Friends of the Irish Environment 
The Secretary, 
An Bord Pleanala, 							13 May, 1999
Irish Life Building, 
Lower Abbey Street, 
Dublin 1 

Appeal Against Grant of Planning Permission 
Local Authority: Dublin Corporation 
Planning Reference number: 3730/98 
Date of notification of intention to grant: 14 April, 1999 
Location: Ballymun, Dublin 11 

Proposed Development: demolition and reconstruction of dwellings on a site bounded by Balcurris Road, Balcurris Gardens, and Ard Na Meala 
Applicant: Ballymun Regeneration, Ltd., Stormanstown House, Ballymun, Dublin 11 

1. INTRODUCTION 
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
3. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 
3.1 BACKGROUND 
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 
3.3 MITIGATION 
3.3.1 ATTENUATION POND MITIGATION 
3.3.2 DESIGN TARGET MITIGATION 
3.3.3 MITIGATION COSTING 
3.4 OFF SITE DISPOSAL 
4. CONCLUSION 

1.	INTRODUCTION 

Friends of the Irish Environment and D. Robert Guillemot respectfully request An Bord Pleanala to refuse a grant of permission for this application because the assessment of the project is insufficient to give any reasonable certainty that the development, if permitted, would not endanger the health and safety of the residents occupying the proposed development by way of inadequate infrastructure, with further negative impacts on many other residential developments adjoining this structure and on residents beyond the boundaries of the development site. 
The purpose of this appeal is to demonstrate that the failure of the applicant to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment for this or for any of the 12 related applications did not enable the planning authority to fully assess the infrastructural implications of the proposal or permit the public to examine in detail plans which would affect their health and safety before development consent was given. 

The appellants would like to clearly state that they are aware of the great need for the regeneration of Ballymun and are entirely in accord with the policy of the Government and the applicant, Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., to complete the "virtuous cycle of economic regeneration". 

Our appeal is not lodged to cause a delay to this important urban initiative, but to point out that the project has not had a full Environmental Impact Statement and has not been subject to a rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment. There are questions critical to proper planning and orderly development and to public health and the environment that have not been given the consideration a project of this magnitude requires. Our appeal is, in part, to help alert the planning authorities to the probability that some of the mistakes of history appear about to be repeated in the future. 
It is beyond the resources of the appellants to assess and if need be to appeal all the applications which relate to even the first tranche of notices of intention to grant planning permission relating to the largest urban renewal in the history of the State - and perhaps in Europe. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that each single application contributes to the demand on the infrastructure of the entire project. The individual contributions and the interaction of all the parts must be analysed before the whole can be assessed. 
It is, further, beyond the resources of the appellants to consider all the matters which should have been covered in an Environmental Impact Statement. 
We are not able to consider many of the cogent arguments expressed to us by residents which we do not believe have been clarified by the development process. 
We list these below and submit that An Bord Pleanala should consider them in their own Environmental Impact Assessment of this development: 

¨ a failure to use the consultation process to consult before decision making, instead using the process only to inform 
¨ the requirement of this application to demolish the dwellings of 72 occupied flats to be replaced with 57 new units, apparently rendering the necessity of "double moves" which it is an objective to avoid and which demonstrates the need to consider the project as a whole 
¨ the failure to supply the density of the proposed development when completed, the total number of dwellings proposed, and the exact breakdown between private and public housing 
¨ the failure to fully consider the implications of the existing "pilot" refurbishment and the question of its economic viability as part of the environmental assessment process 
¨ the failure to consider alternatives to total demolition, in particular improved maintenance and management systems (In fact the Environmental Appraisal produced refers to a report on alternatives which found that the existing buildings are "inherently robust".) 
¨ the use of plaster board as a building material and the use of flat roofs as a design element in an area renowned for dampness where both have contributed substantially to the current poor living conditions 
¨ the failure to consider the security of the ground floor windows and external ground floor gas heating vents given the current situation with window security up to the fourth floor 
¨ the sale of public land to private developers in Poppintree Park, particularly the 26.5 hectare existing railed section [see our Observations on 3729/98 and 3663/98] 
¨ the failure to use the appropriate legal recourse to extinguish rights of way and Dublin Corporation's breach of its statutory obligation to protect such rights of way in that they granted development consent which would physically make the exercise of the rights of way impossible 
¨ the failure of the consultation process to fully consider the issue of sale of flats (as opposed to houses) or the rental to others and to fully and properly quantify the resident's desired housing 
¨ the failure to provide maintenance commitments in any meaningful detail (including costing to future tenants), given that poor maintenance has been - along with the original design - the greatest single contributing factor to the failure of Ballymun to provide its residents with a decent environment in which to live and work 
¨ the division of integral units that share road access, courtyards and boundaries into separate planning applications which had the effect of avoiding the legal environmental assessment threshold [see our Observations on 3729/98 and 3663/98]. 
Instead we have selected just one component of this large development in order to illustrate how even the most basic considerations for sustainable development has been inadequately covered in the planning application. 
The focus of our appeal is the present and future drainage of the Ballymun area and the large part of North Dublin down gradient from Ballymun. It appears that there is a serious drainage problem in the area at present. We intend to try to describe the present infrastructure for this drainage and try to assess the impact of the proposed re-development on this existing infrastructure and the proposed mitigation measures detailed in the "Environmental Appraisal of the Ballymun Masterplan in the Dublin Corporation Area" [Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., undated, hereafter the Appraisal]. Consequently, we will examine only the matter of surface water drainage, the infrastructure proposed for this drainage, and the relevant proposed mitigation detailed in the Appraisal. 
In summary we demonstrate: 

