mr. Simon Walton, Senior Engineer, Kilkenny
County Council.
Mr. Walton circulated and read his statement of evidence (Document 2,
Appendix D) He described the main features of the scheme.
The scheme is 1.46 km in length and has a road section of 2 no 3.65 metre
wide carriageways, 2 no 2.5 metre wide hard shoulders together with a three
metre wide grass margin on the (north/county side) and a 1.5 metre grass
verge, a 1.75 metre wide two way cycle tract and a 1.8 metre wide footpath on
the south/city side). The hard shoulder width reduces 0.5 km between Ch.
380 and Ch. 740 which is across the bridge and reinforced earth
embankments.
The design speed is 100 kph; The river crossing bridge is three span
comprising a 45 metre centre span and two edge spans of 22.5 metres each;
There are twenty one culverts for flood water conveyance, farm underpasses
and Bleach Road connectivity north and south of the scheme; There is a new
roundabout at the intersection with the Freshford Road (R693); A priority
junction at Bleach Road intersection and, The landtake requirement is 8.61
hectares, (7.389 ha permanent and 1.221 ha temporary).
Mr. Walton outlined ten strategic and operational objectives for the scheme
which are:
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 3To comply with the objectives of the Kilkenny City and Environs Development
Plan, 2008-2014 (section 8.2.1) providing for the western bypass and river
crossing between the Castlecomer Road and the Callan Road;
To provide for a 100 kph design speed in accordance with Section 9.4.5 the
Kilkenny County Development Plan. It seeks to upgrade the Kilkenny to
Urlingford Road (R693) to national secondary status;
To support the SERAPG objective (PPO 5.12) for completion of the Ring
Road;
To further develop the regional strategic road network connecting the M9 to
the M8 via the Ring Road and the R693;
To complement and facilitate other roads objective in the development plan
including provision for residential development on the west side of the city;
To enhance connectivity between several national and regional routes (listed
in the submission) by providing efficient and reliable and safe linkage between
the routes without any necessity for through traffic including HGVs to use the
city streets including Greens Bridge;
To reduce congestion in several residential areas and streets in the city
centre;
To complement the Central Access Scheme (CAS) and provide integrated
approach to traffic management;
To contribute to mobility management and the city Mobility Management Plan
and improve access to the city by pedestrians and cycles and,
To make a positive and suitable contribution to road safety and convenience
for all road users.
Mr. Walton referred to the two Rights of Way, the extinguishment of which is
proposed to facilitate the scheme. They are shown on Drawing 07_088-09. In
the case of the section of the Bleach Road (L6610) at Loughmerans, Mr
Walton referred to the new public right of way in the scheme which provides
for cars, cycles, light goods vehicles and pedestrians (not HGVs) In the case
of the old Castlecomer Road he stated that the Right of way only operates as
an agricultural access and relates to a severed section of the N77 in Dunmore
and Baun.
Mr Walton said the members of the Council have been briefed regularly and
have approved the CPO and EIS. Ten stakeholders had been issued with
consultation letters and seven responses from, OPW (Hydrometric Section),
NRA, EPA, GSI, IFI Heritage Council and An Taisce) were received. Meetings
were held with the IFI, NPWS and the OPW and private meeting with
landowners and residents and public meetings (19th September and 17
October, 2013)
Following these consultations the proposed design was amended:
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 4It provides for increased local and community connectivity, use of the Bleach
Road underpass by cars and light goods vehicles in addition to the pedestrian
and cycle traffic with a cul de sac at the southern end and T junction access
from the northern end. The affected landowner accepted the increase of 1.13
acres in land take required. The size and location of the farm underpasses
reflects the preferences of the landowners involved.
4. Statement of Evidence, Mr. Geoff Emerson. (Clifton, Scannell Emerson
Associates Consulting Engineers).
Mr. Emerson circulated his statement and a Longitudinal Section (Drawing
07_088_1026) showing the scheme across the flood plain drawing which he
described as a site view drawing of the actual embankment. (Document 3,
3(a), (b) and (c) Appendix D) He explained that the drawing should illustrate
the view of the scheme from vantage points along the Bleach Road.
Mr. Emerson explained that Clifton, Scannell Emerson had prepared the
Constraints and Route Selection Study and the Scheme Design and had also
prepared the EIS on behalf of the Local Authority.
Mr. Emerson stated that the scheme would address traffic congestion to the
west and east of the city due to constraints at Greens Bridge and Johns
Bridge where traffic exceeds capacity at peak times. He referred to the
necessity for HGV traffic to use the city streets. He referred to underlying
support for the scheme within National Transport Policy the Regional and
Local Development Plans for Kilkenny City Centre, City and Environs and
County.
Mr Emerson outlined the eight route corridor options and the constraints to
them that were considered in the Constraints and Route Options Study Route
‘8’ was recommended in the study in that it was optimal with regard to
potential impact on the environment, archaeology, amenities, residents and
landholdings, the engineering assessment and cost considerations. Route ‘9’,
an amended route, (based on Routes 7 and 8 was subsequently designed
which minimised the impact on the SAC further to a flora and fauna
assessment and screening for appropriate assessment. (Figure 3.01 EIS
Vol. 3 refers)
Mr Emerson then gave a similar description as Mr. Walton, and, in addition he
stated that although it is a designated regional route, the design provides for
upgrade to a 100 kph. To cater for a future upgrade to national route status.
