Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Issue 1
01 October 2015
____________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
DOCUMENT CONTROL
15-195
Client Name:
Client Reference:
N/A
Project Name:
Report Title:
Volume No:
Document Status:
15-195-R.001
Issue No. 1
Issue No. 2
Issue No. 3
Author
Date
Approved by
Date
Brendan Walsh
21.09.15
Michael Hughes
01.10.15
Extent of Inspections
Where this Report is in connection with an inspection, note that we did not examine parts of the property/site/building
which were covered, unexposed or inaccessible and we are therefore unable to report that any such part is free from
defect. It should be assumed that no opening-up works, sampling, testing of materials, testing of drains or other
underground services was carried out, except as explicitly stated within this Report. Any inspection was therefore of a
superficial nature only.
Third Parties
This Report is for the sole use of the above named client. Merit Consulting accept no liability to any third party howsoever
arising from the use of this Report.
Exclusions
This Report specifically excludes the following areas (unless explicitly noted otherwise herein):Mechanical and Electrical Services
Architectural Matters (such as weathering, insulation, waterproofing, dpc, dpm etc)
Planning Issues
Fire Safety Issues
Asbestos
Health & Safety Issues
Property Valuations
____________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
WATER SUPPLY
8.0
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Merit Consulting Engineers have been appointed by The Jack and Jill Foundation to
assess a direct planning application to An Bord Pleanala under Section 37e of the
Planning and Development Acts 2000-2015 for the National Childrens Hospital at
the site of the existing hospital at St Jamess Hospital (SJH) Campus, Jamess Street,
Dublin 8.
1.2
The proposed NPHP at the St Jamess Hospital (SJH) development site comprises:
The new childrens hospital building located in the west of the SJH campus;
The Family Accommodation Unit (FAU) located at the western edge of the
SJH campus;
The Childrens Research and Innovation Centre (CRIC) site located near the
Jamess Street entrance of the SJH campus and;
The Davitt Road site located on Davitt Road between the Sperrin Road and
Kilworth Road junctions.
1.3
The key elements of the proposed development are indicated in Fig 1.1 overleaf.
This report presents various observations made in reviewing the proposed foul
drainage, surface water drainage, water supply, flood risk assessment and
construction management plan lodged with An Bord Pleanala in respect of the
proposed development.
1.4
1.5
This report will form part of the main objection being made by Cunnane Strattan
Reynolds (CSR) on behalf of The Jack and Jill Foundation.
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
2.0
2.1
A key engineering requirement of the project is the need to divert a major public
sewer which current traverses the site. The OCSC engineering services report states
as follows:
A trunk sewer, known as the Drimnagh Sewer, runs across the site of the new
childrens hospital from south to north. According to Our Good Health - A History of
Dublins Water and Drainage by Michael Corcoran (published by Dublin City Council,
2005), the Drimnagh Sewer was constructed around 1925-1926 to facilitate the
drainage of the Drimnagh, Crumlin and Rialto areas. When constructed, the sewer
crossed beneath the Grand Canal at Harberton Bridge before taking a course
northward. It was constructed as a tunnel under the old branch of the Grand Canal
(now used as the course of the Luas Red Line). The tunnel then entered the grounds
of the hospital and followed a northerly route to Mount Brown Road. From Mount
Brown Road, the combined sewer flows north to the South City Interceptor Sewer,
the maintrunk sewer in the area.
The Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme, which was completed in the 1980s, included
the construction of a new trunk sewer adjacent to the Grand Canal. This new sewer
(the Grand Canal Tunnel Sewer) intercepted the Drimnagh Sewer and collected flows
from its upper catchment. As a result of this, the Drimnagh Sewer at the new
childrens hospital site now serves primarily the catchment north of the Grand Canal,
i.e. Rialto. This catchment comprises an approximate area of 22ha and an estimated
700 houses.
From Rialto and northwards through the site of the new childrens hospital, the
Drimnagh Sewer comprises two 600mm-diameter pipelines. One of the pipelines is
designated for surface water and the other is a combined/foul pipeline. Each of the
manholes on the Drimnagh Sewer provides access to both the storm pipeline and the
combined/foul pipeline. In each of the manholes, a low wall separates the two
pipelines; this low wall behaves as an overflow weir in high flow conditions and so
each of the manholes acts as a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO).
