Introduction Surface Water Management - kylemoreshd.ie€¦ · considered in tandem ... The...

Kylemore SHD – AECOM Response to ABP Opinion (Surface Water Drainage)

1/12

To:Crekav Trading GP Ltd,College HouseTownsend StreetDublin 2

AECOM Ireland Limited4th FloorAdelphi PlazaGeorges Street UpperCo. DublinIreland

T: +353 1 238 3100aecom.com

Project name:Proposed Strategic Housing Development atKylemore, Woodlawn, Smallacre & Rockwinds,Church Road, & No. 66 Watson Drive, Killiney,Co. Dublin.Project ref:ABP File Reference: ABP-300220-17

From:Conor Dwyer

Date:26 March 2018

Subject: AECOM Response to ABP Opinion on SHD application at Kylemore, Woodlawn, Smallacre & Rockwinds, Church Road, & No. 66 Watson Drive, Killiney, Co. Dublin.

ABP File Reference: ABP-300220-17

1. IntroductionAECOM have undertaken a review of the An Bord Pleanála (ABP) Opinion in relation to the Proposed Strategic Housing

Development at Kylemore, Woodlawn, Smallacre & Rockwinds, Church Road, & No. 66 Watson Drive, Killiney, Co. Dublin

(ABP Ref. ABP- 300220-17).

This letter has been prepared in response to the Opinion Items No. 1 Surface Water Management raised by ABP. AECOM’s

response on behalf of the Applicant is detailed as follows.

2. Surface Water Management2.1 ABP Opinion

“Further consideration of documents as they relate to surface water management for the site. This further consideration

should have regard to the requirements of the Drainage Division as indicated in their report dated 27th November 2017 and

contained in Appendix A of the Planning Authority’s Opinion. Any surface water management proposals should be

considered in tandem with any Flood Risk Assessment, which should in turn accord with the requirements of ‘The Planning

System and Flood Risk Management’ (including the associated ‘Technical Appendices’). Further consideration of these

issues may require an amendment to the documents and/or design proposals submitted.

2.2 AECOM ResponseThe current application for the proposed Strategic Housing Development (SHD) at Kylemore, Woodlawn, Smallacre &

Rockwinds, Church Road, & No. 66 Watson Drive, Killiney, Co. Dublin is the result of a pre-application consultation and

design review process that has been carried out with Dún Laoghaire- Rathdown County Council (DLRCC) Water Services

Department, Irish Water (IW) and An Board Pleanála (ABP). The feedback received from each stakeholder helped AECOM


2/12

to deliver a coordinated design that complies with the requirements of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study

(GDSDS) and the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines.

2.2.1 DLRCC Drainage Division Report dated 27th November 2017 and AECOM ResponsesAECOM have undertaken a review of the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (DLRCC) Drainage Division Report

dated 27th November 2017 in relation to the surface water management proposals for the subject site.

The following is a list of the items raised by DLRCC Drainage Division within their report of 27th November 2017 and

AECOM’s response to each. AECOM’s response is detailed below.

DLRCC Item 1:

The applicant shall indicate the make and the model of the proposed flow control device. The objective design

criteria to be used in determining the flow control device shall be the “Linear Discharge Profile” and not the

“Minimise Upstream Storage” as is currently proposed.

AECOM Response:

As per DLRCC’s requirements, AECOM has adjusted the surface water network calculations for inclusion of a ‘Linear

Discharge Profile’ flow control device. The make and model of the proposed flow control device is a ‘Hydro-Brake

Optimum’, Linear Discharge Profile, Unit Reference; MD-SCU-0070-7000-1945-7000. Please refer to Page 7 of the

Appendix B – Surface Water Network Calculations & Longitudinal Sections’ of the AECOM Infrastructure Design Report

Rev. 4.

DLRCC Item 2:

The preferred attenuation storage solution for this site is the proposed Stormtech system. Any alternative

proposals will require the approval of DLRCC prior to the submission of a full planning application.

AECOM Response:

Duly noted. As per DLRCC’s requirement, the attenuation storage solution proposed for this site is a Stormtech MC3500

attenuation system. Please refer to Appendix H of the AECOM Infrastructure Design Report Rev. 4 and to AECOM drawing

60529517-SHT-10-C-0201 for details of the Stormtech attenuation system.

DLRCC Item 3:

In Item No. 6 of Appendix J (DLRCC pre-planning discussions) of the AECOM infrastructure report it is stated that

“filter drains will be located within open spaces adjacent to the permeable paving parking areas (where possible)…”.

A typical filter drain detail is shown on AECOM drawing No. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0201 and while it is presumed that

this is represented as a dashed green line, it has not been called up on the legend. No such detail or dashed line is

shown on AECOM drawing Nos. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0201 and 60529517-SHT-10-C-0203. The applicant will be

required to clearly show and identify the filter drains. The applicant will also be required to explain the purpose and

effectiveness of the filter drains at the presumed locations as it is not immediately apparent from the details provided.

AECOM Response:

AECOM have included filter drains as an additional soft SuDS measure which will be located within green spaces and

verges (where possible). These additional SuDS features have been included within the proposals in response to this item

and also to address the comments received in an independent Stormwater Audit. The Stormwater Audit, in compliance with


3/12

the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s Stormwater Audit Procedure, has been undertaken by an independent party

and it is presented in Appendix Q of the Infrastructure Design Report.

These filter drains will provide primary treatment (where possible) to the surface water run-off generated by the proposed

development’s road and footpaths. It is proposed that the filter drains will be lines with a permeable liner that will allow for

infiltration to ground where possible.

The drainage drawings indicate a green dashed line within the permeable paving areas however; these lines represent the

infiltration trench within the permeable paving areas. The legend on the re-submitted drawings has been updated to clarify

and include for the above described amendments. Please refer to AECOM drawing No.s 60529517-SHT-10-C-0200 & 201

for details of the revised surface water network and to AECOM drawing No. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0207 for details of the

permeable paving layout and build-up.

DLRCC Item 4:

The applicant will be required to submit Storage Volume input figures and calculations for the approval of DLRCC prior to

the submission of a full planning application.

AECOM Response:

As per DLRCC’s requirements, storage volume input figures and calculations, generated by the WinDes MicroDrainage

computer modelling package, have been provided on page 9 of the calculations for the proposed surface water network

modelled using the MicroDrainage computer modelling software package in Appendix B of the Infrastructure Design Report.