The vertical alignment allows for 1/100 year flood levels plus twenty percent
accommodating climate change and 300 mm freeboard. He also stated that
interceptor drains at the toe of the embankment across the floodplain will be
concrete channels with drainage along the carriageway. It is a separate
system to the open drainage system at the toe of the embankment. The toe
drains will be carried in a pipe at the farm underpass culverts and at the
Bleach Road crossing, Road drainage will pass through a petrol interceptor
above the flood level before the outfall and, as there is a floodplain adjacent to
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 5the river attenuation ponds will not be provided. (Figures 4.01 and 4.02 EIS
Vol 3 refer)
In his description of the bridge structure over the River Nore Mr Emerson
stated that the forty five metre central span is clear of the river banks on both
sides by a minimum of five metres and that no in-stream works are required.
(Figure 4.03 EIS Vol 3 refer)
He explained that the Flood Plain Crossing between the river and land to the
west of the Bleach Road is on an embankment in which there are sixteen
evenly spaced culverts. Thirteen culverts will be ten metres wide x 3.6 metres
wide high arched culverts whereas the other three will be ten metre wide box
culverts which function as farm underpasses. In addition 4 no ten metre wide
box culverts are to be provided on the lands east side of the Bleach Road also
accommodating farm underpasses and movement of water in flood events.
The Bleach Road which is to be maintained as the local access underpass will
function as a twenty first culvert in flood events. (Drawing 07_088_1026
Document 3 (c) Appendix D refers)
With regard to the consideration of alternatives, various horizontal and
vertical Alignments and bridge and culvert designs were considered according
to Mr. Emerson.
For horizontal alignment, the possible end connection points restricted the
alignment, a roundabout being in place at the Castlecomer Road to the east.
The possible tie-in point selected at the R693 was the shortest route and
shortest crossing of the cSAC. It is closest to the city centre, needed the
smallest landtake and avoids areas of archaeology.
For vertical alignment, adequate clearance over flood levels in the river and
floodplains and the minimum soffit level for the bridge is 60.520 m OD
allowing for 20 percent increase and 300 mm freeboard and for the required
headroom for farm underpasses on either side of the Bleach Road. Access
to the city and road network from the Bleach Road is enhanced. A fully height
grade separation at the junction of Bleach Road was considered but it would
need increased embankment height, landtake and earthworks.
Mr Emerson stated that a recent traffic count on the southern (2km section) of
the Bleach Road along which there is residential development indicated 268
movements of which 23 were HGVs inclusive of agricultural vehicles. The
four km section of Bleach Road to the north of the route is through mainly
agricultural land.
Mr Emerson in his statement then continued by outlining alternative
configurations for the Bleach Road junction. 1
An access ramp on the south/city side would encourage HGV traffic onto the
southern section of the Bleach Road;
1
These observations address a number of proposals suggested in the written submission of Mr. Maharaj
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 6HGV access is necessary along the northern/county section of the Bleach
Road where there are agricultural enterprises. Otherwise HGVs would need
to go north to the N77, Hennebry Cross and access the city etc. via N77
involving increased time and distance.
A full height underpass at the Bleach Road requires additional land-take for
reinforced embankments adding to earthworks, environmental and monetary
cost and negative visual impact. The ground level on the landholdings where
the 4.5 m high underpasses are provided is much lower than that at the
Bleach Road.
A four arm at grade junction at the Bleach Road would require additional
landtake, additional cost with or without reinforced earth embankments. Road
safety reasons and residential amenity precludes a four arm at grade junction,
either a staggered junction, roundabout, or, “left in, left out” arrangement at
Bleach Road.
The selected three span bridge design is preferred to a clear 50 metre span
because it reduces structural depth and makes use of the hogging
movements over the intermediate supports. Two 25 metre spans with a
central pier in the river bed were rejected for hydrological and ecological
reasons.
The culvert design for the major flood plain to the west side of the Bleach
Road as far as the river was selected as the hydrology modelling indicated
that drainage to the river after a flood event can continue in a similar rate and
manner to that which occurs at present and because it provides for drainage
of lands to the east of the Bleach Road which are also susceptible to flooding.
A continuous span structure across the main 360 m wide floodplain was
rejected as the additional cost of five million euro estimated was not cost
effective and concrete flooring in the culverts prevents erosion.
Mr Emerson then outlined the traffic modelling and forecasting in which an
updated version of the Kilkenny City Traffic Model (KCTM) to include data
from 2012 and 2013, data for projected future development and projections by
the Local and Regional Authorities. Forecasts indicated population increase
from 24,424 in 2011, to 27,000 for the scheme’s opening year, (2019) and
33,000 in design year, (2034). (A more detailed table of AADT, across the
river is included in the statement.) The assessment confirmed the need for the
subject scheme and the Central Access Scheme which complements it in that
increases in existing volumes with congestion problems and exacerbation of
the prevention of public transport improvement, pedestrian and cycling
conditions and amenity would occur without it. The scheme would provide
significant relief to all river crossings especially Greens Bridge, the city centre
and the Dublin, Hebron, Castlecomer and Freshford Roads.
The Economic Assessment, according to Mr. Emerson indicated a Benefit to
Cost (BCR) of the do nothing/do minimum scenarios relative to the scheme
indicating a ratio of 3.66 and the economic viability of the scheme and he also
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 7drew attention to non–tangible benefit value that would accrue such as that of
the improved environment facilities and amenities in the city.
With regard to ecology, Mr Emerson noted the identification of the SAC, SPA
and NHA and referred to desk and field studies by Dr. Roger Goodwillie in
2008 and his further additional studies in 2013 who liaised with the NPWS
and IFI. He stated that The Conservation Ranger (NPWS) had confirmed that
the bee orchid, (Ophrys apifera) does not grow in the Castlecomer
Roundabout in which it was originally reported to occur. It is located at a
quarry just to the north of that location indicated as occurring but that it does
grow at a quarry to the north and that the rich soil conditions in the
roundabout or west of it are not suitable for it.. Mr Emerson stated in noting
the observation in the report of the NPWS as to the date of the surveys that
Mr Goodwillie made many visits to the area in his capacity as a county record
for the botanical society of Britain and Ireland.
