Much ado about nothing: how a 460-metre wall caused outrage
Environment Editor Paul Melia says local politicians want sea barrier to be finished as promised
TO THE untrained eye, it’s a fine wall. Not the prettiest, but solidly built to protect the north Dublin seafront from rising sea levels brought about by climate change.
But to Clontarf locals it’s a monstrosity, spoiling the sea view from St Anne’s Park to Bull Island and beyond.
News this week that Dublin City councillors have voted to spend €230,000 reducing its height by up to 30cm along a 460-metre stretch, and another €300,000 capping it and installing stone cladding, have been met with outrage.
How could a council that has the longest housing waiting list in the State with more than 19,000 applicants – at the height of the most profound housing crisis since tenements were razed – spend such a vast sum to appease well-heeled residents in one of the wealthiest parts of the city?
The truth is more nuanced, Independent councillor Damian O’Farrell insists.
“Part of the planning permission was the wall had to be cladded and a capping stone put on it. It is built to the correct height at the minute, but when they put the capping stone on it will be too high. People are proud of their area. They feel if that was on the southside it would be done properly.”
The wall forms part of the €5m Clontarf coastal cycle-path, which opened last May, and at the heart of the row is a section on the James Larkin Road bounded by St Anne’s Park and the seafront. There are no houses and large sections stretching towards the city remain uncapped and unclad.
But following local outcry, the city council agreed to reduce the section, which is just above knee height, to avoid disrupting the view. Mr O’Farrell says this should have been done when contractors were on site, and he disputes the council’s figures. He says the spend on cladding would have occurred regardless, and the cost of lowering the wall is closer to €60,000, not €230,000 as the council insists.
But once lowered, the defences will provide less protection than intended. And as sea levels rise, money will be needed to heighten it, adding to public outrage.
This week, 34 councillors voted in favour of the project, and 21 against. So assuming the council’s costs of €530,000 are correct, what else could you get for that money? Quite a bit.
Local authority spending watchdog, the National Oversight and Audit Commission, says the council spends an average of €15,875 readying a vacant social house for reletting – that’s 33 units which could be brought back into use for the spend on the sea wall. It costs €284 to inspect a private rental property, meaning 1,866 inspections could be completed. In 2016, the city council did 3,550.
The same money would cover the winter maintenance cost for 79km of road; fix 20 accident blackspots based on the €25,000 cost of upgrading a road at Tullyrap in Donegal, or fund homes to alleviate the housing crisis. The Property Price Register notes that 27 homes were bought in Dublin last year for just under €500,000.
IT’S worth noting too that despite being a protected area, the shoreline is littered with washed-up plastic. Money would be well-spent clearing it up.
Some locals are baffled at the decision, especially given no houses are affected. The residents of the duck pond in St Anne’s directly opposite the contentious section appear nonplussed about the need for any flood defences, but humans are more strident in their views.
“This is ridiculous. How could anyone justify voting to spend so much money to do something that is clearly not needed and which is the wrong thing to do? I will not forget this when one of them comes looking for my vote,” one said.
“The councillors have lost the plot,” another added.
Another concern was that the wall “partially obscured” the view of motorists. Driver distraction plays a role in up to 30pc of all accidents, and the decision could have expensive implications.
“Are the local councillors creating a hazard? If someone slams into the back of me, my lawyer is likely to say the local authority voted to lower the wall,” one transport source says.
The coastal drive runs for around 9km. At the northern end, much of the sea is lost to view. It’s a lot of fuss and money for a relatively short stretch. But is there an alternative?
Affected car passengers could download a picture of a seascape on to a smartphone and enjoy it over the 500 metres. Or perhaps out-ofwork actors could be employed to wave long pieces of blue fabric in the air, creating a billowing effect mimicking the sea as seen in countless am-dram productions.
That’s probably not going to wash. Instead, €530,000 will be spent on a wall which only locals appear to be