¨ that the proposed development will contribute to a doubling of the current surface water flow 

¨ that the mitigation measures proposed have not been detailed in the course of the planning process in sufficient detail to enable them to be professionally assessed 

¨ that the "design target" mitigation has not been designed to date and that no time table has been provided for its design or implementation and that this is too critical to allow for subsequent agreement between the applicant and the local authority as per the relevant condition 

¨ that the mitigation measures proposed are not allowed for in the costings of the project 

¨ that the mitigation proposals have not been detailed on the Masterplan or elsewhere 

¨ that in so far as we have been able to assess them, the mitigation proposals will not perform the intended function 

¨ that the infrastructure for surface water drainage in this area of North Dublin is not capable of receiving the excess flow which will be discharged off site due to the redevelopment and that Dublin Corporation appears to have no intention to undertake such work in the foreseeable future 

¨ and therefore that the inevitable increase in the existing flooding will be the cause of danger to public health and disruption to the public over a wide area. 

Finally, we urge An Bord Pleanala to seek appropriate legal advice as to possible action in regard to the other applications of which this appeal is but one. 
We would also suggest that such a legal review includes an examination of the applicants' landholdings in the area in regard to infrastructural development given the contents of Section 26 (2) (a) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963. This section deals with the right of a planning authority to regulate the "development or use of any land which adjoins, abuts, or is adjacent to the land to be developed and which is under the control of the applicant, so far as appears to the planning authority to be expedient for the purposes of or in connection with the development authorized by the permission." 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
The appellant raised the failure of the applicant to provide and Environmental Impact Statement and of the planning authority to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment in his objection to the planning application. The planning report addresses the issue but does not accept this point. To quote: "It is noted that although an environmental impact study [sic.] was not required for a development of this size, an environmental assessment of the Masterplan as a whole was carried out and copies submitted with the application." 
The Masterplan [Ballymun Masterplan, Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., 1998, hereafter the Masterplan] deals with the question of an Environmental Impact Assessment in Section 11.6. We give the full text: 
"The legislative requirements relating to EIAs are contained in the European Communities (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 and 1984, together with the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1989 and 1994, as amended. 
"Any development that exceeds the threshold set out in this legislation will have an Environmental Impact Statement prepared and this will be submitted with any planning application. In addition where a proposal falls within a development category but it is below the threshold required, but in the opinion of the planning authority an Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary, one will be prepared and submitted with the application. 
"To commence the formulation of an Environmental Impact Assessment the scope of a Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared. The provisional assessment of the sustainability of the current Masterplan is set out in Section 31." 
The Introduction to the " Appraisal" of this Masterplan states [1.0]: "There is no statutory obligation to produce an Environmental Impact Statement for the Ballymun Masterplan since the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations relate to development projects rather than plans." 
The requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments are set out in the European Communities Regulations, 1989 and article 24 of the Local (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1989 and 1994. The existing development at Ballymun is given as 112 hectares of "hard surface area" in the Masterplan which states that the proposal will add a further 122 hectares as well as rebuilding the existing areas, giving a total area of 234 hectares of proposed development. The threshold for mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments for urban renewal in Article 24 of the above regulations is 2 [two] hectares. 
Although we have examined 13 applications relating to the first phases of the project, not one has been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement - and consequently infrastructure matters such as surface water drainage have not been properly assessed. 

3. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE IMPACTS 
3.1 BACKGROUND 
The Ballymun area is a gently sloping elevated area between the Santry and Tolka river catchments. The main surface water course in the area was and is the Wad River. The general drainage direction is towards the south and east. 
The land surface is underlain by thick Boulder Clays or Glacial Till. These clayey deposits were consolidated by the pressure of ice sheets and they have a low permeability. In a natural or undeveloped state it would be expected that, during heavy or prolonged rainfall, water would pond, flood and flow on the surface rather than seep into the ground. Adequate surface drainage is therefore an essential pre-requisite for the urban development of this area. 
The surface water collection system for the present urban development at Ballymun is not adequate. Flooding is common, particularly in the 2 storey housing area and the playing fields. "The existing pitches are constrained in their usage by poor drainage" [Appraisal 4.2.2: Recreational and Amenity Facilities]. "Housing in Balcurris, Sandyhill, Ard na Meala, Coultry, Shangan and Sillogue, known locally as the "timber clad houses" have severe drainage problems." [Appraisal 2.1.8: Housing] 
This is not surprising given that the name Balcurris is interpreted to mean a weir. The Rivers of Dublin [Clair Sweeney, Dublin Corporation, 1991] suggests there were many such weirs north of the Tolka. Oral history relates that there was a marsh at this location which was first drained in 1845. The proposed structure in the current application on the green field section is located directly at the centre of this historic marsh. 
The appellants have previously raised this matter in their objection to the planning authority. The planning report inaccurately transcribes this complaint with no comment whatsoever. The objection referred to the "river and marsh" at the subject site. The planning report gives this as "rider and marsh". 
During periods of winter rainfall there is a small lake on the proposed site; both Garda cars and fire engines have been mired at this location. The regular flooding of the playground at Balcurris during winter conditions has long provided the children of the area with an ice skating rink in frosty weather. The water also accumulates between Block D and Block E of Balcurris Road. It is said that the stench of raw sewage from the houses in Balcurris Gardens is the normal condition in hot and wet summers and this smell was clearly present this year as early as March 12, 1999. The residents in Balbutcher have extensive experience of flooded basements. We suggest An Bord Pleanala's inspector visit these locations himself to verify our information. 
Further from the subject site, Margaret's Road is subject to serious flooding; the access to the motorway at Ballymun Road is regularly flooded; the football pitches to the west of the access are transformed into semi-permanent lakes during periods of prolonged inclement weather. 
The applicants readily acknowledges that the drainage is inadequate. The Appraisal baldly states, the "capacity of the Wad River is not adequate for current inflows and the adjacent areas are regularly flooded." [Appraisal 10.2.1] 
We would refer An Bord Pleanala to a letter of 11 March, 1999 from Gerry O'Donoghue, Chief Regional Officer of Dublin Corporation, to the Chairman and Members of the Special Committee for Ballymun. [Attached Appendix II.] In this letter, the Corporation Chief Regional Officer states that he is "aware of the difficulties which residents in the area have with the flooding of footpaths and entrances to their homes". 
He refers to a 1996 report of John Moylan and Associate Consulting Engineers in relation to the assessment and remediation of underground services of the "five garden" areas - which includes the subject site. The cost estimated for these remedial works was IR£ 2,970,000, plus VAT, plus work on mainline sewers, public lighting, and professional fees. [This report is listed in the Appraisal "References", pp. 99 - 100.] 
To quote further from this letter: "In February 1997, Dublin Corporation wrote to the Department of the Environment recommending and advising on the remedial works required. A copy of the consultants [sic.] report commissioned on the underground services was enclosed with this letter and a request that the Department note the report in the context of the overall redevelopment proposals for Dublin. The response from the Department was that they were awaiting the outcome of the Masterplan. The Masterplan subsequently recommends that these works should be carried out." 
"To date", the Chief Regional Officer continues more than two years after the Corporation had written to the Department of the Environment with these recommendations and well after the planning applications had been submitted, "no response has been received approving funding for the upgrading of the underground services in the area." While Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. has "advised the Corporation that they will be replacing a large amount of the main draining throughout Ballymun", the Chief Regional Officer told the Special Committee for Ballymun that Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. had now informed him that "until designs for the new drainage infrastructure have been fully developed, which won't be finalised for a number of months, it will not be possible to indicate the extent of the improvements which will be carried out or the timetable for such improvements." 
The Corporation Chief Regional Officer concludes by suggesting that residents contact the regional office to make arrangements to have the drains "blown" to "provide interim relief from the flooding." 
We believe that Dublin Corporation should have placed this letter on the planning file for these applications. 
It is clearly evident to the residents, the applicants, the Corporation and the Department of Environment and Local Government that drainage in the present Ballymun area and the down stream areas of north Dublin is seriously inadequate. 
It is clearly evident that this problem needs to be resolved simply to sustain the current extent of development in the area; yet it appears that the Department of Environment and Local Government have made it quite clear that funding the work necessary to resolve this problem is not a priority [Appendix III]. 
The design and construction of a fully adequate drainage system with a timetable for its implementation must be an essential pre-requisite before further development can be contemplated or carried out at this location. It appears therefore that the proposed development is a premature development. 

