Planning authority An Bord Pleanla has approved the Dart+ West upgrade of the Maynooth line and the branch to M3 Parkway, but due to flooding concerns, it has withheld permission for a depot to store the new trains required for this line or any new Dart expansion beyond the trains already on order for the northern line. The rejection of the depot for the maintenance and storage of trains, which was due to be built between Maynooth and Kilcock, comes two years after Irish Rail submitted the Draft Railway Order, a type of planning permission application for rail projects.In the conditions document on its website An Bord Pleanla said: The western end of the proposed development shall terminate at bridge OBG21 (Chainage 90+200), west of Maynooth Station. All components of the proposed development beyond this station shall not be developed in accordance with the submitted Railway Order application drawings and details, including the depot and associated infrastructureThe order document said: Alternative/updated proposals for a depot and any associated support infrastructure shall be subject to further Railway Order approval(s).And it listed the reason as In the interest of flood prevention.Mark Gleeson, a spokesperson for Rail Users Ireland, said: Dart+ project is dead as we know it without the depot.He said that the depot was a critical part of the project and that without it there is nowhere to maintain the extra fleet needed to provide the service.He said it Looks like CIE failed to appreciate the flooding risks and the scale of the depot construction was underestimated in the initial documents. I cant see any way out of this they need to find a new location.In his report, Kevin Moore, An Bord Pleanla inspector, said: I draw the attention of the Board to my considerations which will follow later in this assessment on the delivery of the proposed depot development and the flood management measures which the applicant intends to provide. I am satisfied to conclude that the Board cannot be assured that the applicants proposals for compensatory storage, without any containment measures, increasing the regularity of flooding of the lands and expanding the floodplain beyond existing flood area, would not result in increased risk to lands in the vicinity and beyond the depot site, access road and Jacksons Bridge areas.Furthermore, it has been made clear by the applicant that the proposed development at this location will not reduce flooding in this area, notably beyond the site footprint, he wrote.Moore said: With due regard to the above, it is evident that the selection of the site for the proposed depot, which is primary transport infrastructure that is a highly vulnerable development and which is proposed to be located on lands prone to regular flooding, is contrary to the provisions of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities.He added: From the outset, when there was a clear understanding that the lands west of Jacksons Bridge to be developed for the main access to the depot and for the depot itself, were subject to regular and extensive flooding, this site should have been avoided. This site should never have progressed to being the preferred site for the depot and to have proceeded to being part of the application to the Board for Dart+ West. This is not proper planning and sustainable development.Covering the oral hearing, Moore said: The Hearing spent the best part of three days discussing the depot. These discussions highlighted the deficiencies in information and resulted in the applicant having to provide a wide range of information much of which should ultimately have been in the application documentation in the first instance.The most basic details, such as plans, sections, and elevations of the very large structures proposed, plans of the development showing the layout relative to adjoining lands, and sections showing the proposed development, finished floor levels, drains, and neighbouring lands had to be acquired to gauge a basic understanding of the proposed depot site and the access road thereto. Lack of information on foundations, confusion over drains, over the extent of flooding, and over basic levels across the site, and lack of information on the extent of the impervious area of the site to gauge an understanding of the applicability of intended SuDS measures were some of the matters which remain somewhat unclear, he said.He added: It was most unsatisfactory having to seek to acquire such details and even more so when incorrect information was provided and new details had then to be provided at later times. This left interested parties with a very significant degree of confusion over what proposed development was ultimately being sought. Ongoing questioning and regular acquisition of drawings and other documentation from the applicant arising from this lack of information was necessary to obtain some degree of clarity on what is intended at the depot site.