Hydrology.
Mr Emerson stated that detailed hydrology studies were necessary on
account of the potential ‘barrier impact’ of a bridge and embankment on the
flood plain across a distance of 860 metres in length. Various options were
assessed and extensive consultation took place with the Flood risk
management engineers at OPW and Dr O’Sullivan (UCD) assisted with
hydrological modelling that informed the scheme design.
A surveying contractor conducted a topographical survey of the river and its
banks over a 7.5km length and a bathometric survey of the river bed and
profile over the same distance. Four electronic water level gauges were
installed to monitor the water level fluctuations in normal and storm conditions
and a flow metre was installed at Greensbridge to monitor volumes flowing
through the river cross section.2
Noise and Visual Impact.
Assessment was conducted early in 2013 in accordance with the NRA
guidance using existing and projected traffic figures and existing surveyed
noise levels. This involved assessment and quantification of the noise
environment, and calculation and comparison with appropriate criteria of the
predicted construction and operational level noise. Proposed mitigation
measure include barrier at Chainage 210-440 1.5 m high on the south side
adjacent of Aut Even Hospital and at Chainage 1,300 to 1,440 south side two
metres high on the south side adjacent to the Weirview Estate.3
2
Details of the modelling methodology and the results were dealt within the
statement of Dr. John O’Sullivan.
Details of the modelling methodology and the potential impacts are dealt within the
statement of Ms Jennifer Harmon
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 8Visual Impact.
There would be a significant visual impact in the event of the erection of noise
barriers along the entire length which would include obstruction of views of the
Nore Valley from the road in the cutting between Chainage 1-200. Between
Chainage 360 and 840 a crash barrier in the centre line of the road will partly
screen vehicle lights from the surrounding countryside.
At the end of his statement, Mr Emerson stated that the EIS contains details
of baseline surveys, potential impacts and mitigation in relation to human
beings, flora and fauna , hydrology, soil geology and hydrogeology, air quality
and climate, noise and vibration, landscape and visual impact, archaeology,
architecture and culture heritage and material assets. He stated that it
includes (chapter 15 Commitments) to be included in the Environmental
Operating Plan which will be included in contract documentation. He
confirmed that the Local authority is agreeable to accept the conditions
recommended in the submissions of the IFI and DAHG.
During and following the presentation of his statement, Mr Emerson confirmed
connectivity for car access and no HGV access through the underpass to
the north section of the Bleach Road and that the survey point for the recent
traffic survey on Bleach Road which indicated 268 movements including 23
HGV movements was circa 800 metres to the south of the proposed scheme.
He confirmed two active building sites at which operations are temporary
would have been likely to have generated HVG traffic recorded in the survey.
He agreed that the length of the Bleach Road to the south of the scheme is
two kilometres and to the north is about four kilometres to the end of the
Bleach Road. If connectivity was reversed to the south side, HGV and
agricultural traffic originating at the north would be obliged to use a longer,
circa ten kilometre route via Hennebry’s Cross at the end of the Bleach Road
which is at least 6km to the north to reach the city. As proposed, vehicles at
the northern end of Bleach road could access from the top of Bleach Road
from the Freshford road and HGV traffic on the southern end would continue
to have direct access to the city.
Mr Emerson also agreed, that the additional cost of a clear span bridging of
the floodplain is five million euro more than the cost of the embankment with
culverts proposed for the route. This (clear span option), would increase the
total approximate cost from 14.8 million up to twenty million euro.
In response to Mr. Callum, (representing landowners) Mr Emerson confirmed
that details on drawing exhibited at the hearing were shown at a scale of
1:1000 and at 1:250 which is at a 4/1 ‘exaggerated’ scale. He confirmed the
distance between abutment and bridge as 22.5 metres. The green line shows
the river bed as surveyed, the pier locations are here and here and then
beyond that are the two 22.5. The supports are behind the actual physical
embankment of the river and are in the floodplain. Distance between the pillar
support and the abutment shown on the diagram is 22.5 metres at the top.
Mr. Calum says it was less. Callum asked for 1:1 cross section of the
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 9proposed culverts as horizontal level appears less than the vertical level on
the drawing displayed. Ten high and 4.6 across distorts the shape of the
culvert to fit it onto the EIS. The cross 1 to 1 vertical and horizontal section
is not in EIS and is submitted as evidence.
On Drawing No 07_088_1027 longitudinal section through flood levels
(Document 3 (a) Mr Emerson confirmed that the green line shows the riverbed
as surveyed, and the position of the bridge supports are behind the
embankment and not in the riverbed.
Additional drawings had been prepared with the Hearing in mind. It was not
intended to mislead anyone. The longitudinal drawing was to give a clearer
understanding but there had been a difficulty in putting all detail on the same
drawing. No attempt to avoid or mislead.
Mr Emerson, in response to a request circulated cross section drawings at a
scale of 1:1 of the culverts which are ten metres wide by 3.6 metres wide (in
which the culvert shape is not distorted by contrasting scales. Mr Emerson
confirmed that this drawing had not been included in the EIS and as evidence
and acknowledged that the 1:1 scale drawing had not therefore been
available for public inspection.
Mr Harte EIS and drawings were prepared to present the longitudinal
drainage and to fit it onto the EIS. The 1:1 drainage drawings had been
prepared and were now presented at the Hearing and there had been in
intention to withhold the information.
5. Mr. Maharaj, Salvaged Energy (Observer Party - EIS)
Mr. Maharaj of Salvaged Energy had questions relating to scheme design and
the traffic surveys which had been conducted.4 He was invited to do so prior
to the continuation of the presentation of scheme by the Local Authority and
his departure.