3.2 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE WITHIN BALLYMUN 
We submit that until a fully adequate drainage system is designed, the development should not be approved. We submit that the major and minor details of any new or revised drainage scheme should be coherent and the impact of such a scheme for Ballymun and the areas down gradient should be comprehensively assessed. 
Below we try to appraise the assessment of the present and future drainage provisions that are contained in the Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. documents. We refer the Board to the single page in the Appraisal that deals with surface water drainage which we attach to this appeal as Appendix I. 
At the moment the hard surface contributing area in Ballymun is 112 hectares in the Wad River catchment which is given in Sweeney's The Rivers of Dublin as having been some 758 hectares. The Wad drainage system has been modified in several ways in recent years. 
The "nett equivalent impermeable area" of the present Ballymun area is given as 150 hectares. The term "nett equivalent impermeable area" is not clearly defined in the Appraisal produced by the applicant. It is assumed to mean the area of impermeable hard standing plus an assumed equivalent area of hardstanding taken to represent the run off from the remaining ground. 
The applicant has taken the example of a rainfall event that has an intensity of 30mm per hour in order to calculate the surface water runoff from both the present and the proposed development. The applicant has calculated that with a nett impermeable area of 150 hectares there will be a flood generated with a flow of 12.5 cubic metres per second. 
We would draw the Board's attention to the distinction made in the Appraisal [10.2: SURFACE WATER] between "hard surface contributing area" and "nett impermeable area". 
Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. proposes to more than double the hard surface area from 112 to 234 hectares - an increase of 122 hectares. 
When the applicants discuss the existing Ballymun, they adjust the 112 hectares of hard surface contributing area to 150 hectares of total nett equivalent impermeable area [20.2.1: Receiving Environment]. However the applicants do not calculate the nett impermeable area for the proposed development's new hard surface contributing area of 234 hectares. Nor have the applicants calculated the expected run off from a 30mm rainfall event for this nett impermeable area. 
We estimate that with an extra 122 hectares of hard surface contributing area that conservatively there could be an extra nett impermeable area of about 140 hectares - i.e. a new total nett impermeable area of about 290 hectares. If this estimate is correct then the flow during a 30mm rainfall event would be approximately 24.2 cubic metres per second, i.e. nearly twice the present flow under such conditions. 
The volume of run off in one hour from the whole proposed development would be 87,000 cubic metres. The run off for the existing development would be 45,000 cubic metres. 
The lack of clear estimates by the applicants illustrates the requirement for a full and detailed independent Environmental Impact Assessment of the whole Ballymun proposed development. 
We will return to this disparity in our final calculations relating to the amount of discharge off site and the mitigation measures proposed. 

3.3 MITIGATION 
It is proposed to mitigate a part of the new flow. There is no proposal to mitigate the existing flooding. The existing flooding and the unmitigated flow from the new development are both given as to be dealt with "off site". We will examine this in due course. 
The Appraisal states that a report was drawn up for Dublin Corporation in 1997 which "identified the significant deficiencies and defects in the design detailing and the construction of the roads and services in the estate and recommends considerable ameliorative actions" [Appraisal 2.1.8]. We will see below in a letter from the Acting Dublin City Manager [Appendix III] how totally ineffective this report has been in ensuring that the present failures of development are rectified, let alone in preparing for any increase of the demand on the inadequate drainage infrastructure. In the meantime, we will examine the proposals for mitigation. 
There two methods of mitigation suggested. "Attenuation ponds" will take 4.1 cubic meters/sec. "Design factors" will take 3 or 4 cubic metres/sec. 
In essence, mitigation of surface water flows is achieved by the temporary storage of water during storm conditions. This water is then released after the storm has passed. Both attenuation ponds and design factors (presumably oversized pipes) aim to achieve this storage. 

