summary of oral hearing proceedings - an bord pleanála · web viewno account was taken of ikea....

An Bord Pleanála

Development: Construct, on airport lands, a runway 3110m in length and 75m in width. The permission sought, to include all associated road works including internal road network, substations, navigational equipment, equipment enclosures, security fencing, drainage, ducting, lighting, services diversions, landscaping and all associated site development works including the demolition of an existing derelict house and associated outbuildings; the relocation of the Forrest Tavern Monument; the removal of a halting site including the demolition of any structure whether temporary or permanent on that site which is currently leased from the applicant. The road works include the realignment of an 800m section of the Forrest Little Road; the rerouting of a 700m section of the Naul Road (R108) and a 200m section of Dunbro Lane and replacement of these latter roads with a new 2km long road (7.5m wide carriageway) running in an east-west direction connecting to the St.Margaret’s ByPass at a new junction. The proposed duration of this permission is 10 years.

The development is located on lands of approx. 261 hectares in the townlands of Millhead, Kingstown, Dunbro, Barberstown, Pickardstown, Forrest Great, Forrest Little, Cloghran, Collinstown, Corballis, Rock and Huntstown, north and north west of the airport terminal building. An EIS accompanies the application.

VOLUME 4 - SUMMARY OF ORAL HEARING PROCEEDINGS

PL06F.217429 An Bord Pleanala of 60Vol.4

An oral hearing was held on the 26th and 27th September and 29th to 12th October (12 days) at the Gresham Hotel and in the Board’s offices.

Note 1: All of the proceedings of the Oral Hearing are recorded and are on the attached discs attached to my report. What follows below is a synopsis of the said proceedings. While it follows, to a large extent, the order of proceedings please note that as there is an overlap between Public Health and Safety and Noise it is recommended that these sections be read in tandem. These subjects are positioned together in this summary for ease of reference. As far as is possible I do not propose to repeat details and information which have already been provided to the Board by way of written submissions, documentation and details already on file and which have been summarised in Volume 3.

Note 2: The assessment in my report makes reference to details submitted in evidence at the Oral Hearing.

Note 3: For a list of formal submissions to the Hearing see the end of this synposis. These submissions have been numbered and references to same in the outline below directly relate. The disc number and date of the submissions and subsequent cross questioning are also given as an aid.

Attendance

3rd Party Appellants

Mr. Joseph BradyRepresented by Ms. Maire O'Brien

Ms. Teresa KavanaghMr. Peter Sweetman Own representation

Portmarnock Community SchoolMr. Pat Doherty Mr. David Sweeney

St. Helen's Senior National SchoolMr. Bill Lowe

St. Margaret's Concerned Residents GroupMr. Peter Bland, SolicitorMs. Helena MerrimanMs. Sheelagh MorrisMr. Noel ReillyMr. Jim ScullyMs. Deirdre ColganMs. Helen Gilligan


Mr. Karl Searson, Searson AssociatesMr. Greg Farrell

Mr. Matthew HarleyOwn representation Mr. Nap KeelingMr. Connor Gallagher

Mr. Thomas MurphyMr. Christopher Morris

Ms. Angela Lawton Own representation

Ms. Maire O'BrienOwn representation

Mr. Trevor SargeantOwn representation

An TaisceMr. Ian Lumley

Portmarnock Community CouncilMr. Michael O'NeillMr. Brian ByrneMr. Robert Kelly, RKelly and Associates ConsultantsDr. Anthony StainesProf. StansfeldMr. Fred Walsh, Acoustic Associates (IRL) Ltd.Mr. Eamon Madden, St. Nicholas of Myra National SchoolMr. D. PearsonMs. Emma O’RourkeMs. C. CaulfieldMr. B. HallMr. B. EnnisMr. Tom PurcellMr. Joe Fitzmaurice

Note: 3rd Party appellants Portmarnock Hotel and Golf Club and Forrest Little Golf Club were not represented at the hearing.


Planning Authority

Mr. Dermot Flanagan, SCMr. Pat O’Callaghan, Senior Executive EngineerMr. Christy O’ Sullivan, ILTP ConsultingMr. David StanleyMr. Sean O’Faircheallaigh, Senior PlannerMr. Myles Farrell, Senior Executive PlannerMs. Anne McElligott, Senior Executive EngineerMr. Gerry Clabby, Heritage OfficerMr. Eanna O’Kelly, Eanna O’Kelly & Assoc. Consultant Acoustic Engineers

1st Party

Mr. Michael O'Donnell, BLMr. Richard Hamilton, RPS Planning and EnvironmentMr. David Hardcastle, Mouchel ParkmanMr. Mark Foley, DAAMr. Barry Drinan, DAAMs. Mary Coveney, DAAMr. Declan Brassil, Declan Brassil & Co. Chartered Planning ConsultantsMr. Nigel C. Mason, York AviationMr. Graham Vernon, Det Norske VeritasMr. Michael Bailey, Envirocon Ltd.Prof. James, Heffron, UCCMr. Andrew Evans, Scott WilsonMr. Wolfram Schluter, RPA-Consulting EngineersMr. Gerard Morgan, Aquatic Services Unit, UCCMr. Richard Park, Mouchel ParkmanMs. Sheila Lane, Sheila Lane & Assoc., Consultant ArchaeologistsMs. Jenny Neff, Cenv MIEEMDr. Gavin Fennessy, Fehily Timoney & Co.Prof. Callum ThomasMr. Neil Chapman, Austin-Smith:LordMr. William J. Martin, Martin & Rea, Incorporated as Martin & Assoc. Ltd.Mr. Douglas F. Sharps, Sharps Edmore PartnershipMr. Damian Kelly, AWN ConsultingDr. Martin Hogan, Employment Health Advisors Ltd.Mr. Alan Levey, DAA


Observers

Kenneth MillarCllr. Peter CoyleCllr. MeaneyCllr. C. DalyMr. Brendan Ryan

Rail Procurement Agency – Mr. Rory O’ConnorNational Roads Authority – Mr. R. O’Dea

Note: Although invited the DTO were not represented at the hearing

Inspectors

Ms. Pauline Fitzpatrick (presiding inspector)Mr. Jerry BarnesMr. Rupert Thornely-Taylor


PROCEDURAL ISSUES

The oral hearing was conducted on a subject by subject basis in line with an agenda which was circulated to the parties to the appeal prior to its commencement. Following information communicated to the presiding inspector prior to the opening of the hearing regarding Mr. J. Charles retained by the Board to assist the inspector in the assessment of the issues pertaining to noise, the hearing was adjourned for a period to allow for the proper consideration of the matter. On reconvening, the hearing was advised that unforseen circumstances had arisen with the said consultant. The Board had discussions with Mr. Charles and considered that while there may have been no actual conflict of interest the perception of conflict of interest was an issue. In the interests of transparency and natural justice the Board decided to seek the services of an alternative consultant to assist it in the assessment of the issues pertaining to noise.

Angela Lawton made her submission to the hearing in full as gaeilge (Disc 1 – 27/09/06 Submission C) which was subsequently translated into English. A summary of Ms. Lawton’s submission is noted under the relevant headings. She also raised the issue of the failure of documentation to be provided in Irish.

Mr. Lumley objected to my decision that I would facilitate submissions, only, on climate change, soil and strategic environmental assessment and would not facilitate him to cross question the applicant and planning authority on the said subjects.

Mr. Lumley and Mr. Byrne were advised that the Board would not be providing a video link or pod-cast to the hearing.

The DAA made copies of its own Dublin Airport Masterplan referred to in Chapter 2 of the EIS available for the length of the hearing.


TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC

3rd Party Submissions (Disc 1 - 26/09/06 & 27/09/06)

Mr. Sweetman contended that the EIS does not have a statement of the effects of traffic arising from the proposal. He raised the issue of the adequacy of the information available eg. absence of a traffic management plan for the construction phase. There is a degree of uncertainty regarding the traffic projections with essential information lacking. No account was taken of IKEA. Therefore the issue of traffic cannot be comprehensively assessed.

Mr. Christopher Morris on behalf of Mr. Thomas Murphy who operates ‘Ground Support Services’ stated that his business provides ancillary services to Dublin Airport. 20/30 journeys are made to the airport each day with the journey length being 3km. The other main provider is SR Techniques (previously TEAM Aer Lingus). The appellant’s property shares a boundary with the airport. The proposed alterations to the road network in the area will mean that the journey will be increased by at least 8km. The competitiveness of GSS would be impaired by the proposal. A remedy is available where access from a service road c. 500 metres south of the appellant’s property could be facilitated to allow said access to the airport. The said access road is currently used by certain groups such as Aer Lingus, VenAir, CHC and IAA. Should permission be granted the Board could consider attaching a condition to guarantee access on a par with other service providers and users.

Mr. Lumley noted that Dublin Airport is the single greatest transportation and pressure point in the country. The transport demand at Dublin Airport is skewed in favour of car based solutions. As the proposal is part of a wider Masterplan the whole issue of existing and future access to the airport should be addressed at the hearing. The roads measures are vague and confused. The EIS does not assess the direct and indirect impacts of the proposal nor does it identify measures to reduce/remedy adverse effects. The impact on the wider area is being ignored. The cumulative impacts of the proposal with regard had to other permitted and proposed development on the M50 must be looked at. There is a need for an integrated traffic model. There is scepticism about the provision of the metro link within the time indicated while no condition was attached to the grant of permission restricting the use of the runway until the provision of the metro. A number of conditions attached to the permission namely nos. 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 are vague and are tantamount to granting of an outline permission. The proposal should grasp sustainability seeking to radically reduce car passenger demand, rapid transit provision, bus priority provision, increase in parking charges and changes to employee movement. There is a need for a mobility strategy for all including employees. (Submission E refers to an application for a car park on the Swords Road under ref. F05A/1464).