Further clarification of these storage volume figures have been provided within the main body of the infrastructure design

report and this was forwarded to DLRCC prior to submission of the full application.

DLRCC Item 5:

The applicant will be required to submit a draft wayleave agreement in favour of Dun Laoghaire- Rathdown County Council

for any section of proposed public surface water infrastructure that is to be located in lands not to be taken in charge or not

in the applicants’ ownership. Any such proposed wayleave agreement should be accompanied by a supporting drawing

showing the dimensioned route of the sewer, which shall be not less than 6.0m.

AECOM Response:

A draft wayleave agreement ‘in favour of Dun Laoghaire- Rathdown County Council for any section of proposed public

surface water infrastructure that is to be located in lands not to be taken in charge or not in the applicants’ ownership’ will

be submitted to DLRCC prior to the submission of a full planning application. Please refer to AECOM drawing No.

60529517-SHT-10-C-0107.

DLRCC Item 6:

The applicant shall be required to demonstrate by calculation and by representation on a drawing that the proposed green

roof extents are in accordance with the Council’s Green Roof Policy.

AECOM Response:

Please refer to page 13 of the Infrastructure Design Report details of the extent of green roof calculation. Extract below:


4/12

This is in compliance with section 3.1 of ‘Appendix 16; Green Roofs Guidance Document’ of the DLRCC County

Development Plan 2016-2022 which states:

‘A Green roof, where required, shall in all cases cover a minimum of 60% of the roof area. The minimum soil thickness shall

be 2 to 4cm for a Moss/Sedum type of Extensive Green Roof and 10 to 15cm for a grassed type Extensive Green Roof.

The applicant has specifically referenced the relevant section of the DLRCC County Development Plan in the Infrastructure

Design Report and will provide a drawing indicating the extent of green roof provision in the final submittal of the application.

Please refer to Ferreira Architecture drawing No. 1620B-Site-0610 for details contained in Appendix D of this response

document.

DLRCC Item 7:

In Item No. 7 of Appendix J (DLRCC pre-planning discussions) of the AECOM infrastructure report it is stated that “the

attenuation systems for this site have been designed as impermeable lined structures and therefore meet the criteria

described above.” In Item No. 11 of Appendix J (DLRCC pre-planning discussions) of the AECOM infrastructure report it is

stated that “Silt trap manholes incorporating 500mm deep sumps will also be provided as further silt removing treatment

measures in both the upstream and downstream manholes of the Stormtech attenuation tank..” The applicant will be

required to submit details of the proposed silt trap manholes and to identify such manholes on the surface water drainage

drawings. The current location of the Stormtech attenuation tank appears to be more than 5.0m away from nearby buildings

therefore the applicant shall reassess the necessity for designing the tank with an impermeable liner.

AECOM Response:

In accordance with DLRCC requirements, the applicant has amended the design of the tank to provide a permeable liner to

the base and sides of the tank. Details of the proposed silt trap manholes and a clarification of their location have been

provided on the drainage layout drawings. Please refer to AECOM drawing Nos. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0200, 0201 and

60529517-SHT-10-C-0207.

DLRCC Item 8:

The applicant will be required to provide clarity on the long section details as manhole nos. S1-8, S1-9 and S1-11 have not

been called up on the submitted long sections. The applicant shall also reassess the necessity of a 4.0 m deep manhole

(S1-12) and shall provide for an inspection/ maintenance manhole on the downstream side of the isolator row in the

Stormtech attenuation tank.


5/12

AECOM Response:

The applicant has included provision of all surface water network long sections within Appendix B and foul water network

long sections within Appendix E of the Infrastructure Design Report. The depth of manhole S1-12 was reassessed to

minimise the depth of this sewer line. AECOM have liaised with the manufacturers of the Stormtech system in Ireland

(CubicM3), who have confirmed that the downstream manhole can be offset from the isolator row or placed in-line with the

isolator row. It would be encouraged that the downstream manhole be offset from the isolator row to in order to encourage

lateral movement of run-off through the stone base of the tank, however this is in situations where the run-off entering the

tank is anticipated to contain larger volumes of suspended silt and hydrocarbons. It is encouraged that the downstream

manhole be located in-line with the isolator row to allow for maintenance crews to fully observe the condition of isolator row

and allow for ease of access to jet-out the row from both ends.

Therefore, in accordance with DLRCC requirements and the recommendations of the Stormtech attenuation system

(CubicM3), AECOM have amended the surface water network to locate the downstream manhole in line with the isolator

row. Additionally, this manhole will be of blockwork construction as specifically requested by DLRCC Municipal Services

Department.

DLRCC Item 9:

The options being proposed for interception and treatment volume storage together with contributing areas should be

shown on a drawing together with an accompanying text and tabular submission showing the calculations.

AECOM Response:

Duly noted. In accordance with DLRCC requirements, this information has been provided in tabular form with accompanying

text within the main body of the Infrastructure Design Report (refer to Sections 2.4.2 & 2.4.3).

DLRCC Item 10:

A Stormwater Audit will be required for this application. In accordance with the Stormwater Audit policy, the audit shall be

forwarded DLRCC prior to lodging the planning application. All recommendations shall be complied with, unless agreed in

writing otherwise with DLRCC.

AECOM Response:

In accordance with DLRCC policy and procedures, a Stage 1 (Pre Planning Stage) Stormwater Audit has been undertaken

by an independent party and it is presented in Appendix A of this response document and in Appendix Q of the

Infrastructure Design Report. The Stormwater Audit is a desk-top exercise where the proposed drainage design has been

reviewed in the context of relevant reports (e.g. the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study); pre and post development

flow characteristics, and the SuDS management train. Storage capacities, pipe sizing and discharge rates have been

checked, as have the phasing and maintenance considerations of the proposed SUDS design.


6/12

DLRCC Item 11:

The applicant will be required to submit more details of the proposed storage area to intercept possible overland flow, in

particular embankment, road and kerb/footpath levels. The applicant shall also submit level details for the ramp at the

access to the underground car park at the South-western end of the site.