It is proposed to divert the Drimnagh Sewer within the site of the new childrens
hospital. A number of options for the diversion of the sewer were assessed in a study
conducted by OCSC in consultation with Irish Water and DCC Drainage Division.
(OCSC Engineering Services Report).
2.2
2.3
At the proposed point of connection to the new 1000mm diameter sewer, a new
back drop manhole is proposed at DS-2 in place of a relatively consistent fall under
the current regime. This proposed backdrop is in the order of 3 meters in level
difference and will have an impact on the current flow conditions of the Drimnagh
Sewer. Furthermore, an extreme change in direction is now proposed at manhole
DS-5 which will also impact upon the current flow regime of the sewer.
2.4
With regard to drainage design calculations, no flows are indicated on the micro
drainage calculations appended to the OCSC Engineering Services Report for the
Drimnagh sewer. This raises the question as to how the 1000mm proposed sewer
has been sized.
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
2.5
2.6
Using a design foul flow from 700 dwellings (3 people per house, 225 litres/day) we
calculate that a peak flow (6 times dwf dry weather flow) of circa. 32 litres/second
is generated, which leaves a spare capacity in the proposed 1000mm sewer of 1668
litres/sec.
2.7
Adding to this the surface water runoff generated from the 22 hectares associated
with the above 700 dwellings (and assuming a 70% impermeable area at
50mm/hour rainfall intensity), we calculate that this generates a runoff rate of 2140
l/s.
2.8
Therefore this clearly exceeds the capacity in the proposed 1000mm sewer. We are
of the opinion based on the above that the 1000mm sewer is undersized. Our
conclusions in this regard are backed up by the fact that Atkins Development
Impact Assessment states that the sewer surcharges under relatively frequent
storms (1 in 2 year return period).
2.9
2.10
Section 5.4.7 suggests that the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study indicates
that the Drimnagh Sewer surcharges for the 1 in 2 year event and that because of
the depth of the sewer, no flooding occurs at ground level within the site. However
no allowances appear to have been made for what happens to the existing flows
from SJH and proposed flows from the Childrens Hospital in such a storm event,
when the flows are unable to discharge to an already surcharged Drimnagh Sewer.
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
3.0
3.1
OCSC carried out a site specific flood risk assessment based on the proposed
development.
3.2
The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning
Authorities (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government
and the Office of Public Works);
C624 Development and Flood Risk (Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, CIRIA) and;
Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017.
3.3
OPW Floodmaps.ie;
3.4
Figure 8 of the Flood Risk Assessment report indicates an ECFRAMS Flood Extents
map for the River Camac. Section 5.1.6 makes reference to this map highlighting
that Mount Brown Road is inundated for the 10%, 1.0% and 0.1% events.
3.5
The main vehicular access (cars and deliveries) in to the proposed new hospital is
off Mount Brown Road. Albeit that the Flood Risk Assessment has indicated that the
hospital basement levels will be above any flooding on Mount Brown Road, this
does not address the fact that the entrance is subject to flooding. We do not
consider it acceptable that the main vehicular entrance (cars and deliveries) to the
proposed National Childrens Hospital should be subject to this level of flood risk.
3.6
Figure 17 indicated revised overland flood routes compared with existing regimes.
The proposed route indicates that surface water shall runoff towards Mount Brown
Road, which is already vulnerable and prone to flooding.
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
4.0
4.1
An independent study was carried out by Atkins to assess the impact of the
proposed development on existing public foul and storm drainage networks outside
the boundary of the proposed development.
4.2
4.3
4.4
Section 5.4.13 of the Atkins report suggests that the development will not impact on
existing drainage. However increases in flood volumes and new flooding are
identified within the system, as a result of the proposed development. In this
regard, the justification test within the Flood Risk Assessment, item 2(i), suggests
that the development will not increase flooding elsewhere.
This conflicts with Table 7.1 below from the DIA report, which highlights certain
impacts on the existing drainage network.
4.6
We conclude that there is increased flood risk and that this has not been properly
assessed by OCSC and no indication has been given as to how it will be managed.