Mr. R. Kelly’s submission on behalf of Portmarnock Community Association was supported by Submissions F, G & H. Mr. Kelly refuted a number of the points made in the RPS response to the grounds of appeal and queries the the validation process for the Saturn model. The transport section of the EIS should be subject to independent


validation. The Fingal County Council’s Transport Plan (submission F) does not concur with the view expressed in the EIS regarding the limited impact the runway would have on traffic. Mr. Kelly noted that the DTO model has since been upgraded and is more up to date and would give a better picture. The forecast model figures produced for the EIS under-estimate forecast traffic growth. Even with the under-estimated figures the junctions are reaching capacity. The traffic generated by the proposed runway would be significant and that even with a small increase would result in junctions reaching capacity. There will be unreliability in journey time. He considered that metro will not resolve the problem and that this is accepted in Fingal County Council’s Transport Plan. He considered the 45% modal shift to metro is optimistic and that about 30% of people going to the airport would use same. Its catchment is limited and the modal shift would come from bus and taxi. There will still be a doubling in cars to the airport by 2025 even with the metro. There must also be provision for such road based growth. For the Western Access road to be successful access must be from the west and not the proposed road feeding into the existing road network to the east. It should be provided as part of the necessary infrastructure for the runway. Condition 31 attached to the planning authority’s decision does not require a commitment for its provision. A revised Traffic Impact Assessment as required by further information was not provided. It is also queried why the junction modelling was only done until 2010. The Appraisal Criteria as set out on page 93 of the County Development Plan highlights that 20 out of the 32 strategies relating to the airport would have uncertain or negative effects (submission G). In terms of the M50 a level of service ‘D’ would be aspired to which would not be possible should the development go ahead.

Ms. Merriman on behalf of St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents Group stated that no definitive plans of the proposed Western Access Road have been drawn up and the issue should be clarified. There has been no meaningful consultation and it is considered that the proposed road would decimate the community (Submission M).

Mr. Matthew Harley stated that there is an inconsistency in the position taken by the National Roads Authority with regard to the proposed development relative to that taken for the proposed IKEA development in Ballymun in terms of the M50 (submission J). It appears that none of the IKEA traffic and only about half of the 35,000 extra cars per day due to airport growth may have been factored into the M50 upgrade analysis. As runway related growth (c. 17,000 cpd) still greatly exceeds the worst day of IKEA traffic (11,000cpd) the inevitable conclusion is that the proposed runway would cause bad congestion on other roads around the airport even with tolling on the upgraded M50. The runway proposal should be rejected to prevent the benefits of the M50 upgrade being undermined.

Questions to 3rd Parties (Disc 1 – 27/09/06)

Mr. Kelly considered that it would be difficult to differentiate between traffic arising from the runway or from the terminal from a transport planning point of view. It is presumed in modelling to 2025 that all improvements at the airport are included. He accepted that there is a terminal capacity problem. The provision of a new runway with


an additional terminal will increase capacity further and further exacerbate problems on the road network. The road improvements are required, be it the runway or the terminal. The EIS itself states that the runway would generate 13,500 additional pcu’s in 2025 within the peak hour without the metro. Currently the airport generates 4,000 pcu’s.

Mr. Kelly would be in favour of modal split and car parking targets.

Mr. Kelly accepted that the County Development Plan post-dates the Chapter 6 report referred to in his submission. He considers that the objectives in the Development Plan and Local Area Plan by their nature are aspirational and do not constitute work programmes.

Mr. Kelly stated that the DTO model used did not take into account all the improvements referred to in Transport 21 and other improvements provided after the 2002 model was produced.

Planning Authority Submissions (Disc 1 – 27/09/06)

Mr. O’Callaghan (submission K) outlined in overall terms how the application was processed with regard to transportation issues. He notes that an extinguishment of a right of way has to be carried out on part of the R108 under Section 73 of the Roads Act. The Transportation Department will not grant any temporary road closures during the works. The existing road network will have to be maintained during the construction of the realigned roads. It is considered that the provision of a second runway will not of itself create an immediate increase in traffic around the airport. The increase in vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the airport will be governed by terminal capacity. It is the view that the impact of increased traffic is programmed for in Fingal County Council’s LAP, the Government’s Transport21 and the National Roads Authority’s plans.

Mr.O’Sullivan (submission L) detailed the methodology and findings of ILTP’s independent review of the proposal on behalf of Fingal County Council. It is considered that as the roads proposed as part of the development of the runway are infrastructure development, they will not in themselves generate additional traffic other than at construction stage. Development rather than infrastructure generates traffic therefore neither the proposed runway nor the adjoining roadways will generate traffic. Traffic generated by additional development as proposed as part of the LAP, such as the additional terminals and commercial development, will require a traffic and environmental impact assessment as outlined in the LAP. Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the strategic transport plan for the LAP involved an up to date Saturn model which was sent to the DTO. The analysis undertaken shows that the impact of the proposed development on the transport network would be localised in nature. The conditions attached are quite precise and relate to the runway. The LAP makes a clear distinction between the runway and the 2nd terminal. The infrastructure proposed as part of the LAP is designed as part of the overall development of the Airport and its lands and must be implemented to provide for the road capacity necessary to cater for the estimated growth expected due to the development of a second/third terminal and commercial areas at Dublin Airport.


The necessary closure of the R108 will change the travel flows on Forrest Little Road (west of the R108), the R108 and the R122. The effect of this closure does not appear to have been addressed in any detail in the EIS or AI. It is assumed that the only vehicles that would continue to use the R108 would do so for access purposes. These would include staff of the Irish Aviation Authority premises, patrons of the Boot Inn and local businesses and residents. The extinguishment of part of the R108 would not take place prior to the realignment of the R108 as outlined in Condition 29. Condition 29 could be reworded from ‘closure’ to ‘extinguishment’ of roads.

Safety problems experienced at some of the existing viewing areas adjacent to the southern runway will be addressed as part of the proposed road improvemments as set out in the LAP. They no longer need to be addressed as part of the proposed condition.

In terms of construction impacts and as no detail was given as to the source of material required for construction, or areas identified for deposition of soil, it is difficult at this stage to identify the preferred route. ILTP assessed the three routes considered and agree with the overall appraisal but felt that the existing R108 should also be considered for use by construction traffic as this road will experience considerable reduction in traffic following closure and realignment. It was agreed that route B was not suitable for construction traffic.

Mr. O’Sullivan also went through the relevant conditions relating to transport and traffic.

Mr. Flanagan confirmed that the map submitted by Ms. Merriman is not a statutory document and noted that the Local Area Plan has been adopted and Map 2 would refer.

Questions to Planning Authority (Disc 1 – 29/09/06 & 02/10/06)

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the north-western corner of the road box in Map 2 of the LAP showing the extent of the LAP area would appear to be outside the area of the Action Plan which is an emanation of the County Development Plan. Mr. Flanagan stated that the Development Plan is the primary document and would prevail. The DA zoning is reflected in Map 1. Map 2 shows the road proposals external to the local area plan. All but one of the road proposals are identified in the County Development Plan. The LAP is intended to be consistent with the County Development Plan but correctly extends beyond the zoning. The LAP refers to objective nos. 33, 34 and 36, 56 and 57 of the County Development Plan. There is an existing road near to the north-west corner, a re-alignment of which is being contemplated in the external road proposals. There is the general objective TP16 on pg. 105 of the County Development Plan which seeks to protect and enhance surface access to and from the airport which would be seen as adequate to cover the north-west corner and proposed works

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that an upgrade of St. Margaret’s By-Pas would be a possibility as part of the LAP.


Mr. O’Sullivan stated that in terms of the LAP full traffic and transport modelling was done on output from the DTO. The background report underpinning the said strategy is provided (Submission Q). The LAP has a specific objective that on-going detailed modelling be done and that this is happening through the DTO.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that there are a number of policies in the LAP EA14 and EA15 which require passenger growth targets to be achieved in a sustainable way.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that in terms of the alignment of the metro there is an emerging preferred route which would be in proximity to the terminal in line with the line shown on Map SF1 of the Development Plan. It is an objective to protect the alignment. Mr. Barnes (Inspector) stated that it would appear that this alignment would pass under the safety zone of the eastern end of the proposed runway.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the Western Access Road and that to the north-west as shown on the LAP are indicative and would be subject to its own separate assessment. It is the intention of condition 31 to ensure that the building of the runway would not prejudice the roads objectives and to make sure there are no inordinate constraints following from the proposal. Mr. O’Callaghan confirmed that it is the intention that the ceding of the lands for the western access in the future would be free of charge. The Western Access is not included in the Development Contribution scheme. Mr. O’Sullivan confirmed that the proposed junction design is adequate for the proposed development. It would be difficult for junction design to take account of the proposed western access at this stage as there are no design details. Condition 27 (b) relates to a junction to the north-west on the Castlemoate Road and is a precautionary measure.