AECOM Response:

Please refer to AECOM drawing No. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0204 for information on additional levels along the anticipated

exceedance flow path. Levels at the underground car park access at the south-western end of the site have also been

provided on drawing 60529517-SHT-10-C-0204. Please note, AECOM have designed the surface water network to mitigate

against potential exceedance caused by theoretical blockage of the HydroBrake by provision of additional attenuation

storage to intercept and store any potential exceedance volumes below the landscaped area at the south western corner of

the site.

DLRCC Item 12:

The applicant is requested to revise the Flood Risk Assessment Report to include an assessment of flood risk arising from

blockages (and consequential surcharging) of the surface water drainage system.

AECOM Response:

AECOM has revised the Flood Risk Assessment Report to include an assessment of flood risk arising from blockages (and

consequential surcharging) of the surface water drainage system. AECOM liaised with Mr. Bernard Egan, Senior Executive

Engineer, DLRCC Municipal Services Dept. in relation to this item. It was agreed through these discussions that the

methodology to undertake this assessment would involve running an analysis of the surface water network for a potential

blockage of the HydroBrake within manhole S1-10 and assessing the consequential flood volume generation. Please refer

to the AECOM Infrastructure Design Report and the Flood Risk Assessment for full details.

DLRCC Item 13:

All supporting information submitted with this pre-application that is of relevance to a full planning application should be

submitted with any such future full planning application.

AECOM Response:

Duly noted. All supporting information that was submitted with the pre-application that is of relevance to the full application

has been submitted with the full planning application.

DLRCC Item 14:

The applicant will be required to submit outline proposals that the surface water drainage system for this site can be

adapted for future additional development lands ( in the applicants’ ownership) to the north of the current site.

AECOM Response:

AECOM have liaised with Mr. Bernard Egan, Senior Executive Engineer, DLRCC Municipal Services Dept. in relation to this

item. Please refer to Appendix B for details of the correspondence with DLRCC in relation to this matter. Through this liaison

a strategy to cater for the a discharge route of surface water run-off associated with the lands to the north and east of the

current site was put forward by AECOM and was agreed in principle by Mr. Egan. Section 2.3.3 ‘Potential Future

Development’ contained within the Infrastructure Design report details the provisions that will be included within the subject

site to cater for the possible future development of the lands to the north.


7/12

Please note that the attenuation of surface water from the lands to the north and east of the site, which is subject to this

application, will take place within their own site boundaries.

It is the opinion of the applicant that the provision of this dedicated surface water sewer infrastructure to service other

development sites should warrant consideration of potential offsets from financial contributions for this scheme.

DLRCC Item 15:

On a general note, the applicant should be made aware that the development site lies within catchment of a Surface Water

Sewer system that has existing deficiencies, such deficiencies having been confirmed by the results of a CCTV survey.

While Municipal Services is not aware of these deficiencies causing problems in the public surface water sewerage system,

they have been cited by An Bord Pleanala as a reason for refusal on previous applications on this site. Municipal Services

has completed some elements of a rehabilitation scheme to address these deficiencies. It should also be noted that the

surface water outflow from the development will be less than the allowable runoff.

AECOM Response:

In February 2018, a CCTV of Survey was undertaken on behalf of the applicant of the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County

Council surface water sewer in Watson Estate. The extent of the surface water sewer surveyed was from the manhole just

upstream of the intended connection location to the point at which the existing sewer connects to the 750mm diameter

sewer in the south west of Watson Estate – approx. 570m length of sewer. Please refer to Appendix M of the Infrastructure

Design Report for details of extent of existing sewer that was surveyed and to Appendix N for details of the CCTV Survey.

The results of this survey revealed that there is a section of surface water sewer downstream of the proposed developments

connection location that is partially blocked due to root ingress. As mentioned in section 2.1 of this report, DLRCC is aware

of the maintenance and root ingress issues within the surface water sewers of Watson Estate and they have commenced

rehabilitation works to alleviate the most effected sections of sewer. On behalf the applicant, AECOM have forwarded the

CCTV survey and results report to DLRCC Municipal Services Department for their information and with the specific intent

that this will allow for the required maintenance work and root ingress clearance to be expedited by DLRCC. Beneficially,

the CCTV Survey has identified the specific areas that require to be repaired and cleared. Prior to the survey taking place

the locations of root ingress and pipe condition issues were unknown in terms of location and severity, however; we now

have a better understanding of both and therefore this information has forwarded to DLRCC to allow them to carry out the

necessary remediation works as part of their ongoing maintenance programme for the Watson Estate drainage.

As the allowable outflow has been restricted to 7.5l/s (maximum rate – approach as agreed with DLRCC Municipal Services

Department), it is our understanding that the impact of the proposed development to the existing surface water network will

be minimal.

2.3 ABP OpinionAny surface water management proposals should be considered in tandem with any Flood Risk Assessment, which should

in turn accord with the requirements of ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management’ (including the associated

‘Technical Appendices’). Further consideration of these issues may require an amendment to the documents and/or design

proposals submitted.


8/12

2.3.1 AECOM Response - Flood Risk ManagementA Stage 1 and 2 Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment Report in accordance with the “Planning System and Flood Risk

Management Guidelines” has been carried out by AECOM for the proposed residential development and has been

considered fully in tandem with the surface water management proposals for the proposed development and accompanies

this planning submission.

2.4 ABP Record of Meeting – Irish WaterThe Representatives of ABP emphasised the following:

- Irish Water would like prospective applicants to contact Irish Water at [email protected] between the Pre-Application Consultation and Application stages, to confirm details of their proposed development and theirproposed design.

- The email address to which applicants should send their applications to Irish Water as a prescribed body [email protected].

2.4.1 AECOM Response - Irish Water CorrespondenceA Pre-Connection Enquiry Form has been issued to Irish Water in relation to the feasibility of servicing the proposed

development with a wastewater and a water supply connection. Irish Water confirmed that the proposed wastewater and

water supply connections to the Irish Water networks can be facilitated subject to a valid connection agreement being put in

place. Please refer to Appendix E of the Infrastructure Design Report for the Irish Water Pre Connection Enquiry Feedback

Form (Certificate of Feasibility).

In accordance with ABP’s request, the latest Proposed Drainage and Watermain Layouts were issued for review to ‘Irish

Water – Spatial Planning’ on 13th March 2018. Irish Water replied with comments on 14th March 2018 and AECOM

incorporated Irish Water’s comments in the final layouts and reissued them to Irish Water on 15th March 2018. Irish Water –

Spatial Planning (IW-SP) replied with further minor comments on 21st March 2018. AECOM incorporated these further

comments on 22nd March and re-issued them to (IW-SP). Please refer to Appendix C for the final Statement of Design

Acceptance received from the Irish Water dated 23rd March 2018.