Mr. Maharaj stated that he understood the traffic surveys had been conducted
after he had lodged his written observation to the Board in connection with the
application for Approval of the EIS and the scheme. Mr Harte confirmed that
these recent surveys had been conducted as a response to the submission of
Mr Maharaj and that traffic surveys had been conducted over two days, in the
vicinity of two building sites on the section of Bleach Road south of the
scheme. Mr Maharaj stated that traffic had been reverting backwards onto
the street from the building sites.
Mr Maharaj had advised by email in advance that he would be unable to attend all of the Hearing
owing to a business appointment in the UK. The Inspector facilitated his request to ask some
questions relating to the road design and traffic arrangements him and invited him to present his
statement of evidence and any additional observations as soon as the Local Authority had completed
its submission. However, Mr. Maharaj left before the Local Authority had completed. (His written
submission is in Document 6, Appendix D.)
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 10Mr Maharaj stated that properties on Bleach Road north of the scheme were
concentrated at the far the road and that it is more efficient for traffic
originating at this location to opt to use the Castlecomer Road to reach the
city as opposed to the four km and six km route previously described. Mr.
Harte confirmed that no traffic surveys had been conducted at the
Hennerbry's Cross at the northern end of the Bleach Road.
In response to a suggestion by Mr Harte that the Bleach Road had varying
settlement patterns, and should make her own observations by driving the
route herself, the inspector confirmed that she had already done so and had
made herself familiar with the road and location.
6. Statement of Evidence. Dr. John O’Sullivan.
Dr. O’Sullivan of the School of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering
at University College, Dublin explained that he had been appointed by Clifton
Scannell and Emerson to assist in the assessment of the potential hydraulic
impacts of the proposed scheme on the existing characteristics of the river
flows in the River up and down stream of the location of the scheme. He
circulated a written submission (Document 4 Appendix D)
A Hydrological investigation is required because the crossing could obstruct
flooding and redirect and redistribute the flow and create an increase in
upstream water levels known as “afflux”. The afflux could displace existing
floodplain storage, could alter the local drainage system through blockage or
routes and alterations to catchment area and boundaries and could increase
the areal extend of flooding as a consequences of any of these processes.
Dr O’Sullivan assessed creation of afflux that would result upstream, the
impact of the loss of floodplain storage and changes to the areal extent of
flooding that would occur and a two component modelling process was used.
Determination of the flood design conditions or impacts required a series of
steady and unsteady flow river profiles for specific design flows and boundary
conditions using a 1-dimensional computational river model. The HEC-RAS
was used to compute the steady and unsteady flow profiles for specified
design flows. Hydrographs were produced together with the boundary and
initial conditions (Sixty four cross sections, (fig 8.01in the EIS) with details of
stream bed, channel banks and floodplains of the river profile which obtained
by topographical survey in 2010 for a 6 km section to a point just downstream
of Greens Bridge.
The second component was a model of the drainage system provided by the
Local Authority, the “cal__19.proj,” which extended approximately 1 km
upstream of Greens Bridge to downstream of Johns Bridge over a length of
circa seven kilometres which represents the river geometry post flood defence
scheme (2006) which it is believed has remained relatively unchanged. The
bathometry was augmented in the model by interpolated cross sections if
cross sectional data was scarce or there was a change in velocity head
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 11between two consecutive cross sections that was too large to determine
energy gradients linear interpretation of cross sections being accepted
practice.
Geometric representations of the existing structures (John’s Bridge, Green’s
Bridge and the planned (CAS) the impact of which is important in
determination of backwater profiles for high river flows were also included in
the model.
The HEC RAS model was run in its steady state mode to estimate the afflux
from the bridge. (The model assumes a kinematic flood wave and no variation
in flood discharge over time.) As recommended in forthcoming publication of
the OPW an Annual Maximum (AM) with use of a hydrometric record, in which
the Extreme Value Type I (EVI) distribution was used in the analysis, a long
term record of high quality data from an OPW gauge operating at John’s
Bridge being analysed. Frequency analysis for the data for the period 1966 to
2000 indicated a 100 year flow at 420m3/s. There is a discontinuity for 2001-
2006 and, since the flood defence a new rating and reliable limit of 150 m3/s
has been used for 2007-2010. This gives an available OPW record in 2013 a
frequency analysis of which yields 440 m3/s for a 100 year design flow. A
flow record of partial flows back to 1926 of the data at the Johns Bridge gauge
was used a frequency analysis of which was undertaken by the OPW in 1999
in connection with the flood defence scheme indicating 475 m3. It is larger
and had two components, (440 m3/s for the Nore and 35 m3/s for the
Breagagh and was used.
The model was run in unsteady mode for assessment of the impact of the loss
of floodplain storage with flow hydrographs being required. Unsteady analysis
requires a hydrograph corresponding to the 100 year flood. A dynamic flood
wave is assumed in running the model in unsteady mode in which full
dynamic, “1-D Saint Venant” equations are solved with variation in discharge
over space and time, attenuating with movement downstream. Flood
hydrographs were extracted from a study of the fifteen minute flow and stage
record for the Hydrometric station at Johns Bridge from 18th May, 2006 made
available by the OPW and a stage discharge rating was established from the
data. The largest flow for which the flow and stage hydrographs were
available estimated to be 352 m3/s was lower than the 475 m3/s.
Hydrographs for the 100 year event was developed using the observed flow
and the Flood studies report f 1975 by the OPW to provide a time to peak of
flood and flood duration relationship.