3.3.1 ATTENUATION PONDS MITIGATION 
To give the Board some idea of the size of the attenuation ponds required to mitigate the proposed expansion of the nett impermeable area of Ballymun, the increased flow would require space to accommodate 42,000 cubic metres of water which would be equivalent to 28 empty Olympic sized swimming pools 50 metres long, 15 metres wide, and 2 metres deep for every hour of rain. 

It is proposed that the attenuation ponds will neutralise 50 hectares of the 122 hectare increase in just the hard surface area. These ponds are to take 4.1 cubic meters per second. Three attenuation ponds are proposed. The Appraisal states that one is to be in the business park, one at the designated 3rd level educational facility, and one on the northern boundary. We have not been unable to find any drawings of these ponds and they do not appear to be on the Masterplan map. This mitigation would require ten of our Olympic sized pools. Since provision is made only for three such "ponds", each would have to be 15 meters wide, 2 meters deep, and 150 meters long. 
What does the applicant mean when he says these mitigation ponds will "neutralise" the surface water drainage of 50 hectares of the nett impenetrable area? Does he mean to "counterbalance; render ineffective by an opposite force or effect"? Or does he mean "to make (a person) harmless or ineffective; to kill - to destroy?" [Oxford Concise Dictionary, 9th Edition, 1995, hereafter OCD]. 
Presumably he extends the meaning "exempt or exclude (a place) from the sphere of hostilities" to mean "store in a separate place". How long does he propose to store it, given that each hour of flood conditions is filling 28 Olympic sized swimming pools? 
What area would be required for these ponds and their curtiledge? What would be the surface area of the ponds in non-flood conditions? What would be the surface area require to provide attenuation during flood conditions? What would these ponds be surfaced with? What would they look like empty almost all year? What dangers to they pose to public safety? What fencing or security will they require? What management? 
As they are all apparently located to the north of the proposed development and there is a substantial fall in ground to the south, what would be the catchment area for these ponds? To what depth would they have to be excavated to be able to receive by gravity flow the drainage from the promised 50 hectares? Can 50 hectares be drained by gravity given the location of the ponds on the Northern (higher) extremity of the development or is it intended to pump the water uphill to the ponds and what would be the cost of this and the implications for the sustainability of the development? What other examples of the use of attenuation ponds for projects of this scale have been examined by the applicant and what are the relevant best practices elsewhere? 

3.3.2 DESIGN TARGET MITIGATION 
A further 36 hectares of catchment will be mitigated by the "design target" of 3 cubic meters/sec. What is this "design target"; who has determined it by what process using what factors? Is not a target by definition merely aspirational? ["An objective or result aimed at (our export targets; target date)." OCD] 
We presume or guess that this unclear term "design target" relates to the possibility of over sizing the pipes "to provide in-pipe storage, where this is economically viable." [Appraisal 10.2.2] What is and what is not economically viable in terms of the "virtuous cycle of economic regeneration"? 
As the current storm flow is 12.5 cubic meters per second and creates flooding, this measure alone will presumably require an increase in the capacity simply to prevent any further increase in flooding. How large will the new pipes have to be to be able to act as a reservoir; what excavations will be required to take them; where will these excavations take place; what impact in terms of planning and orderly development will these excavations have? 

3.2.3 MITIGATION COSTS 
Large and numerous attenuation ponds have not been used on any other similar housing scheme to our knowledge. Nor has any other Dublin housing scheme used oversized pipes to act as a water reservoir on anything like this scale. 
Yet the site development costs state "Allowance has been made for site clearance and foul and surface water sewers based on historic data from similar housing schemes". [Masterplan 20.1.3: Site Development Costs] 
The specialised nature of the mitigation measures proposed and the scale of the mitigation are clearly going to entail substantial costs that far exceed anything in "similar housing schemes". 