A suggested wording revision for condition 31 was submitted by the planning authority (Submission AH) at the end of the hearing.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the conditions are more to ensure a level of flexibility in that where a more suitable junction design may occur that it is put in when the development is progressed. It is intended that the proposed roundabout at St. Margaret’s By-Pass and spur road through airport lands to the north-west as shown in the Scott Wilson report of 2005, Figure 2, be provided as part of the permission. It is not explicitly stated in any of the conditions. The Board could consider such a condition if appropriate.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that in terms of conditions 27(d) and 29 the extinguishment of right of way and road closure are separate. The extinguishment of right of way can have a future date for enactment so that the alternative access arrangements are in place before it is enacted. This could be clarified by the Board by way of condition. Barberstown Lane would be part of this extinguishment while access to Dunbro Lane will be maintained. Mr. O’Sullivan agreed to the suggestion that in condition 29 the word ‘public’ should be put in so to read ‘public rights’.


Mr. O’Sullivan stated that it is intended that condition 32 relates not just to the study but also to the VMS signage. Mr. Flanagan stated that the study itself would cost in the region of €150,000 with an upward cap of €2m. in relation to the provision of signage.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that there would be additional traffic during the construction stage and that it would not have a material effect. There will be the disposal of 46,000 tonnes over the life of contract with an estimated 106 HGV movements in and out on a daily basis.

Mr. O’Callaghan confirmed that 99.6% of current traffic to the airport is road based. Mr. O’Callaghan is of the opinion that Paragraph 2.3 of the LAP should be read together. Mr. Kelly is of the opinion that it would appear to link passenger growth to both landside and airside development and that the link between the land use and transport planning is evident in the LAP.

Mr. Stanley stated that the issue of constraint refers to runway capacity. If the runway is not built it will limit the number of passengers that would go through the airport as the market in Dublin is insufficient to sustain large numbers of large jet airlines as in Gatwick. Terminal capacity constraints were not factored into the statement made on pg. 7 of his report to the planning authority. While terminal capacity can be provided in a modular fashion in line with demand a runway can only be provided in one go. Often there is an imbalance. Often there can be spare capacity on the runway which would not generate traffic if the terminal is not of sufficient size. He is of the firm view that it is the terminal and landside developments that would have an impact. The runway will have only localised impacts.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the TIA sought in the further information request resulted from the first letter from the NRA to the planning authority. This was superceded by a later letter dated March 2006.

Mr. O’Callaghan confirmed that if there were significant indirect impacts they would have been assessed. Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the EIS would not necessarily have been endorsed by the planning authority. It was felt that a lot of the presumptions made about how development might manifest itself at the airport in the future in the EIS were not required for this proposal. The modelling was done for the growth of the airport and not just the runway. It went beyond in terms of modelling what is required for this proposal. The traffic modelling has been overtaken by events and is outdated. There are now a series of infrastructural measures which weren’t presumed in the modelling for example the dual carriageway in the airport box.

1st Party Submissions (Disc 1 – 02/10/06)

Mr. David Hardcastle (submission P) stated that the modelling and forecasts were provided as a worst case assessment in order to demonstrate the full impact of traffic growth that might occur on the network. His submission details the traffic modelling


work undertaken for the EIS and reiterates points made in the EIS and documentation accompanying the application. The submission also gives a commentary on the validation results of the EIS model in response to criticisms by appellants. EIS forecasts were expressed in terms of demand flows which provide a worst case representation of road conditions. A set of alternative Actual Forecasts have been provided in this submission which show lower flows and lower stress levels. Both the Demand and Actual Forecasts show only a modest increase in traffic levels resulting from the 2nd

runway. This confirms that the major impact on roads in the local area of the airport arises from traffic growth caused by demographic and economic growth and in particular land use development. The effect of the 2nd runway is small in comparison and doesn’t, itself, warrant any major infrastructure improvements. The submission also gives details as to construction access including access from the R108. His submission also commented on the evidence by Mr. Robert Kelly for Portmarnock Community Council and by Mr. P. O’Callaghan and Mr. C. O’Sullivan for Final County Council. It was decided that impact of traffic arising from the runway was so small that it did not warrant the updating of the DTO model post EIS.

Richard Hamilton RPS (submission R) addressed the conditions relating to transport and traffic attached to the planning authority’s decision.

Mr. O’Donnell addressed the submission by Mr. C. Morris on behalf of T. Murphy GSS and why use of the access service road to the south of his property could not be used. (Submission S).

Questions to the 1st Party (Disc 1 – 02/10/06)

Mr. Hardcastle confirmed that the projected figure of 38m passengers per annum in 2025 is based on two runways and three terminals. The forecasts came from the DTO multi-modal model. He dealt with questions from Mr. Kelly arising from Table 2 of his presentation, model validation, actual and modelled flows. The concept of ‘whole journey time’ was not dealt with.

As per details given in Submission AJ the peak hour for all traffic movements to and from the airport is between 9.00 and 10.00 am at c. 3200 vehicles.

Mr. Hardcastle stated that the increase in journey times on the surrounding network arising from 50% increase in passenger numbers would depend on what improvements are to be undertaken. Road improvement works are detailed in the LAP in addition to improvements underway on the M50. Mr. Kelly noted that the improvements to the M50 were included in the said modelling. In terms of level of service on the M50 Mr. Hardcastle stated that what is desirable may not be feasible. The level of service is not something that was taken into consideration. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the level of service depends on a number of factors outside the control of the applicant. In terms of the current levels of congestion on the M1 Mr. Hardcastle stated that his latest work involving Actual Flows shows forecasts for the M1 extension in 2010 in the order


of 8,000-9,000 which is less than but close to capacity. Operating conditions on the motorway are therefore likely to be very busy on most occasions and congested at times of higher than average flow. The effect of the 2nd runway is to change the ambient traffic conditions very little at this location (Submission AI).

Mr. Barnes, the Planning Authority and the DAA discussed conditions and wording of conditions including condition 31 relating to the reservation for the Western Access.

National Roads Authority (Disc 1 – 27/09/06)

Mr. R. O’Dea stated that the NRA did not have a statement to make to the hearing. It’s position is as outlined in its letter dated 27/03/06 on file and that it did not raise any objections to the runway.

Rail Procurement Agency (Disc 1 – 02/10/06)

Mr. Rory O’Connor stated that there is an emerging preferred route. In terms of the route in the vicinity of the airport it would be underground with a station at the transport distribution hub. The envisaged timescale entails the submission of a railway order application by August 2207 with power to build by middle 2008, construction to commence in 2009 with completion by 2012. There would be detailed design discussions with respect to its line relative to the safety zone of the proposed runway. The construction methodology would be in the EIS although it is possible that it would be a combination of bore and cut and cover. The tunnel will emerge north of the Forrest Little Road.

In response to questions Mr. O’Connor stated that as forecasted for 2016, 34 million would use the metro per annum, 6 million would be accounted for by airport passengers (including staff).

Discussion of Document ‘Metro North A Link to the Future’ (Disc 1 – 04/10/06)

Mr. Sweetman stated that the document notes that the M1 is already under stress. As the runway will generate HGV traffic this must be taken into serious consideration. The metro may not get built and the M50 and M1 would grind to a halt. Larger areas of carparking will be required. The application of the condition for demand management measures on the approval for the expansion of the M50 would suggest that it would continue to be under stress without this development.

Mr. Flanagan stated demand management was a specific condition of the approval granted by the Board for expansion of the M50. The document relates to all forms of development at the airport both air and land side.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that the date of the document is important and that the reference to the network being under stress does not take into account improvement works. It refers to the M50 not upgraded and the M50 and M1 interchange operating on a give way


priority basis not on a free flowing interchange which is part of the current proposals which is being progressed actively by the NRA (pg.14). The LAP links the provision of commercial development to the metro (pg. 33) and seeks to control car parking at the airport (pg.26). Map 2 of the LAP shows the airport box that would facilitate dissipate traffic and would allow access from all sides not just the M50 and N1. Car parking would be on the access roads into around the airport with bus transfer from such points.

Mr. O’Donnell stated that the applicant was urging the development of the metro. Much of the document would appear to be based on the figures in the EIS assessment. Mr. Hardcastle in his latest work on the actual flows calculates for 2010 in the order of 8000-9000 which is close to capacity. He is of the view that the 2nd runway would have little change on the current ambient conditions at the locations identified in the document. Mr. Sweetman stated that Mr. Hardcastle did not include the additional air freight. Discussion of Document ‘Dublin Airport Mobility Management Plan’ (Disc 1 – 04/10/06)

Mr. Lumley raised the relevance of the tables and compliance with the DTO Strategy which requires that public transport should provide for the majority of travel in terms of the projected number to use public transport. The target should be more than 50% modal share for public transport. The projected modal share is problematic for both passengers and employees. There are also issues relating to carparking with car parks on private lands outside the control of the applicant. No European airport has attained the 50% modal share and other cities are also grappling with the issue. It shows that airports are car dependent. The plan is not timetabled and targeted. There are conflicts in terms of phasing of the various elements to sustain the airport and ensure sustainable transport and accessibility. There has been no mobility management plan for the airport up to now. It is in contravention of the regional planning guidelines and the DTO strategy.

Mr. O’Donnell stated that there was a previous mobility management plan in place in 2002. The current plan has just been submitted to the local authority and will form the basis for extensive series of consultations with statutory bodies. If it is possible to improve on the figures the applicant will endeavour to achieve same.


NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY ISSUES

3rd Party Submissions

Ms. Kavanagh (Disc 1 – 02/10/06) stated that while the runway objective has been in the County Development Plan since 1972, Portmarnock was to have only ‘limited development’. This has not been the case.

Mr. Sweetman stated that European policy is superior to national policy. There has been no reference to European policy in the proposal.

Ms. Lawton (Disc 1 Submission C – 27/09/06 & 03/10/06) stated that the need for the runway has not been proven. Gatwick airport can accommodate 30m passengers per annum with one runway. The airport should be moved to the centre of the country, possibly to exhausted Bord na Mona lands. Development of regional airports is also relevant. There is potential for a high speed train link to Shannon. Increased co-operation between Dublin and Belfast airports using the rail line between them and the feasibility of a bridge between Rosslare and Fishguard should be assessed. The Dublin-London route is the 2nd busiest route in the world. Such a short flight is ineffective in terms of fuel.

Mr. Byrne (Disc 1 – 03/10/06) noted that there is no national aviation policy.

Mr. Harley (Disc 1 – 03/10/06 Submission V) gave a presentation on the Economic and Social Framework of UPROAR’s case against the proposed Northern Parallel Runway. Among the issues raised he questions the economic case put forward by the applicants and the claims as to job creation which would arise as a consequence of the proposal. Mr, Harley also addressed the issues of proportionality, the costs to be borne by communities in the area, the need for a cost-benefit analysis in line with Department of Finance guidelines, the opportunity cost of land, the absence of a proper assessment of the alternatives considered and the fact that a second airport, if needed, would be viable. He noted the lack of a National Aviation Policy and lack of guidelines from the Department of Transport. He also considered that the proposal directly conflicts with the National Spatial Strategy. Public investment programmes can be organised to achieve more balanced regional development.

Mr. Sargeant (Disc 1 – 29/09/06) stated that there is a need for a National Aviation Policy. There is no recognition by the applicant that we are facing into a peak in production of oil and aviation fuel. Regard should be had to the NSS and regional development in terms of Shannon and Cork. The proposal would be against Government policy in this regard. Aviation contribution to climate change must also be assessed. A cost benefit analysis should be undertaken.

Ms. M. O’Brien (Disc 1 – 03/10/06) considered the application to be premature and recommended that it be withdrawn and a composite application for the runway and 2nd

terminal be lodged. Alternative locations should be assessed.


Ms. S. Morris and Ms. H. Merriman (Submissions D and X Disc 1 26/09/06 & 03/10/06) query the applicability of the Masterplan since it post-dates the planning application. They consider that development in Fingal has reached its peak and should now be distributed to the outer regions to encourage growth and development. Shannon and Cork should be assessed.

Mr. Lumley (Disc 1 – 03/04/06 & 04/04/06, Submission W) considered that there is no coherent National Aviation Policy and that the proposal was selectively positive towards one aspect of government policy. He noted that the National Development Plan does not make any specific reference to airport development but that the transportation and road planning objectives in the said plan are relevant to the road network serving the airport. The proposal does not achieve the objectives such as in the National Climate Change Strategy 2000. The airport is the single biggest destination point in the country. Land based transport is a big contributor to transport greenhouse gases emissions in Ireland. Vehicular emissions will increase despite the proposed provision of the metro. The EIS does not indicate any mitigation measures in this regard. There is no specific objective to provide the runway in the NSS. The proposal will exacerbate the already obvious regional disparity between the Greater Dublin Area and the rest of the country and would fail the NSS in terms of balanced regional development. The potential for two regions could have been considered in terms of the Eastern Region and the Atlantic Corridor. The proposal could have been located in Shannon with an efficient rail network connecting the cities. Shannon could be a potential alternative thereby using surplus capacity. It was ruled out due to absence of a rail connection. There is currently no rail connection in Dublin. The growth in freight is also an important consideration. There should be a freight management policy. Currently there are large subsidies available to the aviation industry. The objectives of Transport 21 are not equally advanced. The M50 upgrade is advanced while the time line for the metro should be seen as optimistic. A condition restricting commissioning of the runway would not be reasonable as the deficiency is too great. The Regional Planning Guidelines reiterate what is in the NSS and DTO. Regard should also be had to other Regional Planning Guidelines in the country so as to ensure balanced regional development. There is a balancing act to be done between local, regional and EU requirements. The Board can decide that regional and EU requirements take precedence. Regard must be had to relevant European requirements and legislation which are superior to Irish law such as the White Paper on Transport Policy 2010. Large projects have both local, regional, national and international impacts. Mr. Lumely referenced the Amsterdam Treaty 1997, Gothenburg Declaration 2001, Kyoto Treaty, EIA Directive 85/337/EEC as amended, EU Air Quality, Noise, Waste and Water Frameworks, Birds and Habitats Directives.

Questions to 3rd Parties

Mr. Sargeant answered questions regarding a cost-benefit analysis.


Mr. Lumley confirmed that the Government Statement of Strategy finishes in 2007 and has no strategic value in the consideration of aviation. He also answered questions on non-compliance with Kyoto agreement.


Mr. O’ Faircheallaigh (Submission Y) considered that the proposal secures planning objectives at national, regional and local level. He noted that it has been Council policy to keep the areas to the east and west of the airport as green belt although there has been a little slippage. The objective for the northern runway has been in successive development plans since 1972. The LAP is the principal development control tool for the area. He referred to the NSS, Department of Transport Investment Programme – Transport 21, Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland (1997), Public Safety Zones – Cork, Dublin and Shannon Airports (2005), Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (2004-2016), DTO Strategy, A Platform for Change 2000-2016, South Fingal Planning Study (2004), Fingal Development Plan 2005-2011 and the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan.

Mr. Farrell (Submission Z) detailed the process and background details in assessing the application and the decision reached. The presentation also included a response to the 1 st

Party appeal against conditions and brief response to the main issues raised in the 3 rd

Party appeals.

Mr. Stanley (Submission AA) in his statement gave details supporting the need for additional runway capacity. In terms of aircraft mix it is unrealistic to assume that Dublin will achieve the levels of wide-bodied high-capacity aircraft as in Gatwick due to the relative size of the domestic markets. This will effectively cap the number of passengers which may be handled on a single runway at a lower figure than in more densely populated areas. With a forecast capacity of 44 movements per hour the Consultants estimate that additional runway capacity will be required in 2010. He also detailed the alternatives considered by the applicant and considers same not to be fully comprehensive. It is considered that the current impact of the Airport is significant. The application has been looked at primarily on a national, regional and local perspective. But it is important that it is also considered at an international and particularly European level. The issue of international competitiveness is of importance. If there is no slot available in Dublin it does not mean that the airline would look to an alternative location in Ireland. It would most likely look elsewhere in Europe. Airports are centralised in other European countries. Dublin airport cannot stop aircraft landing if it has a slot and space. It has to handle the market and decide what investment is needed to meet that market. He does not envisage the aircraft mix that is currently experienced would alter significantly. A runway can only be built in one go while terminals can be built in a modular fashion. As a consequence runway capacity goes up in big jumps. The runway does not increase the passenger numbers. That can only be done by increase in capacity in terminals. In terms of the PSZ’s the number of properties affected is smaller than in other similar airports due to the land use planning approach which has been adopted. Mr.


Stanley advocates the Stakeholder’s Forum which allows for affected persons to have a say.

Questions to Planning Authority (Disc 1 – 04/10/06)

Mr. O’ Faircheallaigh stated that the noise zones incorporated into the Development Plan are based on the 57 Leq and 63 Leq and are comparable to low and medium levels of annoyance. The contours have historically come from the airport. The noise zones are based on the assumption of the mixed mode use on both runways until 2010. The situation would be reviewed depending on what decision the Board makes. The contours are being used as a development control land use tool. While there are lands zoned from the previous County Development Plan now within the inner noise zone it was decided not to de-zone same. Only a small parcel adjacent to the Forrest Little Golf Club was rezoned to residential use in the inner noise zone in the current development plan. The residential zoning would take precedence over the policies for the inner noise zone. Submission BP details the lands zoned residential since 1983 within the area delineated by the old 35NNI contour to the north, the coast road to the east, the old 35NNI contour to the south and the Malahide Road to the west. The County Councillors were fully briefed on national and regional issues and what was involved with the said noise zones.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that the planning authority asked its transportation consultants to work with a theoretical figure of 40 million passengers for the LAP. Mr. Stanley confirmed that this figure was the effective capacity of 2 runways.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh did not consider that the separate adjudication of the proposed runway and 2nd terminal constituted project splitting. The two are separate objectives in the Development Plan and it is reasonable to deal with them separately.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh answered further questions on the LAP and the roads objectives with specific reference to the north-western corner of the airport box.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that the County Council is taking the view that a cabinet decision was made to effectively adopt, in principle, the ERM report on PSZ’s. He stated that PSZ’s are likely to be revised from time to time if circumstances change.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that consultation with St. Margaret’s in line objective DAO10 is due to commence within the next two months. Condition 8 of the authority’s decision effectively refers to same.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that a Health Impact Assessment was not considered appropriate and that health issues are dealt with under the different headings of air quality and noise. There are no Irish Guidelines in drawing up of a Health Impact Assessment. Its insertion into the current Development Plan followed a motion by a Councillor and is somewhat ambiguous and is taken to mean that where a health impact assessment is appropriate then these matters would be taken into account.


Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that the mobility management plan has not yet been forwarded to the planning authority. It would be more appropriate for the application for the 2nd terminal. It would normally be required by way of condition.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that the issue of financial viability of the project is a matter for the appropriate Minister and the applicant and is not a matter for adjudication by the planning authority. It is not a matter taken up with any other developer.

Mr. Stanley stated that to allow efficient, independent use of runways they must be a minimum of 1.5km apart. The only obvious alternative option would be a completely new airport which is not considered reasonable.

Mr. Stanley stated that the size of the engine testing area would depend on the size of the aircraft which are to be tested. A 747 would exceed 500 sq.m. but it is not apparent to him that engine testing for 747’s would be required. It is a commercial decision. The location rather than the size of the engine testing area is the key factor.

Mr. O’Faircheallagh is of the view that the EU has no competence in land use planning. Land use planning is of national and local competence.


Mr. Hamilton advised that a 10 year permission is being sought in view of the potential for delays from external factors as the project is a major infrastructure project which requires major finance and construction. It is prudent to take account of all eventualities. Mr. O’Donnell stated that statutory responsibilities and procedural matters with the Aviation Regulator would also be gone through which take time. Procurement and European requirements also have to be met.

Mr. M. Foley (submission AB) set out the duties and responsibilities of the airport authority and details the strategic planning framework for the development of Dublin Airport. The DAA do not believe that an unbounded Cost-Benefit Analysis is required, relevant or beneficial for either the north parallel project or indeed the overall Capex programme, in the context of the DAA’s explicit statutory remit to develop Dublin Airport, specific policy directives and objectives emanating from the Shareholder in the form of the Aviation Action Plan (May 2005), the strategic planning environment and the explicit remit of the Commission for Aviation with regards to the determination of an appropriate price cap for Dublin Airport. He detailed the proposed phasing at the airport with pier D to be completed in 2007, the 2nd terminal and pier E project to be completed in 2009 and the proposed runway scheduled to be completed between 2010 and 2012. The other attendant developments would be on an ongoing annual basis.

Mr. B. Drinan gave details of the development history of the airport. (submission AC)

Ms. M. Coveney (submission AD) gave details of DAA’s passenger and aircraft movement forecasts. Long term passenger demand and aircraft movement forecasts are


produced for Dublin Airport every 1-2 years. The forecasting methodology is similar to that used in many other airports. Market issues associated with a second airport are also detailed. All the experience to date suggests that a single airport is the best operating model for cities of the size of Dublin. Regional policy considerations are also detailed.

Mr. R. Hamilton (submission AE) detailed the strategic planning context of the proposed development. Reference is made to the NSS, Regional Planning Guidelines, DTO ‘Platform for Change’, Department of Transport Investment Programme – Transport 21, Sustainable Development-A Strategy for Ireland, Fingal County Development Plan and Dublin Airport Masterplan Local Area Plan.

Mr. D. Brassil (submission AF) detailed the land use impact assessment of the proposal as given in the EIS. With the notable exception of St. Margaret’s for which policy provision has been made, it is not anticipated that there will be any material or significant adverse impact on the patterns of land use in the vicinity of the airport.

Mr. N.C. Mason (submission AG) detailed the economic impact of the proposed development. The proposed runway is important is terms of maintaining and enhancing the City’s competitiveness as a European business centre. If the expansion of Dublin Airport is constrained by a failure to provide additional runway capacity this will restrict the development of services to new destinations and the growth of frequencies on existing routes. Both of these factors are likely to have a significant impact on the connectivity provided by Dublin Airport and hence on the competitiveness of the Irish economy.

Questions to 1st Party (Disc 1 – 04/10/06)

Mr. O’Donnell stated that certain procedures have to be agreed with the Aviation Regulator ie. capital projects at the airport. The runway is needed as a matter of urgency. Mr. Foley stated that the design work on the Ground Transportation Centre is progressing and will have many manifestations before the metro is completed. For example work is nearing completion on a reconfiguration of the short term car parking area to facilitate buses in the interim. There are other improvements earmarked from now until provision of the metro. The Ground Transportation Centre is identified in the 10 year plan. The applicant would be supportive of any phasing programmes drawn up by the local authority for external road improvements.

Mr. Mason stated that the DAA does not, itself, project freight tonnages. The figure of 70,000 tonnes which would be lost if the runway was not constructed, is derived from passenger forecasts in particular the long haul aircraft movements. Such freight would be brought to the airport in lorries and vans.


Ms. Coveney stated that there isn’t a simple answer to freight capacity at Shannon as it is a function of both bellyhold capacity and dedicated freighter aircraft and depends on what the mix is in terms of passenger and freight.

Mr. Foley stated that Shannon airport has a terminal capacity of 4.5 million with a spare capacity of c.1 million. Dublin Airport’s growth this year is 2.4 million, thus it would require double the capacity available in Shannon. It puts in perspective the different scale that Dublin is growing relative to the regional airports.

Mr. Mason stated that Dublin is not comparable to cities such as London, Paris, Milan and Munich. He wouldn’t agree that it would be appropriate to establish the principle of more than one airport serving cities. Airports are not necessarily in competition with those close to them. Competition exists nationally and internationally. Mr. Mason justified the references to other airports in his evidence.

Mr. Drinan stated that the twin parallel runway system as detailed in previous historical documents were not parallel to existing short runway 11/29 but to each other on a different bearing.

Mr. Mason stated that runway 11/29 most likely couldn’t be used independently for short haul locations without pay load restrictions and certain wind conditions. It is essentially used for turbo-prop aircraft.

Questions relating to economic and financial issues were asked of Mr. Foley, Mr. Mason and Ms. Coveney including queries regarding cost-benefit analysis.

Ms. Coveney stated that airlines are interested in going to Dublin they are not as interested in going to Shannon or Cork. The proximity to the capital city is a very important element in route planning. While they may go to other locations they would not put in the same levels of capacity and service. Even if the market issues could be resolved, which would be hugely difficult, there would also be issues of replication of services at Cork and Shannon which would be an enormous cost. If the airlines were interested they would be doing it already. The Open Skies policy is the reason why the long haul airlines are most interested in Dublin. They are interested in capital cities as it has the population and critical mass and attractiveness from an airline perspective. They seek to fill the aircraft every day which is more likely to be the case where there is a greater population.

Ms. Coveney stated that the growth of tourism to Dublin Region cannot be correlated to Dublin Airport’s plans only. Cork and Shannon are growing at about 15% per annum which is a similar growth rate to Dublin. The trend wouldn’t necessarily be reversed if the development didn’t go ahead.

Mr. Foley stated that the capacity figure of 40m for the runways is not disputed but it is not absolute. It could be plus or minus 5/6m depending on a different parameters including aircraft mix. Mr. Foley stated that the DAA has an obligation to operate


commercially. Runways are expensive pieces of infrastructure and as such the capacity will not be delivered until it is absolutely necessary.

Ms. Coveney stated that Gatwick airport is completely different and has much greater long haul flights using larger aircraft and different methodology and techniques such as stacking in order to deliver the throughput that it does.

Ms. Coveney stated that fuel is a significant cost to airlines. It would be unusual for airlines not to be looking for measures to reduce and improve same.


SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

3rd Party Submissions (Disc 1 – 06/10/06)

Ms. O’Brien (submission AO) on her own behalf and on behalf of Mr. Murphy and Portmarnock Community Association stated that the volumes of surface water released from the new runway will overwhelm the existing water courses and permanently flood the Sluice Stream catchment. There does not appear to be any plan in the EIS to mitigate surface water runoff into the nearby drainage ditches/streams during the construction phase. The facility should be designed to cope with rainfall from the 100 year return. It is important that any chemical discharges from the airport are contained as the receiving waters will not have the capacity to deal with pollution. Any pollution released from the airport will be readily transmitted to Baldoyle Bay which is extremely vulnerable. The karstic nature of the ground should also be taken into consideration.

Mr. Harley stated that the issue of surface water drainage is an example of an externality which has not been taken into account.

Ms. Morris queried whether the stream in Millhead would be affected and how the polluted waters from de-icing are to be disposed of.

Mr. Lumley stated that Kinsealy Lake has had a history of problems.

Mr. Sweetman stated that the non-technical summary made one reference to water. The cumulative effects were not addressed.


None


Ms. McElligott (submission AP) considered that it is appropriate to consider the detailed design of both the stormwater management and pollution control systems post decision as both of these elements of the proposal can be adequately accommodated within the site in line with current policy, ensuring no increase in flood risk downstream and no deterioration in water quality. The discharge of contaminated runoff to water/sewers requires a Trade Effluent Discharge License under the Water Pollution Act. Due regard was had to regional policies. Development of brownfield sites require surface water drainage to greenfield site levels. Ms. McElligott also addressed condition 2 attached to the planning authority’s decision and recommended revised wording.


Ms. McElligott stated that the planning authority has set the discharge limit and the DAA would have to ensure that adequate storage is provided to comply with same. There is


adequate area to provide storage. She expects that the attenuation tanks would be increased at detailed design stage. Storage for the 6hr/100 year event will be required which would be greater than 90ml/hr for a 100 year event and would be looking at the worst case scenario. The storage facilities are to be covered. The planning authority would be amenable to sustainable urban drainage systems.

Ms. McElligott stated that it is assumed that the attenuation areas would not affect the line of the metro.

Ms. McElligott stated that the LAP details policies for site drainage throughout the wider airport area and environs and would address deficiencies in the system.