A climate change factor with the “design for climate change” approach was
selected from three approaches recommended by the OPW. The addition of
the climate change factor of 20 per cent to the 100 year design flows yields
flows of 530 m3/s for the Nore and 40 m3/s for the Breagagh rivers.
Different boundary conditions were used in execution of the model with the
donwstream boundary of the model of the Flood Relief Scheme which were
reviewed produced downstream water levels of 44.17 OD and 33.22mOD for
the year flood and 100 year flood with the change factor were used for the
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 12steady model. For the unsteady model simulations, flow hydrographs for
upstream conditions were used for simulations in combination with
downstream stage hydrographs and ratings relationships using OPW data
from the hydrometric station at St. John’ s Bridge.
The steady flow backwater calibrations profiles were established from the
calibration of the steady state HEC RAS model was executed with a flow of
199.45 m3/s for the river Nore and 12.5 m3/s and with a known water level of
42.837 m OD record at Johns Bridge at the time of peak flow by the OPW.
The profile chart is shown in Figure No 8.01 Vol 3 of the EIS. Hydrographs
are shown in Chart 8.06 in Volume 2 of the EIS.
The calibration profiles for the steady and unsteady simulations show
agreement between the model and the measured profiles for the 2010 flood
indicating the model suitability for the purpose of backwater profile
predictions.
Following completion of the presentation of the statement of evidence on
hydrology by Dr. O’Sullivan, in-depth discussions that were specialised and
technical in content, took place on the afternoon of 14th April and again on 15th
April.5
In the course of the discussion, Mr Brown and Mr Bain asserted that the
modelling methodology, analysis and predictions used by Dr. O’Sullivan were
unsatisfactory. This was because, they were not satisfied that it had been
demonstrated, without doubt that the scheme design was such that it would
be possible to achieve the post development scenario with regard to
hydrological impacts that he had claimed. It would appear that Dr. O’Sullivan
may have reached agreement as to assurance that the various aspects of the
hydrological assessments were not questionable and that the predicted
effects were, unreservedly achievable.
Dr. O’Sullivan, at Mr. Harte’s request, provided further information and
elaboration on various details and contributed further comments relating to
data selection and collection the model design and execution and his
corresponding assessment of the potential hydraulic impacts of the scheme.
With regard to reliability limits of flow rates and circumstances where a model
might be unreliable for projection of high flow Dr. O’Sullivan explained that
readings should be tested against actual flow to establish suitability and
reliability. Dr. O’Sullivan explained that all hydrometrical network stations are
“stage discharge stations”. A recorded water level is converted to a discharge
by using a ratings curve the ratings relationship is established by point on the
ratings curve which is indicated in by simultaneous measurement of
discharges and stages and this is standard practice. A survey of measured
stage discharge data produced from flow records measured by the EPA and/
5
This discussion that took place on 15th April is outlined under subsection 18 during
which Dr. O’Sullivan was not available. A partial electronic record of the proceedings
on Day 1 only is available owing to a technical fault
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 13or the OPW, represented in a non-linear relationship can be interpolated and
then extrapolated to obtain flows.
Dr O’Sullivan explained that extrapolation can introduce uncertainty but
having checked the data from the gauge at St John’s Bridge and noted that
the river channel characteristics do not vary. He was confident in use of this
data for extrapolation and referred to reliability with regard to the Kilkenny
Flood Defence Scheme.
Mr Harte pointed out that the land and flood plain at Bleach Road will continue
to flood with or without the scheme, the issue being the degree to which there
would be additional flooding. Mr O’Sullivan explained that there would be
differences between the upstream and downstream effects of the scheme.
There will be no change in downstream effect in terms of flooding
downstream. The effect would be to the north of the scheme. The height of
the water in the 100 year flood event would be a maximum of two centre
metres increasing to 3 centre metres with the climate change factor of 20
percent included. Inundation of the areas affected would occur with or
without the scheme in the 100 and 120 year flood.
Dr O’Sullivan displayed a Drawing (No 080 10 27 Longitudinal Section
through Plan of Flood Levels) on which the lateral extent of land beyond the
main river channel is indicated. (Document 3(b) Appendix D EIS) Four
options, (lateral extent of inundation with and without the scheme and with
and without the climate change factor) are shown. With the scheme in place,
the largest deviation from existing conditions in lateral extend of flooding is 0.3
metres and there is no change in the depth of the flood. Dr. O’Sullivan stated
that the drawing shows a consistent areal extent of flooding pre and post
scheme. He confirmed that no additional flooding south of the scheme would
occur and that no areas of inundation were excluded from the drawing.
Mr. Harte noted that the flow data used from was from the river channel,
pointing out that all flow must pass through both Greens and John’s Bridge as
there is no diversion and queried whether there were issues regarding the
flow rate across the flood plain. Dr. O’Sullivan confirmed that he calculations
take account of the water in the floodplain as well as in the main channel,
measuring the head of water above the sensor and surveyed into the for the
design flow.
Dr. O’Sullivan advised Mr Harte that the culvert embankment would not cause
longer periods of flooding; the ultimate control for the draining of water would
be by the “falling limb” on the hydrograph, which has two components. He
confirmed that he is confident the structure would not impede the existing flow
rates, there would be minimal delay in release of water and the structure
would not undermine the ability of the floodplain to function. According to Dr.
O’Sullivan the volume of water is huge relative to the size of the embankment,
the volume equivalent to the embankment accounting for less than three
minutes of six hours that would be required to divert the floodplain into a lake.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 14In response to Mr. Harte regarding the size and design of the culverts and as
to potential for erosion Dr. O’Sullivan explained that flow contracted into the
ten metre width of a culvert and, expanding on exit back into a thirteen metre
width, (the intervals between the culverts being three metres) is not ‘severe’
and the flow rates would not increase significantly so as to cause concern as
to erosion. He also confirmed that Mr. Harte the concrete aprons that extend
past the culvert also alleviate further potential concerns as to erosion on the
south side of the embankment. The increased velocity of flow is confined to a
distance of ten to thirteen metres before in a short time and distance returning
to the parallel streamline according to Dr. O’Sullivan.