9/12

Appendix A – Surface Water Audit report and AECOM response

STORMWATER AUDIT (STAGE 1)

JBA Project Code 2018s0336 Contract Residential Development at Church Road, Killiney, Co. Dublin Client AECOM Date 27th March 2018 Author Leanne Leonard Subject Stormwater Audit - Stage 1 Report

Page 1 of 6

www.jbaconsulting.ie

www.jbaconsulting.com

www.jbarisk.com

www.jbaenergy.com

1 Residential Development at Church Road, Killiney, Co Dublin.

1.1 Introduction

JBA Consulting have been contracted by AECOM to undertake a Stage 1 audit of the surface water drainage design for the proposed residential development at Church Road, Killiney, Co. Dublin.

The audit has been completed in accordance with Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council’s (DLRCC) Stormwater Audit Procedure (Rev 0, Jan 2012). The results of the audit are set out in the table below.

1.2 Stage 1 Audit

Design Parameter Audit Result

Proposed Development The subject site is located to the east of Killiney. There are currently 6 no. dwellings on the site however, 4 no. of these will be demolished. The proposed development will comprise 102 no. residential units in the form of 5 no. apartment blocks and 34 no. houses.

The total site area is stated to be 2.39 hectares (ha).

The subject of this Stage 1 stormwater audit is to review the proposed surface water drainage design and sustainable urban drainage system proposals for the proposed development.

Relevant Studies/Documents

The following documents were considered as part of this surface water audit:

• Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Strategy (GDSDS);

• Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works;

• The SUDs Manual (CIRIA C697).

• DLR Green Roof Guidance Document (September 2011)

Key Considerations & Benefits of SUDs

The key benefits and objectives of SuDS considered as part of this audit and listed below include:

• Reduction of run-off rates;

• Provision of volume storage;

• Volume treatment provided;

• Reduction in volume run-off;

• Water quality improvement;

• Biodiversity.

Site Characteristics Soil: Infiltration testing was carried out in August 2017. The infiltration characteristics of the soil were found to be less than favourable and were comparable to that of a clay/silt soil subgrade. Because of this, a soil type 4 with an associated SPR value of 0.47 have been used in the AECOM calculations of Qbar.

Rainfall (basis for surface water pipeline network design): Rainfall parameters can be estimated using Met Éireann data, using the Flood Studies Report (FSR) values or the values in the GDSDS. The Met Éireann method can be more representative of a site if selected correctly. A comparison of values estimated by ROD and JBA is shown below:

ROD value JBA Value Rainfall model: Met Éireann Met Éireann M5-60 (mm): 15.80mm 15.80mm Ratio R: 0.279 0.280

http://www.jbaconsulting./

http://www.jbaconsulting.com/

http://www.jbarisk.com/

http://www.jbaenergy.com/






Page 2 of 6



www.jbarisk.com

www.jbaenergy.com

AECOM propose to discharge to an existing 300mm diameter surface water sewer located at the western boundary of the site on Watson Drive. Using an SPR value of 0.47, the greenfield runoff rate was calculated by AECOM as 15.4 l/s, JBA, for the same input data, agree with this figure. Using a discharge rate of 2 l/s/ha as recommended in the GDSDS, a discharge rate of 4.78 l/s is applicable, however, Qbar would take precedence as it is the greater of the two figures. Notwithstanding the above, AECOM propose to limit the discharge from the site to 7.0 l/s, understood to account for a partial blockage in the existing surface water sewer within Watson Estate and downstream of the proposed development. We understand that DLRCC are aware of this issue and have indicated their intention to complete maintenance works on this section of pipe. JBA considers the proposed discharge rate of 7l/sec reasonable and is equivalent to an SPR of c. 0.33 equating to a SOIL classification between Class 2 and 3 (closer to SOIL Type 2) which is considered reasonable given the soil infiltration results. Windes Calculations The Windes models as submitted for the attenuation calculations account for the total equivalent impermeable areas as calculated. The surface water drainage network has been designed to a minimum of 5 year return period. Attenuation provision is made for the 1 in 100 year event plus 20% CC. The manholes will be allowed to surcharge to a maximum level of 300mm below the manhole cover. A Windes model was run for a 50% blockage of the hydrobrake orifice which resulted in an increase of the required attenuation volume of 70.2m3.

SuDs Measures Considered

AECOM have included the following SUDs measures within the proposed development. No reference has been made to any other measures considered.

SUDS Technology Comments

Blue/Green Roofs Green roofs have been proposed for the 5 no. apartment blocks.

Swale/ Filter Drain / Infiltration trench

Filter drains and/or infiltration (nominal) trenches are provided for interception and treatment volume purposes.

Permeable Paving Permeable paving has been proposed to the front of the housing units.

Petrol Interceptor It is proposed to include a petrol interceptor immediately upstream of the proposed attenuation structure.

Surface Water Attenuation

Attenuation will be provided by way of: A. Green roofs for runoff from the apartment

blocks. B. Permeable paving. C. Filter Drains D. Tree pits E. Stormtech MC3500 attenuation system

prior to discharging to the main sewer in Watson Drive.

Site Run-off Rates AECOM propose to limit discharge to the equivalent of 7.0 l/sec.

Detention Basins, Retention Ponds, Stormwater Wetlands

Detention basins have not been proposed at the site.










Page 3 of 6



www.jbarisk.com

www.jbaenergy.com

Tree Root Structural Cell Systems, Bio-retention, rain garden

Tree root structural systems are now proposed for isolated road gullies.

Surface Water Drainage Design

All surface water flows generated by the development will be attenuated and discharged to the public sewer at Watson Drive to the west of the site at a rate of 7.0 l/s. AECOM have considered a 50% blockage in the hydrobrake and have therefore provided attenuation storage for this scenario also.

SuDS Management Train Source Control and Site Control are addressed by the use of SuDS devices (interception storage) and attenuation with outflow controlled by a Hydrobrake. A petrol interceptor has been proposed upstream of the attenuation structure. A petrol interceptor has been included in each of the basement car parks prior to discharging to the foul sewer network.