3.4. OFF SITE DISPOSAL 
There then remains the Appraisal's 4 cubic meters negative flow impact that is not to be mitigated, even if the above measure are put in place. "This negative impact will require additional mitigating measures off site." [Appraisal 10.2.2] 
Returning to our comment above about the failure of the Appraisal to translate the additional areas hard surface area into nett impermeable area, we estimate that with a nett impermeable area of 290 hectares the flow will be about 24.2 cubic metres per second. We therefore do not know where this figure of 4 cubic metres per second comes from. If the existing flow is 12.5 cubic meters and mitigation by ponds and oversized pipes for the extra flow is 7.1 cubic meters then the total is 19.6 cubic metres per second. 
This gives a negative impact AFTER all mitigating measures of 4.6 cubic meters per second, an increase of more than 36% on the current peak off site flow, for which the infrastructure is already stated by the applicant to be inadequate. 
This flow will "require additional mitigation measures off site". We would suggest that this would place unsustainable pressures on the 36 inch diameter Wad River Dublin Corporation drain that is already flooding and for which no provision has been made for its replacement or augmentation. 
There appear to be two existing main Corporation drains under Ballymun. One begins at the corner of Poppintree Industrial Estate and the north east corner of Poppintree Park, flowing along the northern edge of Poppintree Park to leave Ballymun at Pinewood Crescent, where it joins the Claremont Stream. The overfall goes into the Wad River drain. 
The other main drain comes in from the Balbutcher Roundabout and from Balcurris Gardens to join and flow south, entering the Wad River just below where the overflow from the first drain and the Claremont Stream enters the Wad. 
The Wad proceeds to the south east along the southern boundary of Ballymun just above the neighbouring Pinewood Estate, continuing just to the North of Willow Park to the Wad Bridge. This appears from the Appraisal to currently take 20% of the surface water drainage from Ballymun. 
The Appraisal states that 80% of the development is drained down Ballymun Road to discharge into the culverted Wad River "which is not adequate for the current inflows and the adjacent areas are regularly flooded". 
The capacity of the Wad River is given in The Rivers of Dublin as a 36 inch diameter pipe. However, the Wad River Diversion, which appears to start at the Wad Bridge, has paralleled this pipe with "the new 48 inch and 54 inch diameter pipes". 
It is not clear from the Appraisal exactly where the "choke" is that is causing the flooding at the Wad River, but The Rivers of Dublin demonstrates clearly that the Wad runs eastward to the point where the Swords Road joins the M 50 Airport Road. This is an area which is subject to regular floods and which was dramatically flooded in June of 1997, leading to delays in flights at Dublin airport as intending passengers were delayed for four hours at the flooded entrance to the motorway. 
The part of the flood which finally makes it way down Ballymun Road to enter the Wad River is mainly taken by the Wad River Diversion almost directly to the Tolka River at Drumcondra. The Tolka receives much of the water across north Dublin; this includes not only part of the surface water from Ballymun, but the flow from Finglas, Glasnevin, Drumcondra, Whitehall, and Marino. In fact the Irish meaning of the Tolka - "An Tulcal" - is "the flood". 
This flooding is detailed by Clair Sweeney in The Rivers of Dublin: "The Tolka River itself certainly won't be lost" - unlike the Wad - "because apart from it being clearly visible for all of its length in the city and county, it has a flooding record, particularly after prolonged and steady rainfall. Having a long narrow and flatish catchment it doesn't react quickly to sudden heavy cyclonic storms - unlike the Dodder River. At intervals of 10 to 15 years, it has manifest itself to many reluctant (resident) viewers with some unforgettable floods. Remember 8th of December, 1954." 
From a letter on the planning file from the Acting Assistant City Manager M. Twomey dated 16 March, 1999, [Appendix III] the current position of the Corporation in relation to the upgrading of the public drainage network is made clear. 
While the file appears incomplete, the Acting Assistant Manager does not accept the claims which he quotes from a letter from the Managing Director of Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. on 14 March, 1999 - two days earlier - that the drainage network is "clapped out" or "beyond its sell by date". As to the possibility that the off-site infrastructure receiving the flow of surface water will be improved either to cure the existing flooding or to receive the water that is not mitigated by the proposed development, the Assistant City Manager is crystal clear: "In terms of the city-wide network for both water and drainage the Ballymun Systems are relatively modern and certainly would not be replaced for many years and would be on a lower priority than say the Centre City Systems where pipes are in excess of 100 years old." 
We would suggest that this letter renders invalid the applicant's claim that any part of the proposed extension of the hard surface area's surface water drainage can be "disposed of off site", as even the existing flow is the source of entirely unacceptable living conditions that are a danger to public health and there is clearly no intention whatsoever of improving these facilities. 