A detailed discussion between Dr. O’Sullivan and Mr. Brown took place during
which several questions of technical nature over a range of issues relating to
the modelling and scheme design were put to Dr. O’Sullivan by Mr. Brown
and Mr. Bain, and Mr O’Shea.6
There was confirmation that the calibration process used flow data recorded
at a sensor at Greens Bridge in 2010. A difference in flow of 12.5 m3/s could
be accounted for by flow from a tributary (the Breagagh river) between
Greens Bridge and at John’s Bridge.
In the course of discussion about concerns as to siltation and blockage it was
claimed that the increase in head of water upstream when reaching a certain
height forces the passage through the narrower confined spaces with the
embankment. It contracts then expands. 7
It was queried whether assumptions in the modelling that the flow rate at the
scheme location to be the same as at Greens Bridge is correct having regard
to an estimate of the flow across the floodplain and referred to estimates of
velocity.
Dr. O’Sullivan stated that, 530 m3/s and 40 m3/s, for the Nore and Breagagh,
which were used in the modelling inputs were based on the 100 year flood
plus 20 percent climate change factor and that they had been used in the
Flood Defence Scheme by the OPW. His own extrapolation of the
hydrographs yielded higher flow values than the values indicated in his own
data.
Mr. Callam Bain and Mr. O’Shea stated that they were not satisfied with the
details of the scheme, the EIS and the evidence provided at the hearing. Mr.
Bain did not accept that erosion would not occur, without definitions of surface
and characteristic on either side of the structure. He referred to a forty
percent flow capability reduction in the flood plain which had not been
considered in the model and as regards the flow rate over the flood plain as
uncalculated. According to Mr. Bain there is a fifty six percent reduction at the
6
Electronic recording not available.
7
Some issues discussed were brought up again on the second day of the
proceedings during which Dr. O’Sullivan was not present. See subsection 18.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 15base the embankment in the capability of the flow across the flood plain.
There is no detail in modelling or the EIS of velocity and areal extent.
Mr. O’Shea referred to errors in notices served on him regarding of
compulsory acquisition of lands and errors in the EIS and accompanying
drawings. He referred in particular to incorrect annotation of the bridges on
the river profile. The Inspector noted the observations and advised of the
importance of accuracy in documentation in the context of potential
implications with regard to statutory and procedural requirements. Mr. Harte
and Mr. Emerson undertook to correct and issue revised drawings which were
subsequently circulated at the hearing.
Mr. O’Shea contended that a 20 or 50 year storm should have been used,
stressed the need for certainty with regard to the conditions that could be
anticipated during construction and operational stages. He referred to local
knowledge about the nature and frequency of flooding and to volumes of
water involved. A number of errors had seen in the documents had been a
cause for concern about confidence in the information provided and he
stressed his disappointment in what he considered was a reluctance to
engage with him about water logging in the field to the front of his property,
noise and vibration and visual impact, given the proximity of his property to
the scheme. Dr. O’Sullivan had assured him that as the source of the water
that inundated the field was from a separate watercourse unrelated to the
Nore, it is unaffected by the scheme and no differences to the characteristics
as regards filling and draining of that field would occur.
Mr. Brown, (at a later stage during proceedings) enquired about assessment
of the quantities and routes for the flow of water across the floodplain. He
asked Dr O’Sullivan if the modelling exercise required an input for single flow
and about how the modelling shows how flow was apportioned: whether
account can be taken of the loss of water from the floodplain system, whether
and how the rate of flow across the flood plain changes and as to whether and
how the areal extent of the floodplain is altered.
Dr O’Sullivan advised that cross-sections at different location and the (distinct)
left overbank, main channel and right overbank zones should be considered.
The total flow through the cross sections is the same; the design flow, under
steady state conditions does not change. The flow in the main channel and
floodplain areas spread laterally in the direction of the N77, the water using
the main channel, crossing the floodplain and then re-entering the rover
downstream. A cross section at one location and at a location perpendicular
to the river gives an identical flow. The average gradient of the river of 7 km
is one metre per 1000 metre fall and for the floodplain it is similar to that of the
main channel bed.
Dr O’Sullivan stated that he did not carry out separate calculations but
included the topographical survey data of the cross sections in the model. He
stated that the total flow has to be constant from one cross section to the next
cross section and that the total flow in one section has to be equal to another
cross section downstream. In reply at a later stage in proceeding to Mr
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 16Brown’s enquiry Dr. O’Sullivan confirmed that he assumption that flow rates
are constant between Greens Bridge and the scheme location are constant,
under steady state conditions. He referred to the hydrograph of the 100 year
design flood and indicated that for a two hour period the flow is constant
thorough Greens Bridge and the scheme bridge.
As the model is a one dimensional model, according to Dr. O’Sullivan, it would
not pick up the level of detail Mr Brown was enquiring about with regard to the
determination of the direction of flow in the floodplain.
Mr Brown enquired about the duration of inundation of the floodplain in a
typical flood and reference was made to the hydrograph in the EIS. (Vol 2
page 85) Mr Brown also enquired about annual flooding characteristics as
opposed to the 100 year flood.
Dr. O’Sullivan agreed that the floodplain was inundated several times a year
and he had considered a range of flows with an expectation or assumption the
level would be exceeded on an annual or bi annual basis.