As recommended with the SUDs Manual (Table 3.3) assuming effective pre-treatment is in place the following number of treatment train components are recommended:

No. of treatment train components recommended

Comment/Proposals

Roof areas 1 Green roofs have been proposed on the apartment blocks. Rainwater harvesting butts and local soakaways have been proposed to the rear of the houses to intercept runoff from the roof of the houses.

Residential roads, parking areas, commercial zones

2 Permeable paving has been proposed for car-parking areas to the front of the houses. Filter drains and/or local tree pits are provided to intercept all road drainage. A bypass interceptor has been proposed for all flows immediately upstream of the attenuation structure.

Refuse collection, industrial areas, loading bays, lorry parks and highways.

3 Not applicable.

A hydrobrake designed for a linear discharge profile will be provided at the outfall of the Stormtech attenuation structure to limit flows to a maximum of 7.0 l/s to the public storm sewer in Watson Drive.

Site proposals for the access and upper road meet the treatment train recommendations within the SuDS Manual.

Climate Change An allowance of 20% increase in flows has been included for climate change for the rainfall intensities for the purposes of sizing the attenuation storage. This adequately addresses Section 16.12 of the “Development Management – Thresholds Information Document”.










Page 4 of 6



www.jbarisk.com

www.jbaenergy.com

Discharge Rate / Flow Control

The required orifice diameter for the hydrobrake has been calculated as 70mm. AECOM also undertook calculations to assess the performance of the stormwater network and attenuation system in the event of a 50% blockage. This resulted in the flooding of 3 no. manholes and therefore the attenuation structure was increased in size. The surface water network was designed to ensure that that a minimum freeboard of 300mm below manhole cover level will be provided.

Volume Storage AECOM have run a Windes model to assess the attenuation volume provided. The proposed attenuation structure is sized such that surcharging to a level greater than 300mm below manhole cover level will not occur, even in the event of a 50% blockage of the hydrobrake. A Stormtech MC3500 attenuation system of 677m3 has been proposed. Volumes account for the 100 year return storm event + climate change.

Volume Run-off No comparison of pre and post development storm volumes have been provided, however, as it is proposed to limit discharge to 7l/sec for all storm events, i.e. the equivalent of Qbar, such a calculation is not deemed necessary.

Treatment Volume / Water Quality Improvement

Interception storage is currently proposed by way of green roofs on apartment blocks, permeable paving at houses, filter drains and/or localised tree pits, a bypass interceptor upstream of the attenuation tank and the provision of an isolator row within the attenuation system.

Biodiversity Detention ponds have not been included in the design due to space constraints. However, localised new trees within the development boundary, tree root structural systems will be included and will enhance biodiversity within the site.

Return Period A 100 year return period plus 20% for climate change has been used in the design for the attenuation systems.

Exceedance flows AECOM have considered exceedance flows. In the unlikely event of failure of the attenuation tank, overland flow will follow a safe route through the pedestrian access/drainage connection corridor to Watson Drive.

Health & Safety and Maintenance Issues

The proposed drainage system comprises SuDS devices, traditional road gullies, attenuation systems and underground pipes. These elements are considered acceptable from a Health & Safety perspective once supplier/manufacturers guides are followed and complied with during the detailed design, construction and operation. Optimum performance of the SuDS treatment train is subject to the frequency of maintenance provided. At detailed design stage, it is recommended that a maintenance regime be adopted. Particular consideration is required at detailed design stage to the design, maintenance requirements and whole life plan (and replacement) of the SuDS system as a whole. Regular maintenance of the flow control device will be required to remove any blockages, particularly in the wake of heavy rainfall events or local floods. It is recommended that the petrol interceptor be fitted with an audible high level silt and oil alarm for maintenance and safety purposes. Regular inspection and maintenance is recommended for the petrol interceptor. Please note that silt and debris removed from the petrol interceptor during maintenance will be classified as contaminated material and should only be handled and transported by a suitably licensed contractor and haulier and disposed of at a suitably licensed landfill only.










Page 5 of 6



www.jbarisk.com

www.jbaenergy.com

Audit Report Prepared by: Leanne Leonard BEng Engineer

Approved by: Declan White BEng CEng MIEI Principal Engineer

Note:

JBA Consulting Engineers & Scientists Ltd. role on this project is as an independent reviewer/auditor. JBA Consulting Engineers & Scientists hold no design responsibility on this project. All issues raised and comments made by JBA are for the consideration of the Design Engineer (AECOM). Final design, construction supervision, with sign-off and/or commissioning of the surface water system so that the final product is fit for purpose with a suitable design, capacity and life-span, remains the responsibility of the Design Engineers.

Design Review Process Upon review of AECOM’s initial drainage design, JBA Consulting provided feedback, resulting in some modifications, namely:

• Removal of public road drainage from private permeable paving systems;

• Additional interception storage / treatment volume for roof drainage (rear soakaways) as permeable paving to front of individual houses is too small given the infiltration characteristics of the soil, refer Table 24.6 of The SuDS Manual;

• Filter drains now provided as treatment for road drainage prior to connection back into the primary SW sewer;

• Tree pits provided for isolated road gullies;

• Interception drain for undeveloped / greenfield land to the east of the site;

• Kylemore House now drained to infiltration / filter drains prior to connection back into the main SW sewer network.

Summary of items to be considered at Detailed Design Stage

There are a number of items that require attention at detailed design stage. A summary of same are as follows:

• Proper detail design and construction of SuDS devices is paramount to ensure long term optimum hydraulic performance as well as maximisation of biodiversity opportunity. It is recommended that a collaborated approach to detail design is adopted between engineers, architects, ecologies and landscape architects.

• Sensitivity testing should also be undertaken re the on-site drainage proposals at detail design stage (e.g. impact of urban creep – review the impact of increasing the total impermeable area by 10%);

• Undertake a sensitivity check for increased flood extents due to climate change and any impact on the proposed outfalls;

• Maintenance regime for each of the components on site;

• Hydrobrake selection to be give due consideration to hydraulic performance, actual head behind the unit, maximum potential clear passage size and maintenance requirements.

Audit Result

JBA Consulting considers that the surface water drainage design for the proposed development is acceptable and meets the requirements of the Stage 1 Stormwater Audit.