The site specific flood risk assessment and responses to the requirements of the
justification test are therefore inadequate.
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
5.0
5.1
We carried out an assessment of the proposed surface water drainage drawings and
accompanying calculations with regard to management of existing drainage from St
James campus and also from the proposed National Childrens Hospital.
5.2
Discharge from the NCH and FAU is proposed at 2 litres / second / hectare, equating
to 9.9 litre/second. Discharge from the CRIC is being limited to 4 litres/second.
There is no attenuation volume calculations included with the application. This is
unusual, as such calculations are normal minimum requirement of all local
authorities.
5.3
It is general practice to limit surface water runoff to Qbar (Q-bar = estimated mean
annual maximum Flood) or 2 litres/second/hectare, and to provide storage for the
1 in 100 year storm event, plus an allowance for climate change. However it is our
experience that Dublin City Council has over recent years, insisted on run-off from
developments being limited to 2 litres/second (i.e. regardless of site area). This is a
much more onerous requirement, especially for larger sites, and it is not clear from
the documents submitted whether these requirements have been met.
5.4
No allowance for future expansion has been expressed within the design of the
proposed surface water drainage scheme.
6.0
6.1
6.2
No flows rates have been indicated within the SJH sewer diversion design and as
such the design is at best incomplete and possibly flawed. Furthermore, with no
submitted information on flows, it is also difficult to assess the impact of this
discharge on the Drimnagh Sewer.
6.3
OCSC appear to have conflicting foul flow rates for the foul drainage serving the
Hospital. A flow figure of 222 litres/bed/day is quoted, but also Table 3.1 of the
OCSC engineering service report suggests 599 litres/bed/day.
We note that EPA Wastewater guidance recommends 250-350 litres/bed/day.
6.5
No allowance for future expansion has been expressed within the design of the
proposed foul drainage scheme.
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
7.0
WATER SUPPLY
7.1
It is stated in the OCSC engineering services report that Irish Water have confirmed
that there is generally good pressure and capacity in the area. We would question
what exactly this statement means. Confirmation should be sought that there will
be adequate water pressure and volume, for both the daily operation of the new
hospital, but also importantly in the event of a major fire incident.
7.2
Future expansions have not been taken in to account and the OCSC engineering
services report suggests that future expansion be addressed at a later stage under
separate planning applications. Therefore, while the existing system may have
capacity to serve the proposal, there appears to be no potential for future
expansion within the proposed watermain infrastructure.
7.3
The OCSC engineering services report makes reference to Dublin City Council
concerns regarding the current watermain layout and potential mixing of private
and public water supply. However these concerns appear not to have been
addressed in the proposed scheme.
8.0
8.1
8.2
The plan indicates that there could be between 900 and 1000 construction
personnel on site at the peak of construction. However the plan does not indicate
any proposals for how those 900-1000 construction personnel will travel to and
from the site, and specifically where they will park. It can be expected that the 9001000 construction personnel will be substantially made of numerous and various
sub-contractors who will have construction vans. If no specific provision is made for
parking, then these sub-contractors will park in the already heavily congested roads
and streets around the hospital campus.
8.3
The plan proposes 2 heights of temporary hoarding, 2.4m and 4.0m, at various
locations around the site. It is normal practice in city centre and heavily populated
locations that 3m high hoarding is the minimum height. Furthermore the report
suggests that 4m high mobile hoarding screens could be placed close to noisy
construction works and refers to a photograph in Fig 11. However the photograph
indicates a mobile screen system which is much higher than 4m (and by comparison
with the people in the photograph is evidently as high as 8 metres). Fig 11
misrepresents the 4m high screen being proposed.
8.4
A Fire Watch Regime is proposed for the construction activities, however no details
are given of what is proposed.
8.5
Wheel wash facilities and road sweepers are proposed, however no details are given
of what is proposed. Such facilities, if not properly implemented, maintained and
serviced, can actually cause the surrounding roads and streets to become even
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
10
15-195-R.001
Preliminary Report
dirtier, by simply moving the dirt around. Full details should be provided, including
frequency of water changes etc.
8.6
___________________________________________________________________
Merit Consulting
11
15-195-R.001
Merit Consulting
14-213-R.002