Mr Bain observed that the unobstructed flow rate would be in a reduced depth
of water in an area adjoin the scheme which is less than that at Greens Bridge
and queried whether the capacity at the main channel was less at Greens
Bridge and if there is any restriction in the rate of discharge at Johns Bridge
and Greens Bridge 8.
Dr O’Sullivan, using the term ‘rate of discharge’, (preferred as a more
appropriate term) observed that all bridges because they have a cross
sectional conveyance opening area will cause restrictions. Mr Bain contended
that it had been claimed that a bridge (proposed with one main span and
nineteen minor spans) would not cause restriction of flow in the floodplain.
He claimed that the scheme would cause a restriction in which the free flow
environment would be limited by forth percent in the floodplain between the
Bleach Road and the river channel. Dr. O’Sullivan responded that a
restriction should be considered in the context of the downstream control of
level and that models are executed with boundary conditions which in this
case were a downstream water level. He said that the model iteratively works
backwards to give the backwater profile at the upstream cross sections. If the
upstream water level as affected by a tight contraction on a bridge the level
would increase with a rising level, water is stored and an extra head of water
is formed which drives or forces the water through the bridge. Mr Bain
confirmed that he agreed with this explanation.
Mr Bain observed that if restriction of the contracted route causes a rise on
the upstream a further restriction on a floodplain would cause a rise in the
water levels on the flood plain. A restriction at Greens Bridge and a new
restriction in the flood plain limiting the quality of land (by forty percent of that
which is available) cause water levels to rise upstream. Dr. O’Sullivan agreed
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 17that a restriction would be caused. He referred back to the statement of
evidence stating the modelling provided for assessment of the impact.
Dr O’Sullivan in response to Mr Harte stated that he investigated a solid
embankment across the floodplain with a single opening for the bridge which
would have had no connectivity north and south. He indicated that the
increase in afflux / water level would have been 1.5 metres and Mr Harte
observed that the option incorporating the culverts mitigated that possibility
down to the 0.3 indicated in the modelling for a 100 year flood plus climate
change factor. Dr. O’Sullivan confirmed to Mr. Bain that a suspension bridge,
(with spans separated by two piers) would have had an obstruction impact of
0.01 metres.
With regard to the culvert design, Mr. Brown enquired as to whether the
selected ‘box’ culvert design was optimal for the scheme. Dr O’Sullivan
replied that the most important consideration was the conveyance area which
in an arched culvert option would be slightly less than the thirty metres area
for the box culvert. Mr Harte added that the conveyance area of the lower
part of the boxed culvert thirty two metres is an advantage.
Mr Brown enquired if boxed culvert height was 4.5 metres and the alternative
was 3.6 metres and about height of the flow of water at the peak during a
flood season and Mr Bain enquired about the depth of the flood in the flood
season. Mr Brown considered this information to be vital for design purposes
and several observations and questions of this nature were then addressed to
Dr O’Sullivan. Dr. O’Sullivan said an allowance had been made in analysis, in
that the model has a concrete base and arch which enabled him to input an
allowance for friction. He confirmed that while he did not have enough
information to give complete answers he had observed the inundation of
Bleach Road rising and continuing to do so on the day of the worst flood event
in October 2010 when a rate of 200 m3/s observed. The flood had peaked
some hours after his visit.
Dr O’Sullivan said that design flow is the central consideration in the
modelling exercise (for a 100 year flood and 100 year plus 20 percent climate
factor in this instance). There was evidence of an extreme water level of 2.7
metres. As recommended the data used by the OPW in the Flood Defence
Scheme was used. (The design flow in the modelling for the River Nore and
the River Breagagh was 440m3/s and 35 m3/s for the 100 year flood and 530
m3/s and 40 m3/s inclusive of the climate change factor and these figures
were used in the hydrograph calculations.)
Dr O’Sullivan in response to enquiries about his knowledge of flooding in the
area in recent years stated that he had looked at local data and that levels
recorded had been provided to him by the landowners which had been used
in checking the calibration of the model. He had tried to gather information
also about historical floods. The landowners had identified a mark on a
telegraph pole from which data for the 2009 flood had been inputted into the
model and it yielded an over prediction of 0.2 metres . Levels provided by Mr
O’Shea had also been provided and used in verification and calibration.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 18The discussion 9 was then centred on the question of additional height, flow
and velocity downstream of the structure, following contraction and expansion
of waters when forced through the culvert embankment. Dr. O’Sullivan
agreed that this would occur over a distance of 1.88 km and additional
latitudinal spread of inundation the duration for the escape of the waters from
the embankment for draining back from the flooded areas to into the river from
which was uncertain.
In discussion on sedimentation and erosion Dr O’Sullivan stated that the one
dimensional model that had been used would not provide any predictions as
the mosaic of actual flow rates may differ. The model could give an indication
as to the predicted area and average velocity of flow on the floodplain but it
would not allow for differentiation between the main river channel and the left
and right or east and west overbanks. It would just average out and apportion
the result between the areas.
Mr Bain observed that the design did not include details for the leading and
the trailing edges of the culverts. There were no protective measures around
the edges of the culverts and downstream the increase in flows of water in
these areas would increase erosion. Dr. O’Sullivan agreed that the
contraction and expansion on passing through the culverts would generate
force. He considered the contraction or reduction, from thirteen metres to ten
metres was not severe whereas Mr Bain said that the reduction would in the
360 (metre width of the floodplain between Bleach Road and the river) to 160
metres.
Mr Brown enquired as to the latitudinal spread of the floodplain and Dr.