Page 6 of 6



www.jbarisk.com

www.jbaenergy.com

Appendix A – Audit Trail Record








JBA Consulting Stormwater AuditProject: Residential Development at Church Road, Killiney

Date: 16/03/2018

JBA Reviewers Leanne Leonard - Engineer

16/03/2018 22/03/2018

General

1 It is not clearly distinguishable from the layout plans (refer drawings

60529517-SHT-10-C-0200 Rev B & 60529617-SHT-10-C-0201 Rev B) which

structures are apartment blocks and which are houses, and it is therefore

difficult to assess the full drainage path from source to outfall. The

Infrastructure Report Rev 3 (March 2018) refers to apartment blocks C, D, E, J

and K however, these are not labelled on any of the drawings or in the

report.

AECOM to clarify the labelling of apartment blocks. Labels provided to clearly identify the Apartment Blocks C, D, E, J & K.

Please refer to drawings 60529517-SHT-10-C-0200 Rev C & 60529617-SHT-10-C-0201 Rev C.

Acceptable

2 Interception

It is not clear how interception requirements as per the GDSDS are addressed

in full.

AECOM to advise how interception of all impermeable areas

is to be provided.In accordance with the design criteria requirements stipulated in Table 6.3 of the GDSDS, we are providing interception storage of at least 5mm of rainfall for the

green roof areas. Where initial runoff of at least 5mm of rainfall cannot be intercepted, treatment storage is provided. It is noted that all runoff coming from

pitched roof areas (not suitable for green roof systems) will discharge to and be treated in the stone media of the permeable paved drive way areas. In addition, all

runoff coming from hardstanding pedestrian and vehicular areas (roads and footpaths) will discharge via 2-levels of treatment as follows:

(1) Combination of filter drains and permeable paving and

(2) Stone media of the Stormtech attenuation system.

While it is acknowledged that petrol interceptors are not considered sustainable urban drainage systems, it is noted that a petrol interceptor is provided to cater

for accidental oil spillage.

Not Acceptable, refer

item 13 below

3 It is considered that rainwater harvesting cannot be relied upon for

interception as it is very much relied upon being continuously used.

AECOM to consider roof water draining to infiltration

trenches/soakaways within property with associated

overflows to primary storm sewer on public road.

Alternatively consider utilising permeable paving to front of

dwellings.

It has been AECOM's intention from the outset of the design process that rood water drainage will discharge to the permeable paving to the front of the dwellings.

Please refer to drawing s 60529517-SHT-10-C-0207 which details the discharge of roof water draining to the permeable paving areas.


item 13 below

4 As the existing roof of Kylemore House will be retained, it is not clear how

the first 5mm of the runoff from here will be intercepted.

AECOM to consider existing downpipes and diversion and/or

connection to SuDS measure such as an infiltration trench or

other suitable measure.

Filter drains (with capability of infiltration to ground) have been provided to allow for connection of existing downpipes of Kylemore House therefore providing

interception of the first 5mm of runoff where possible.

Acceptable

5 Section 2.4.2 of the Infrastructure Report Rev 3 (March 2018) states that the

GDSDS advise "interception volume for 80% of paved areas should be

provided". It also states that in the current proposal just "63% of the hard-

paved areas will drain to features wherein interception volumes are

AECOM to consider providing further interception measures

to achieve interception for 80% of hard paved areas.In accordance with the river water quality criteria in Page 5, Appendix E of the GDSDS, 80% of paved areas should be justified in terms of interception and/or

treatment. As per response to Item 2 above, where interception cannot be achieved, treatment storage is considered acceptable. As mentioned in response to item

2 above, following mitigation suggestions from JBA, AECOM are proposing that 100% of surface water runoff.


item 13 below

6 Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of the Infrastructure Report Rev 3 (March 2018)

assess the interception volumes for the proposed layout.

The final table in Section 2.4.2 gives hard paved areas for permeable paving

contributing to each pipe run.

The table in Section 2.4.3 states different areas for these as they include roof

areas in addition to hard paved areas. However it is not clear where these

areas come from.

AECOM to clarify the areas contributing to each storm

manhole and in turn how the interception volumes have

been achieved.

Please note that interception storage volume table of section 2.4.2 has been removed and the accompanying paragraph has been amended accordingly. The

treatment volume table in section 2.4.3 has been amended to reflect the subcatchments redistributed from the privately owned permeable paving areas to the new

filter drains. These values correspond to the subcatchment areas of page 6 of the microdrainage results in Appendix D.

Acceptable

7 Road Drainage

It is noted that road drainage (from public roads) is to be drained to

permeable paving fronting houses which will be in private ownership.

AECOM to review:

1) Road drainage design to be independent of private

property.

2) SuDS measures such as infiltration trenches and/or tree

pits adjacent to roads should be considered to meet

interception and quality requirements.

AECOM have adjusted the surface water drainage to discharge to public filter drains/permeable paving of public parking bays. Not Acceptable, refer

item 14 below

8 As the site to the east slopes towards the development, allowance should be made

in the stormwater network and attenuation system to allow for possible overland

flows from this site and/or future development of same.

AECOM to review and design the surface water system to

accommodate said lands.

AECOM have included a shallow filter drain along the interface of these lands to intercept possible overland flows from these lands. This filter drain will discharge to the dedicated

surface water sewer that will be installed to cater for possible future development of the lands to the north of the site and therefore will not have an impact on the surface water

network of the development of this application.

Acceptable

Item No. JBA Review Comment Comment/Clarification Request/Suggested Mitigation Response from Client/Client Representative Acceptable / Not

Acceptable


Acceptable

9 Table C3 in the National Standards for sustainable drainage systems document

advises that runoff from car parks and roads should pass through a minimum of two

treatment stages prior to discharging to a surface water sewer.

Whereas DLRCC consider propriety systems (e.g. petrol interceptors, Downstream

Defenders, Surfsep Pollutant Traps, Up-Flo Filters or other such systems) have their

function and purpose, they should not be considered in lieu of other SuDS measures

where the opportunity exists. Such systems are deemed supplementary to

traditional softer SuDS measures.

AECOM to consider other softer SuDS measures for access

roads, roof etc.

Accepted.

2-levels of treatment provided for roads surface water runoff:

(1) Filter drains and permeable paving with public parking areas;

(2) Stone media within the Stormtech attenuation system.