Ms. McElligott stated that there are pollution inspectors and pollution incidents would be investigated. The trade effluent license will clearly relate to the area of the application. Mr. Flanagan stated that there is an obligation on the applicant to advise Fingal County Council of a major pollution incident under Section 14 of the Water Pollution Act.

Ms. McElligott stated that the conditions attached require the maximum permissible BOD discharge of 3mg/l throughout the entire year and is higher than required for the protection of fish. The proposal would have no impact on Kinsealy Lake. Contaminated runoff is to be diverted to the foul sewer.

Ms. McElligott answered questions on conditions 2 and 12.

1st Party Statements (Disc 1 – 06/10/06)

Mr. Schulter (Submission AQ) addressed the issue of surface water and stated that the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems have been incorporated into the design of the drainage for the proposed runway. His submission details the drainage system to be developed including treatment of runoff during construction. The polluted water holding tanks are sized to hold 25mm of rainfall falling on the runway and taxiway surfaces. Research from the UK indicates that contaminants relating to de-icing are removed in the 1st flush of 10-12mm of rainfall after the last de-icing event. Therefore 25mm will completely contain the 1st flush from two contaminant events. This is currently considered to be a best practice approach within the UK. Based on runway design and to ensure compliance with the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board requirements for the Ward River, the paved area surface water drainage system will drain to a single discharge point within the Sluice catchment. This arrangement will alter regional catchment boundaries slightly.

Mr. Morgan (Submission AR) addressed surface water quality detailing the impacts of the proposal in both the construction and operational phases. In terms of residual impacts Mr. Morgan stated that provided the construction phase is undertaken in an environmentally sensitive manner, impacts are likely to be minimal and confined to some localised siltation in the vicinity of the site which should dissipate within one to two


seasons after completion of construction. The operation phase pollution control measures should also prove effective provided they are adequately monitored and all equipment, probes and alarms required are properly operated and maintained. The result should be that the water quality in the Ward and Forrest Little watercourses should not decline below their current levels as a result of the proposal.

Mr. King (Submission AS) stated that the proposal has the potential to influence the groundwater quality especially during the construction phase when limestone bedrock may be exposed at the western end of the runway. Mitigation measures are recommended during the construction and operational phases to reduce the risk to groundwater in aquifers beneath the site.


Mr. Morgan stated that de-iceant would arise mostly onto the paved area. A small amount could arise on the non-paved areas which would be diffuse over the area, percolate and degrade naturally over time. He stated that the continuous monitors would be only on the runoff from the hard stand areas. There are to be smaller attenuation tanks to catch the grassed land run-offs. Manual monitoring could be carried out.

Mr. Schulter stated that in addition to the attenuation tank there would be additional storage in the pipes. The attenuation tanks would take 24 hours to release. The polluted water tank was sized separately and has a capacity of 13,580m3.

Mr. Schulter stated that there would no discharge to St. Margaret’s from the paved areas with only discharge to that area from the grassed areas.

Mr. King stated that there are engineered solutions in terms of providing a protective layer on the western end of the proposed runway where depths to bedrock are c. 1.5 metres. Mr. King stated that the proposal would not have a significant effect on water tables beyond the site due to low permeability of the rock and existence of clay.

Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that excavation material would be used within the site. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that there are no plans to use Kinsealy Lake for attenuation.


ECOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND VISUAL IMPACT

3rd Party Submissions (Disc 1 – 06/10/06)

Mr. Lumley stated that cultural heritage was not addressed in the EIS. He made specific reference to St. Margaret’s and Dunsoghly Castle. The proposal moves the impact of the aviation and flight paths northwards and would impact on adjacent areas of cultural heritage.

Mr. Harley queried whether a potential ringfort c.1km from existing 11/29 runway was examined.

Ms. Morris stated that St. Margarets is very proud of its heritage and made reference to Millhead, Dunbro, St. Brigid’s Well, Priest’s Paddock, Parochial Hall, the Boot Inn, St. Margaret’s graveyard, Forest Tavern Monument and Dunsoghly Castle. She also expressed concern as to the visual impact of the lighting structures at the end of the proposed runway on Kilreesk, Millhead and Dunbro.

Mr. Sweetman stated that the EIS is inadequate in terms of ecology and that no details are given as to the archaeological surveys relevant to the construction of the existing runway. He also expressed concern that inadequate information has been given on visual impact with nearly all detail yet to be agreed with the planning authority. Mr. Sweetman also referred to the derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive with respect to bats on the site. He also referred to Article 12(d) of the Directive and stated that the necessary information is not available.


None


Mr. Clabby (Submission AU) stated that the Council’s decision reflects its policy in relation to minimising adverse impact and ensuring that appropriate mitigation and compensation measures are taken to conserve and enhance biodiversity and is consistent with the policy framework detailed in the LAP. Mr. Clabby made suggestions as to revised wording/amendment of a number of conditions. The Council considers that the optimum location for the compensatory habitats is in the vicinity of Brackenstown and Knocksedan Bridge by the Ward River Valley. This will facilitate the integration of these habitats into the existing public amenity lands at this location. The applicant would be responsible for the purchase of the lands which would be dedicated to the County Council. While detailed specifications or costings have not yet been drawn up for the survey/restoration of the historic formal gardens in the Ward River Valley it is proposed that the applicant contribute 75% of the cost to complete the project which is estimated to be c. €2m. It is not accepted that an excessive number of issues have been left for post-


consent agreement. Given the scale and complexity of the project and the long timeframe involved this approach is considered the only practical way to deliver the mitigation measures required.


Mr. Clabby explained the concept of the compensatory habitat that is proposed to address the 29km of hedgerows which are to be removed. While not effectively a new habitat the area of the compensatory habitat which is currently in agricultural use would be enhanced and it would reflect the species mix being removed. He does not consider it reasonable to require the said compensatory habitat to be in place before construction on the runway commences. The survey of the hedgerows to be removed would be similar to other studies carried out throughout the country.

Mr. Clabby confirmed that the Forest Tavern Monument is not a protected structure but the planning authority wishes for it to be retained. No specific site has been identified by the planning authority for its relocation. There is a commitment in the LAP in relation to the milestones. Mr. Clabby detailed how the proposal would not have significant adverse impacts on Baldoyle Estuary. The monitoring and management of same is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Clabby stated that as a project programme and costings has not been finalised it was not considered reasonable to insert a timescale for the restoration of the former gardens in the relevant condition.

Mr. Clabby discussed the wording of a number of conditions with Mr. O’Donnell including the financial contribution towards restoration of the formal gardens.


Ms. Lane (Submission AV) addressed cultural heritage. Dunsoghly Castle is beyond the distance of which impact would arise in terms of context. The distance between the runway and the castle is c. 1 mile. It would also have no impact on the material remains associated with the cultural heritage in St. Margaret’s. A ringfort was identified during construction of the existing runway and was removed. No information was available on same (from National Monuments Service) when drawing up the EIS.

Ms. J. Neff (Submission AW) addressed terrestrial flora and fauna and stated that the most significant impact in ecological terms will be the loss of hedgerows. The proposed habitat replacement and creation measures, including the planting of appropriate native species of trees and shrubs, should provide for an increase in the representation of faunal species in the area and ameliorate losses of existing habitat on site. While bat activity was noted on the site no roosts were identified although they could be in ivy covered trees and in attics of local houses. A bat specialist is to be retained.


Dr. Fennessy (Submission AX) addressed avian breeding and wintering birds.

Prof. Thomas (Submission AY) addressed bird strike hazard. The Dublin Airport Bird Hazard Management Programme is described in Airport Directive No.5 (Aer Rianta 1992) and the Wildlife Management Plan 2002 (Aer Rianta 2002). The construction and operation of the proposed runway does have the potential to change the nature and extent of the bird hazard at the airport. Habitat management designed to make an airfield unattractive to birds as possible is the cornerstone of an effective bird management programme. Coastal areas are c.7km from the site of the proposed runway. Aircraft on final approach to the runway would normally cross the coast at a height of approx. 1,600 – 1,700’. Although bird strikes do occur at these altitudes they are rare with the vast majority occurring on or very close to the runway.

Mr. Chapman (Submission AZ) addressed landscape and visual effects. The assessment of the impact of the approach lighting on adjacent residential areas concluded that significant adverse visual impact would occur to certain properties when certain atmospheric and operational circumstances arise, particularly to the northern edge of St. Margaret’s, at the western end of the proposed runway.

Mr. Martin (Submission BA) addressed the impact on agriculture in the vicinity of the proposed development which is considered to be insignificant.


Mr.Martin stated that the general area is already difficult for stud farming due to the noise from the runway. The proposed runway will impact further. Some of the land within the 165 hectare land take could be continued in agricultural use.

Mr. Thomas stated that the airport in its management plans already works with nearby landowners in terms of bird hazard management and this would be extended to the area between the two runways. It does not have to involve cutting down trees. Negotiations have been held with the pigeon racing association and, in principle, there should be no problem. Affected persons will be consulted.

Mr. Chapman stated that in terms of approach lighting to the west of the runway and due to the duration and magnitude of the impact of the approach lights it could be described as slight to moderate rather than as significant as stated in the EIS. The lights would only be used in certain atmospheric and wind conditions. 75% of the time the lights would not be in operation. 1 house (Fox residence) would be directly affected by the lights but the lights are targeted with 10o beams from the centre line of the runway. The Fox residence has an approx. throw off of 36o from the centre line of the runway. The intensity of the light is adjusted for conditions. The trees within the hedgerow to the Fox’s residence will need to be managed in terms of height. Planting of the affected boundary could be considered and discussions are underway. During certain atmospheric conditions with a condensation mist occurring there would be an illuminating effect.