O’Sullivan in referring to the drawings indicated the area 0.3 metres (Drawing
NO 07 088 1027 refers Document 3 (a) Appendix C)
Mr. O’Shea agreed with the inspector that he agreed that the scheme was not
itself a flood relief scheme and that the purpose in the design and in EIS was
to complete a road scheme without changing the existing situation. He not
agree that details provided to Local authority officials about water levels could
be regarded as “evidential” as, (for example) metre sticks had not been
erected on his property.
Mr O’Shea enquired about storage for run-off from the road, (at operational
stage) and Dr O’Sullivan explained that there would be no storage and storm
water would pass through interceptors beneath the carriageway. Mr Emerson
explained that the reason for the and six metres height above ground level for
the scheme is to allow for a three metres for the 100 year flood and an
addition additional 300 for freeboard which also accounts for climate change
factor. Mr Emerson also explained that the height is necessary to
accommodate the culverts and the underpasses in the embankment.
9
No electronic record is available of the remainder of the discussion.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 19Mr Emerson and Mr Harte and Dr O’Sullivan also assured Mr. O’Shea in
response to his enquiry, that there is no effect on the stream to the east of his
property which causes ponding in that it is a separate unrelated water course.
Mr. Kilfeather (Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI) drew attention to his prior written
submission and confirmed that he did not have a statement of evidence to
present to the hearing. He confirmed that IFI acknowledged that Local
Authority’s undertaking to meet the requirements of the IFI.
With reference to the EIS and the evidence at the Hearing, he stated that it
was his understanding that Dr. O’Sullivan confirms that the worst case
scenario is that an additional 0.3 metres over a distance of 1.88 km would
occur and that approximately 1,000 square metres of additional area would be
inundated. He commented that he was not totally at ease with the apparent
increase and the additional are of inundation.
Dr O’Sullivan in response to Mr Kilfeather stated that the culverts on the north
side of the Bleach Road is an area for water storage until the water rises and
reaches the level, across the road between the flood plains across the road.
Bleach Road. He referred to maintaining the hydraulic connectivity through
the embankment and changing the manner in which the additional water
drains. He pointed out that the control is not in the culverts but in the level of
the river itself. Mr Kilfeather stated that his understanding through the
evidence at the Hearing as regards for achieving insignificant change in the
behaviour of the river and floodplains in the design had improved.
7. Statement of Evidence – Noise and Vibration - Jennifer Harmon.
Ms Harmon of AWN Consulting, confirmed that she had prepared the Noise
Impact Assessment for the EIS which involved a baseline noise survey, a
noise model of the route a noise impact assessment and a determination of
noise impact measures.
The baseline, conducted in accordance with the “Guidelines for the Treatment
of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes” NRA 2004. Six
unattended and one twenty four hour attended locations were monitored in
14th February 2013 the results are in Table 11.3 Vol. 3 and Appendix M of Vol.
4 of the EIS.
The Impact Assessment for the Operational Stage was conducted using an
acoustic modelling package that incorporated various stages of the
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) generated predicted noise levels
from the road scheme taking account source characteristics and propagation
of sound. Models were developed for two scenarios – “do nothing” and “do
something” incorporating the purposes scheme for the proposed opening year
(2019) and the design year, 2034. Twenty three receiver locations (shown in
figure 11.2 of Vol 3 of the EIS) were assessed with the relevant Lden value
being calculated taking into account various factors that contribute to road
noise.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 20The scheme design includes a low noise surface along the entire length that
reduces the noise by 2.5 dB(A) (which is incorporated into the model
calculations for the ‘do something’ scenario) relative to hot rolled asphalt.
Two of the twenty three locations required further noise mitigation, a location
at the Aut Even Hospital and a location to the north east of the Weirview
Residential estate. Noise barriers are to be located between chainage 210
and 340 and between chainage 1300 and 1440 on the south side of the
scheme. Ms Harmon in response to the inspector stated that there are a
number of low noise surfaces materials but that it was likely that a thin surface
layer would be selected as the low noise surface for noise reduction. This
surface had more or less superseded the porous asphalt surfaces previously
used.
For the construction stage compliance with standards and criteria, in terms of
noise and vibration, taken from the NRA guidance and set out in Tables 11.1
and 11.11 of Vol2 of the EIS will be required. Noise levels from plant and
equipment at various distance were calculated. (Tables 11.8-11.10 EIS Vol 2)
and it is established that a daytime limit of 70 dBLaeq/1hr at a fifty metre
distance will not be exceeded.
Mitigation requiring compliance with noise abatement measures and
construction noise criteria, including the recommendations in BS 5228 Part 1
(2009) for noise and vibration are to be included in the contract documents
required and provided for in the contract documents.
It is stated that the request of the landowners, Messrs Guilefoyle, Donegan
and Holohan for erection of a sound barrier and screening along the entire
northern boundary of the land take is not warranted as it is shown that
operational and construction noise levels would be below the limits that would
warrant it. It is stated that the request in the submission of Mr. O’Shea for a
sound barrier along the entire southern boundary of the scheme was not
warranted as operational and construction noise levels would be below the
design criterion of 60 dB Lden. Similarly, further noise mitigation such as a
noise barrier at his property which she had modelled following receipt of his
objection was not necessary. At his request a receptor had been located and
modelled at the rear of his property which indicated a level below55dBden for
the “Do something option” for the design year of 2034. The model
calculations had taken into account the ground level at his property, a low
noise road surface, traffic volumes and speed in addition to the factors
already used in the model, such as distance (which is 240 metre north of his
property).
In response to issues referred to Mr Harte, the CPO parties, and the
inspector, Ms Harmon clarified and confirmed some of the details within her
statement of evidence including mitigation on the contract documents that
would require the contractor to take abatement measures and comply with
noise criteria set out in a British Standards document, particularly in relation
plant and equipment.
HA43 and KA 0029 Appendices. Page 21You can also read