Please refer to AECOM drawings 60529517-SHT-10-C-0200 Rev C & 60529617-SHT-10-C-0201 Rev C.

Acceptable

10 As the existing roof of Kylemore House will be retained, it is not clear how the first

5mm of the runoff from here will be intercepted.

AECOM to consider providing SuDS measure such as an

infiltration trench to carry storm water from the roof to the

storm water network.

Response as per item 2: Filter drains (with capability of infiltration to ground) have been provided to allow for connection of existing downpipes of Kylemore House therefore

providing interception of the first 5mm of runoff where possible.

Acceptable

11 A total impermeable area of 1.231ha was used in the storm network and

attenuation calculations. As the total site area is 2.39ha this would indicate

that just 51.5% of the site is hardstanding. However the site layout would

suggest an impermeable area greater than that allowed for. Furthermore no

allowance for runoff from green open spaces are allowed for given that the

soil type is classified as type 4 from the SI.

AECOM to:

1) Review extent of actual paved area.

2) Consider requirement for runoff from green open spaces.

3) Provide revised attenuation calculations in view of 1 & 2

above.

The total site area (red line boundary) is 2.39ha.

The total hardstanding area (100% allowed for roofs + roads + paved areas) is 1.231ha.

The balance (1.159ha) is represented by soft areas (0% allowed for gardens + landscaped areas).

Refer to GDSDS Table 6.4 and Section 6.5.1.5 Runoff for design criteria considered.

In accordance with the river regime attenuation criteria in Page 5, Appendix E of the GDSDS, 100% of paved and 0% of permeable areas should be accounted for big events. Please

refer to full response for Item 15.

Not acceptable. Table

6.4 relate to runoff for

sizing pipes, howver,

runoff from green

areas will may impact

on storage volumes

pending extent and

the limitation on the

flow control device.

12 No green roof details have been provided (for example intensive vs extensive

specifications).

AECOM to provide further details. Proposal for Green Roof to be installed as follows:

- Extensive sedum blanket system. Bauder XF301 system or equal approved. Please refer to Appendix P of the Infrastructure Design Report for details .

Acceptable

26/03/2018 26/03/2018

13 It is noted from Section 2.4.1 (Infiltration Testing) and Appendix I of the AECOM

Infrastructure Report that there is limited opportunity for infiltration throughout the

site.

This impacts on Interception compliance as the area that can drain to permeable

pavements given the ground conditions cannot be greater than twice the permeable

paving area, refer Table 24.6 (Interception Mechanisms) of The SuDS Manual.

AECOM to review the drainage strategy for roof areas given

they are more than double the permeable paving area.We accept that interception cannot be achieved for permeable paving when catchmEnt areas are greater than twice the permeable paving area. However

considering the limited ground infiltration rate we are proposing to provide treatment volume in lieu of interception volume within the stone media of the

permeable paving located in the driveways. We note this is in compliance with criterion 1.2 of table 6.3 of the GDSDS.

Proposal for Soakaways to be installed within the back garden areas where possible to accept roof runoff from the rear of the housing units and apartment blocks.

High level overflow to be installed from the soakaways to the main SW drainage. Please refer to insert on drawing 60529517-SHT-10-C-0200 Rev. C.

Acceptable

14 Given the soil infiltration results, the proposal to connect road gullies draining large

sections of paved roads into permeable paving bays does not meet Intercroption

compiance

AECOM to review the following:

1. Proposed gully in cul-de-sac adjacent Apartment Block D,

Refer dwg nr -0200 Rev C

2. Proposed gully to the NW of storm manhole S10-4, Refer

dwg nr -0201 Rev. C

3. Proposed gullies to the southern elevation of courtyard L,

refer dwg nr -0201 Rev. C

4. Proposed gully to the west of courtyard L, refer dwg ne -

0201 Rev C

5. Any other similar occurrences throughout the scheme

1. Gully discharge location amended. Discharge now proposed to Filter Drain.

2. Gully discharge location amended. Discharge now proposed to Filter Drain.

3. Gully discharge location amended. Discharge now proposed to Tree Pit.

4. Gully discharge location amended. Discharge now proposed to Tree Pit.

Acceptable

15 It is noted that no allowance for runoff from green areas is accommodated which

are unlikely to impact on the peak flow rate in the storm pipes but can imapct on

overall storage volumes.

AECOM to consider sensitivity analysis and increase the

storage provision if requiredIn accordance with the river regime attenuation criteria in Page 5, Appendix E of the GDSDS, 100% of paved and 0% of permeable areas should be accounted for big

events. Therefore AECOM accounted for 100% of the hardstanding areas (roofs, roads and footpaths) amounting 1.231ha to positively drain to the proposed surface

water network. The network has been analysed for the critical duration storm of the 100YR return period inclusive of 20% climate change allowance. The

attenuation tank has been sized to cater the storage volume required to contain this critical event without flooding and or flood risk. In addition AECOM have

carried out a sensitivity analysis to determine the flood water volume in the event of 50% blockage of the HydroBrake. The attenuation tank has been further

increased to include for this addional storage.

It is noted that all the landscaped areas, in accordance with the above mentioned criteria, do not positively drain to the proposed surface water sewers.

Acceptable


Acceptable

16 It appears that an overflow from permeable paving (immediately downstream of

storm manhole S1-1, is conencted to a proposed road gully, refer dwg nr -0200 Rev.

C.

It is considered that there should be no drainage connections to road gullies

AECOM to review this detail This inclusion of this line was an error on the drawing and has now been removed. Aceptable


10/12

Appendix B – Correspondence with DLRCC Municipal Services Dept.

1

Dwyer, Conor

From: Egan Bernard <[email protected]>Sent: 28 February 2018 15:42To: Dwyer, ConorSubject: Kylemore: Surface Water Drainage Strategy

Hi Conor,The duplicate surface water sewer is acceptable in principle. You do need to check the levels onthe duplicate sewer to ensure that all connections to and from the surface sewer serving thedevelopment can be constructed. Please also ensure that all proposed manholes can be constructed(the layout is becoming more cluttered).

Our offices are now closing due to the extreme weather alert so any follow up will have to wait 'tillnext week

Regards,Bernard

From: Dwyer, Conor [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 27 February 2018 13:06To: Egan Bernard <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kylemore: Surface Water Drainage Strategy

Hi Bernard,

Thank you for your prompt response. Please find attached the DRAFT proposals. The proposed dedicated SW sewerto serve the possible future development lands to the north is the Green sewer line (that runs parallel blue sewerline that will our development).