There would be localised, intermittent and subjective impacts. The properties in Kilreesk are relatively well protected and would not experience any direct impact save the above illuminating effect during certain weather conditions. The electricity wires serving the lighting poles would be underground. The most westerly light fitting would be c. 9.5 metres high.

Mr. Chapman stated that hedgerows outside the site affected by the lighting fixtures etc. would be maintained at a certain height and it is proposed to repair where necessary. Ms. Neff answered questions on bats and the issue of whether bats are resident on site. If bats are using the site the term ‘resident’ is used colloquially in that they are present. Using the site does not mean they roost on the site.

Mr. O’Donnell on behalf of Ms. Lane (Disc 2 - 11/10/06) referred to the possible ringfort feature noted by Mr. Harley. The feature is in an area identified with a number of other archaeological features. The entire area would be the subject of investigation and, as yet, it is inconclusive.


PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND AIR QUALITY


Dr. Anthony Staines (Disc 1 – 29/09/06) made a submission relating to the Human Health Component of the EIS (submissions O and O1). He is of the opinion that this part of the EIS is insufficient on the grounds that the scale of the likely impacts from the project demand a proper evaluation, using the methods of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) which is the internationally accepted standard for this kind of assessment. He stated that the material produced is inadequate even as a small scale desk exercise. He referred to a number of studies which show that airport noise reduced the quality of life and the educational achievement of exposed children while having diverse effects on human health. He considers the literature review to be out of date and inadequate with little attempt made to link the evidence in the literature to the details of the proposed development and the community around it. A Health Impact Assessment drawn up for Finningley Airport is included in the supporting documentation.

Professor Stansfeld (Disc 1 – 02/10/06) gave details of the RANCH study on aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health (Submissions T and U). The study was cross national. The study identified linear exposure effect associations between exposure to chronic aircraft noise and impairment of reading comprehension and recognition memory as a non-linear association with annoyance. There is evidence that aircraft noise does affect children’s learning. The findings indicate that a chronic environmental stressor such as aircraft noise could impair cognitive development in children, specifically reading comprehension. Schools exposed to high levels of aircraft noise are not considered to be healthy educational environments. Effectively new schools should not be allowed close to airports. He stated that there has been relatively limited research on insulation in schools and, as such, it is not entirely clear whether it is effective.

Mr. Byrne (Disc 1 – 05/10/06) stated that there is an obligation to address the issue of impact on health. A Health Impact Assessment should be considered. The issue of improvements in pollutants from aircraft has not been claimed. Thus the increase in aircraft numbers is of concern.

Trevor Sargeant (Disc 1 – 29/09/06) noted that there would be 19 schools accounting for 11,710 pupils which would be impacted should the proposal go ahead.

Ms. Lawton (Disc 1 – Submission C 27/09/06) stated that an airport raised the same issues as a chemical plant. The airport will constitute a danger and should be treated as per the Seveso Directive. She considers that the PSZ’s should be redesigned as public health and safety zones. The EIS is too limited in terms of the impact of the proposal on public health. Night flights are of concern. There has to be a balance between health costs and economic benefits. The RANCH study investigated the issue of noise on children in education. The issue of safety also arises with an additional 200 fuel trucks accessing the airport. In terms of air quality monitoring should be carried out by the


EPA. Benzene, PM10 and NO2 levels recorded at a number of locations were above EU limits. There are also concerns in terms of the lake/sea breeze effect. There is no monitoring of air quality between Portmarnock and Malahide. An airport is the main emitter of NOx. PM10 levels are high and no details are given as how it is proposed to achieve the 20mg/m3 by 2010. There are concerns in terms of global warming and the contribution of the aviation industry. Ms. Lawton noted that the EU Commission will be investigating how economic instruments can be used to reduce the climate change impact of air transport such as fuel tax and VAT.

Ms. T. Kavanagh (Disc 1 – 02/10/06) stated that in terms of the PSZ’s which would preclude schools being built in such zones, the corollary should be true. She also queried the basis on which the PSZ’s were drawn up. She considers that the PSZ’s are inaccurate as they are based on the previous measurements for the runway which were changed prior to the lodgement of the application. As the zones are inaccurate it is queried whether the permission for the runway is valid.

Mr. Harley (Disc 1 – 05/10/06) stated that in terms of the PSZ’s very little attention was given to what is actually on the ground with the ERM study effectively based on a statistical analysis.

Ms. O’Brien (Disc 1 – 05/10/06) referred to the fact that 15 minute measurements are taken for air quality measurements at Belfast airport and would be higher than the monthly average. As individuals breathe continuously such 15min monitoring would be more appropriate. The vertical measurement over Portmarnock of aircraft is not the same as the 6.8km lateral distance. Consideration should also be given to the ‘lakeshore effect’. Air quality is a global, transboundary phenomenon.

Ms. Morris (Disc 1 – 05/10/06) expressed concerns in terms of safety at take-off and landing. She referred to noisy aircraft between 10pm and 2am and also expressed concern as to the smell of aviation fumes in St. Margaret’s.

Questions to 3rd Parties (Disc 1 – 29/09/06 and 02/10/06)

Dr. Staines stated that it is the purpose of the EIS to show whether any health effects would occur. He stated that Health Monitoring such as that carried out by the RIVM (Dutch Environmental Health Agency) in the region of Schipol Airport entails two elements including detailed environmental monitors including noise, emissions and flight patterns and ongoing health studies of the populations. The programme has been built up gradually over time.

Dr. Staines stated that in terms of the National Air Quality Standards the theory is that the levels are set below the level at which effects on human health are detectable. Emission levels are set at what can be achieved, not at a level at which human health would be affected.


Prof. Stansfeld stated that conventionally constructed schools are better than flat roofed and port-a-cabin schools as noise comes through the roof. He also stated that the character and quality of the aircraft noise is of issue. Distraction from traffic noise does not have the same impact. The EU Directive on Environmental Noise is to be revisited. There are also studies dealing with the impact of aircraft noise on adult health and mental health.

Planning Authority Statements (Disc 1 – 05/10/06)

Mr. Flanagan stated that the planning authority accepted the details provided by the applicant in the EIS in terms of Public Health and Safety.

Mr. Stanley (Submission AA) stated that St. Margaret’s is within the zone affected by the flight path during take-off/climb out and approach/landing and so will be the main location where aircraft emissions may impact on air quality beyond the site boundary. Predicted hourly NO2 concentrations are below 30% of the NAQS. Predicted concentrations for hydrocarbons, CO and PM10 in this area are well below the standards for all operational scenarios for both 2010 and 2025. A slight to moderate impact is predicted within the community for both the With Runway and No Runway options. However no significant impact on the environment is predicted.


Mr. Stanley stated that the airport and airlines are working to best international standards. The standards are an amalgam of opinions of various interested parties including the medical profession and aircraft manufacturers. With advancing technology aircraft become more efficient and pollution will decrease. Aircraft are less polluting than 20 years ago. Technology can only move at a certain rate. Every aircraft has to be registered and ensured that they are safe. By being safe they are less polluting. It does not pay to economise on maintenance grounds. He suggested that the WHO guidelines are taken into account in establishing the international standards.

Mr. Stanley stated that the PSZ are based on the analysis of every crash in the world. In certain parts of the world standards would not be as good as in Europe and North America. If such zones were based on crashes in Europe and America alone they would be significantly different. The odds are against an accident in the area, however the corollary of that is that if there was an accident it would be serious.

Mr. O’ Faircheallaigh stated that in the determination of the PSZ’s it is presumed that aircraft stick to the centre line of a flight path but that it is his understanding that deviations from same are taken into account.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh stated that the operation on an individual day is controlled by the Irish Aviation Authority through Air Traffic Control. The operation of the runway is under the control of the DAA. Mr. Stanley stated that the Stakeholder’s Committee could influence how the runways are used and issues relating to fumes/odours should be


raised with same. He stated that the application of fines to the airline for deviations off the flight path does not benefit the community.

Mr. O’Faircheallaigh detailed what would and would not be considered reasonable in terms of planning applications in the St. Margaret’s area. No new houses would be allowed in the Inner Safety Zone.

Mr. Stanley stated that as noise monitoring is already carried out by the DAA such monitoring by the planning authority would be duplication.


Mr. G. Vernon in his statement addressed risk assessment and Public Safety Zones (Submission AK). If the airport operators choose to operate the dual parallel runway system in segregated mode, an additional area of PSZ protection would be required as the Department of Transport only considered mixed mode operation. In the mixed mode operation the proposed PSZ’s are completely adequate even in the highest-risk future case. With the new runway in place and in operation 3rd party risk due to aircraft accidents in the vicinity of Dublin Airport is predicted to be tolerable, providing measures are taken to ensure that it is As Low as Reasonably Practicable, according to the requirements of the Health and Safety Authority. Measures which would satisfy DoT guidelines are detailed.

