This reminds me of the attempts to protect areas around the southside of Dublin Bay in the 1990s and later. In Sandymount, for example, this involved closing many of the access points to the strand and making everybody climb over a stile to get to the strand. As a result, many of the most scenic parts of the Sandymount Strand area - such as the Irishtown Nature Reserve - became very difficult to access for many older people and people with disabilities, who were then forced to trundle in as far as Irishtown to get access to the paths complex around the sea shore, and access became a hindrance to everyone else.
This very crude solution has since been rectified to some extent, with ramps being provided at a number of points, but the original answer was clearly to take a sledgehammer to crack a particular nut, without reference to what is necessary on the vast majority of occasions.
There are many cities and other places which face the threat of sea or river flooding at various times of the year. London, for example. Now, much of this may have changed since I lived there and since the construction of the Thames Barrier in Woolwich, I don't know, but there are many houses along the stretch between Fulham and Kew where there is a highish wall to protect houses from floods and a gate into which a protective board may be slotted when the river is high. This ensures normal access and egress from the premises for most of the time, and protection when the abnormal occurs.
I can see the logic in Dublin of providing a wall between the Campshires and the road (and surrounding areas) to protect against flooding. But there is surely no need to make it a wall where the only access from one side to the other is a set of stairs. It should be a wall which can be closed off (like in London) - with, for example, insertion of protective boards - when the need arises, not a wall which is in any way a hindrance for the majority of the time when there is no need for it.