We will provide cover and invert levels for the dedicated sewer and detail these within a table on the drawings.

Happy to discuss over the phone or in person should you wish.

Thanks again,Kind Regards,

Conor Dwyer, BEng MIEISenior Consultant, Transportation, IrelandD +353-(0)[email protected]

AECOM4th Floor, Adelphi PlazaGeorge's Street UpperDun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, IrelandT +353-(0)1-238-3100aecom.com

Built to deliver a better world

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Instagram

2

From: Egan Bernard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 27 February 2018 09:29To: Dwyer, ConorSubject: RE: Kylemore: Surface Water Drainage Strategy

Hi Conor,Do you have a drawing to show what exactly is being proposed?

Regards,Bernard

From: Dwyer, Conor [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 26 February 2018 17:43To: Egan Bernard <[email protected]>Subject: Kylemore: Surface Water Drainage Strategy

Hello Bernard,

I hope you are keeping well. We are progressing our design for the Kylemore Surface Water network and, asdiscussed, we are basing our design on a Hydrobrake of Linear Discharge profile. We are also modelling the networkto analyse for a 50% blockage in the Hydrobrake.

We intend, if possible, to demonstrate that any resultant flooding caused by a 50% blockage would be containedwithin the attenuation tank which we would oversize to cater for the flood volumes calculated using the WinDesmodelling program.

We have run an analysis for accepting a restricted run-off rate from the lands to the north of our site into ournetwork (should this land be developed in the future) and have found that our network would be inundatedadversely by accepting this run-off, particularly in the event that a Hydrobrake blockage of 50% occurs. Wetherefore proposed to install a dedicated surface water system to be laid through our site that would cater solely forthe lands to the north (and also could cater for lands to the east of the site) should they be developed in the future.This surface water sewer would comprise a 225mm diameter pipe and associated manholes laid alongside thesurface water sewer that will serve our Kylemore development. We proposed that both sewers outfall to the samemanhole to be built on the receiving sewer in Watson Estate. The sewer to serve the potential development landswould be sealed until such time as any future development would take place.

Would you please advise of the approach described above would be acceptable in principal to DLRCC?

Happy to discuss over the phone or in person should you wish.

Thank you,Kind Regards,

Conor Dwyer, BEng MIEISenior Consultant, Transportation, IrelandD +353-(0)[email protected]

AECOM4th Floor, Adelphi PlazaGeorge's Street UpperDun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, IrelandT +353-(0)1-238-3100aecom.com

Built to deliver a better world

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Instagram


11/12

Appendix C – Proposed Drainage and Watermain Layouts: Irish WaterStatement of Design Acceptance

Conor Dwyer

AECOM

4th Floor Adelphi Plaza

George's Street Upper

Dun Laoghaire

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Customer Reference No 833930295

Yours sincerely,

Maria O’Dwyer

Connections and Developer Services

If you have any further questions, please contact Noreen Dineen from the design team on 02252260 or email

[email protected]. For further information, visit www.water.ie/connections

Document Title & Revision:

1. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0200 Rev C

2. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0201 Rev C

3. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0202 Rev B

4. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0203 Rev B

5. 60529517-SHT-10-C-0300 Rev B

If not already done so, a connection agreement can be applied for by completing the connection application form

available at www.water.ie/connections. Irish Water’s current charges for water and wastewater connections are set out

in the Water Charges Plan as approved by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU).

Based upon the details you have provided with your Design Submission, including but not limited to the documents

referenced below, Irish Water has no objection to the proposals included in your Design Submission.

You are advised that this correspondence does not constitute an offer in whole or in part to provide a connection to any

Irish Water infrastructure and is provided subject to a connection agreement being signed at a later date.

This Statement of Design Acceptance does not relieve you or your designer(s) of responsibility for the proposals and it

remains a requirement to comply fully with the Irish Water Codes of Practice and Standard Details. Ultimate

responsibility (including, but not limited to any losses, costs, demands, damages, actions, expenses, negligence, and

claims) for the detailed design, construction and provision of such pipes and related infrastructure shall rest entirely with

the Customer, his/her designer(s), contractor(s), or other related party.

water and wastewater connections at Kylemore, Church Road, Killiney.

23 March 2018

Irish Water has reviewed your Design Submission in relation to

Co. Dublin

Connection Application - Subject to contract | Contract denied

Letter Ref: CDS Statement of Design Acceptance

Connection for 102 unit development at Kylemore, Church Road, Killiney


12/12

Appendix D – Extent of Green Roof provision

BLOCK E

Gross Roof Area m2 Green Roof Area m2 % of Overall Roof

469.00 328.00 70%

BLOCK D


261.00 182.00 70%

BLOCK C


261.00 182.00 70%

BLOCK J


467.00 326.00 70%

BLOCK K


450.00 316.00 70%

E

D

C

J

K

KEYPLAN

N

DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

PROJECT NO:

SCALE:

FILE NAME:

DRAWING NO:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISION:

THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT TO FERREIRA ARCHITECTS C

ROSEMOUNT HALL, ROSEMOUNT ESTATEDUNDRUM ROAD, DUNDRUM, D14 FP59

tel: ++ 353-1-2063523web: www.ferreira.ieemail : [email protected]

PLANNING

1620B

Proposed Development at Rockwinds, Smallacre, Woodlawn,

Kylemore, Church Road, 66, Watson Drive, Killiney,

Co Dublin

for Crekav Trading GP Limited

Proposed Green Roof

1620B-SITE-0610

1620B-FA-000-ZZ-M3-A-GreenRoof

1:250@A3

16-03-2018

AA

RC

/

GENERAL NOTES:

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CONFIRMED ON SITE

DIMENSIONS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM THIS DRAWING

THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSULTANTS DRAWINGS

ALL WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT BUILDING REGULATIONS

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESCRIPTION:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRWN.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

FC

AutoCAD SHX Text

FGHFGHFGH

Introduction Surface Water Management - kylemoreshd.ie€¦ · considered in tandem ... The...

Documents

Transcript of Introduction Surface Water Management - kylemoreshd.ie€¦ · considered in tandem ... The...