5. CONCLUSION 
The appellants are aware that the delays consequent on this appeal, let alone the delays should the appeal be sustained, may result in enormous public disquiet and misunderstanding. But this appeal is the result of the failure of any real consultation process and the failure of the authority to reflect in practice national sustainability policies or the relevant legislation in regard to assessing the environmental impact of a proposed development. 
The appellants recognize the great and urgent need for the regeneration of Ballymun and the justifiable desire of a substantial proportion of the residents, especially those with children, for more traditional housing. We know that better community facilities are needed and support the concept of more traditional shopping streets and of preventing traffic through the community. 
But we do not believe from the evidence we have been able to find on the planning files that the applicant or the local authority demonstrated that the proposed development is the way to achieve these goals. We have examined only one aspect of the development in some detail. In this aspect, we have demonstrated that the present infrastructure is sub-standard and that the proposals for the future are vague and aspirational goals that melt away once they are properly scrutinised. 
We present documentation that shows that no plans have yet been prepared for the "design target" nor was provision made in the overall budget for the exceptional size of the drainage pipes required to achieve this target. The Appraisal specifically qualifies any possible use of this mitigation by stating "where this is economically viable" but gives us no information to assess this viability. 

We cannot find a single sign of the attenuation ponds, no measurements or drawing of any form. We cannot seriously believe that Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. has any intention of slipping several empty Olympic sized swimming pools into the proposal at the last moment. 

We present documentation [Appendix III] that suggests Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. itself was contemplating an appeal to An Bord Pleanala over the condition relating to drainage at Ballymun and the question of consequent development levies. We respectfully request An Bord Pleanala to obtain the entire correspondence between Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. and the Assistant City Manager in relation to this matter, specifically including the letter from Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. of 14 March, 1999, which the Assistant City Manager states alleges the current infrastructure is "clapped out" and "beyond its sell by date" and which letter we have not been able to find on the file. 

We also draw An Bord Pleanala's attention to the fact that our request to Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. for copies of technical reports relating to infrastructure was refused and that, in spite of repeated requests and our searches of all relevant files of Dublin Corporation including each of the 12 other applications relating to the subject site, we have been unable to find a copy of the Sanitary Engineer's Report for this project. We note in this regard that the planner's report under Interdepartmental Reports states under drainage "Require additional information on drainage connections". To our knowledge, this additional information has not yet been supplied. 
The development must not be permitted to proceed without a full assessment of the impact of problems such as we have identified in this appeal. This assessment must include detailed plans for mitigation of each and every adverse impact. These plans must have been fully costed and approved and must form a binding part of each and every development consent. 
Nor must the development be permitted to proceed until the position of Dublin Corporation in relation to the renewal of the surface water drains is brought to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and a timetable put in place for improvements that will permit the planned redevelopment of the largest urban project in the history of the state, starting with proposals that will rectify the existing system before any further construction can be considered. 
Finally, we request An Bord Pleanala to exercise its powers and request the Minister for the Environment to review the specific issues we have raised in this appeal which relate to the functions of Dublin Corporation in relation to proper planning and orderly development and the health and safety of the residents. 
It is an intolerable affront to human decency that not only must people live under these conditions, but that the competent public authority appears to be a party to an applicant ensuring that these unacceptable conditions not only will continue but will multiply into the indefinite future. 
If the Board does not refuse this application it will condemn the residents of Ballymun to live under conditions which would "endanger the health and safety", could be "prejudicial to public health" and would undoubtedly "seriously injure the amenities, or depreciate the value, of property in the area". 
These reasons for refusal given in Section 56 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 would also apply to those who, while they may live at some distance from Ballymun downstream of the site, still suffer from the deficient infrastructure that characterises hasty and ill considered modern urban development. 
Yours, etc 
Peter Sweetman (for Friends of the Irish Environment, Borrisoleigh, Co. Tipperary) 
And 
D. Robert Guillemot (437 Balcurris Road, Ballymun, Dublin 11) 
================ 
Enclosed: 
Appeal fee of £120.00 
Appendix I: Copy of page 85 of the Ballymun Environmental Appraisal [10.2 Surface Water] 
Appendix II: Copy of a letter dated 11 March, 1999, from Gerry O'Donohuge, Chief Regional Officer, Dublin Corporation, to the Chairman and Members of the Special Committee for Ballymun. 
Appendix III: Letter from M. Twomey, Acting Assistant City Manager, to Mr. C. Murray, Managing Director of Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., dated 18 March, 1999