Mr. M. Bailey (submission AL) addressed the impact on local air quality arising from atmospheric emissions during the construction and operation of the proposed runway. He detailed the modelling process and material input into same. The results of the modelling study indicate that predicted ground level concentrations based on the 2010 and 2025 scenarios with the new runway in operation are substantially below the NAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), benzene, carbon monoxide and PM10 downwind of the airport boundary. He also detailed the issue of modelling predictions for pollution over Portmarnock and Malahide. The evidence obtained from the modelling study demonstrates that the primary impact on air quality beyond the immediate area (1-2km) around the airport is due to road traffic emissions. There are currently 11 monitoring locations both close to the site boundary and in the wider community. Both diffusion tube and continuous monitoring is undertaken by RPS Consultants on behalf of the DAA and provides a relatively good indication of the air quality in the area. With respect to a Health Impact Assessment it would be difficult to conclude that impacts are definitively from emissions from airport or from emissions from aircraft. There are many complicating factors and it would be difficult to establish a casual relationship and the criteria for the study would have to be carefully drawn up. The NAQS are based on health, WHO and EU guidelines with a safety factor built in. In terms of the ‘Sea Breeze Effect’ certain weather conditions have to apply with differential heating of land and sea arising from strong sunshine, with light westerly or easterly winds. The condition would not occur with strong westerly winds. Sea breeze effect is a circulation cell. It is not static and is transitional. At Dublin Airport winds from a south-easterly direction would


be required. In Ireland such wind conditions may arise 4-6% of the year. It would be meso-scale and localised.

Prof. J. Heffron addressed the potential human health effects of air pollutants arising from aircraft emissions (submission AM). The relevant limit concentrations of benzene, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM10 are within the relevant limit concentrations for the protection of human health as set out in (a) Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002, S.I. No,271 of 2002 based on EU Air Quality Directive, Dublin 2002 and (b) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd edition, WHO, Copenhagen 2000. The EU has been relatively conservative in terms of PM10 levels. The EU standards take into account the extra sensitivity of children and elderly and have a high safety factor built in.


Mr. Bailey stated that the DAA are not required to have a dense monitoring network. In 2002 there were three monitoring locations associated with the airport in 2006. This has been increased to 11. The continuous monitoring locations are in St. Margaret’s, Kinsealy, Castlemoate House Swords Road with a further two within the airport boundary. Continuous monitoring entails 15 days every quarter which give indicative levels and then they are interpolated over an annual basis allowing for an informed judgement. He detailed that additional locations could be considered for monitoring if there are particular concerns. There are a number of reasons why certain sites cannot become a monitoring site ie. security and availability of mains supply. In terms of the synergistic effect of chemicals there would have to be a high concentration of pollutants to establish a ‘cocktail effect’.

Mr. Bailey stated that odour modelling was not undertaken. There could be a nuisance complaint log and/or spot surveys. Although simplistic the best is a sniff survey as levels of odour detection are well below what would be detected by monitoring. A sampling protocol could be adopted should such a situation arise.

Mr. Bailey answered questions about the source of information fed into the model in terms of aircraft and emission inventory and adjustments of emission rates.

Mr. Bailey confirmed that the EIS assessed combined impacts of runway, traffic and emissions from the Dublin Airport complex. He stated that slight variations in AADT would not have a major impact in terms of air quality modelling. He is confident that the model used was adequate. The modelling took into account proposed road infrastructure. He notes that airports are not listed as a Scheduled industry by the EPA and do not require an IPPC licence.

Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that the number of fuel trucks in the high growth scenario in 2025 would equate to 107 movements per day and is not considered to be a significant issue. The proposed runway would account for 50 of this figure.


Mr. Bailey stated that noise has less compounding factors than air quality in terms of studies.

Prof. Heffron answered questions on epidemeology vs. toxicological studies of airports. He confirmed that benzene is the most dangerous compound but is not an airport specific emission. Protection factors are used when extrapolating what is acceptable in terms of impact on human health and a conservative policy is adopted in setting standards. It is being reduced by 1 ug per year until it becomes nought in 2010 thereby giving a setting of 5ug/m3. There is a 100% margin of tolerance included. As such a reading over 5ug/m3

would not be a material concern as the protection factor set for levels of benzene are significantly below the level at which concerns in terms of human health would arise. Ms. Lawton noted that benzene levels were recorded at 5.18 at St. Margaret’s in 2003.

Mr. Bailey stated that the annual average of benzene is the correct measurement not a monthly measurement.

Mr. Bailey stated that Portmarnock is downwind of the airport and would not generally be affected by pollutants from aircraft which would be at altitudes in excess of 200m over the area. In the instances of inversion where there are foggy conditions with light winds the mixing layer would be at c.150 metres which would prevent pollutants from aircraft at the higher altitude from descending. Ozone formation generally takes place considerable distance downwind of urban areas as have to have chemical processes going on.

Mr. Bailey and Mr. Evans answered questions on dust during construction and disposal of cleaning water.

Mr. Bailey stated that for a 737 aircraft on a 1000 km flight, emissions of CO2 from fuel burn in take off and landing would only account for 10% of the total for the whole flight. The mixing layer is crucial in regard of dispersion.

Mr. Evans confirmed the preferred mode of operation. The existing runway would continue to be used in mixed mode. When wind is from the west arrivals would be on the southern runway with departures on both runways and when the wind is from the east arrivals would be on both runways and departures on the southern runway. The preferred option would seek that the cross runway would not be used. Some of the time the existing southern runway would not be able to be used ie. maintenance thus some allowance was made in the modelling for this scenario and thus represents a proper worst case. Mr. Evans stated that at the moment often following the landing of a large aircraft a small aircraft would be directed onto the other runway for safety reasons. He considers that this separation could continue albeit on the two parallel runways and would be up to ATC. This has been taken into account.

Mr. Evans confirmed that provision has been made for CAT3 instruments on the proposed runway. Runway 28 has CAT3 and runway 10 has CAT 2 at present. The runways would be equally capable. Such instrumentation allows for landing in poor


weather conditions with CAT 3 being the best there is. The lighting as shown in the EIS is for CAT3 instrumentation.

Mr. Vernon answered questions on the PSZ’s and the issue of probability and acceptable levels of risk. Reference has to be made to theoretical levels of risk. The opportunity is there to affect the potential safety of people in the future and this is the role of the zones. The effect of the size of the aircraft in the PSZ’s is important but that there is little difference between large and larger aircraft. There is a logarthim relationship. There is a bigger difference between 737’s and light aircraft. The risk is proportional to the level of aircraft traffic. The PSZ are based on the assumption of maximum capacity in 2025 so potential risk would be somewhat lower than predicted. There isn’t a sudden transition between the zones in that the zone indicates the edge of the risk. There is a continuum of risk. The closer to the centre the higher the risk.

Mr. Vernon stated that the number of movements on the southern runway in mixed mode would be in the order of 185,000 per annum in 2025. The ERM report was based on the maximum runway capacity. He confirmed that his risk assessment and conclusions would be unchanged.

Mr. Vernon stated that risk predictions do not take SIDS and STARs into explicit consideration.

Mr. Vernon stated that the issue of wake vortex risk and fuel dumping were not examined in detail. Fuel dumping would occur in emergency situations over the sea. Wake vortex risk apply to runways close to heavily built up areas.

Mr. Bailey stated that the number of fuel dumping incidents would be neglibible on an annual basis and was not included in the modelling done. Generally such emergency dumping does not occur at a low level (below 1,500 metres) and would have good droplet dispersion. Also on the basis of probability the prevailing winds would tend to blow it out to sea. Vapourisation would also tend to occur due to altitude. In rare occasions it may have droplet formation but unlikely to have major impact.


NOISE


Ms. Lawton (Disc 1 – 27/09/06 Submission C) stated that noise has a material impact on those under the flight paths. It can have a negative impact on health and is problematic at night. Regard should be had to the Noise Directive. There is no protection for quiet areas in the EIS. The benefits in terms of newer aircraft and advances in technology will not be felt for a long time as the majority operating from Dublin Airport are relatively new with jets having a life span of c.30 years. The preferred mixed mode of operation would result in a significant increase in noise. The noise contours are based on certified measurings from aircraft certificates which were not accepted in a court case in the UK.

Ms. O’Brien (Disc 1 – 06/10/06 Submission AN) considered that the section on noise in the EIS is inadequate. The predicted sound power level of the present mix of aircraft should not be taken as the absolute measurement of their noise generation without validating the prediction. The maps used are out of date. They do not include recent development in Swords, Portmarnock and Malahide and thus is it queried whether the population figures used are similarly out of date. The deviations from flight tracks are not applied in creating noise contours. The residents of Portmarnock have no legal protection against the level of noise experienced. Schools in the area are already badly affected by noise from aircraft.

Mr. K. Searson (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submission BB and BB1) detailed noise measurements taken at a number of homes of persons in St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents Group. He raised issues relating to the further information submitted in response to the Board’s request, the INM model and use of fast and slow time weighting. The prediction package is incapable of predicting arrival LAF,max levels at, or close to any of the appellants’ properties. Reliance on this prediction method means that it is not known how many decibels will need to be attenuated. Any buy-out of properties should take into account the creeping background levels which the expansion of the airport has caused to date. Modern up to the minute acoustical engineering criteria and radical thinking should be employed.

Ms. S. Morris (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submission BC and BC5) presented a powerpoint and video presentation detailing the impact of the proposal on St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents Group. She stated that the noise contours map give no indication of the exact noise levels which would be experienced. The contour lines are considered to be arbitrary and would suggest that those residents outside the contours do not suffer from noise. The buy-out scheme is flawed.

The following made submissions on behalf of St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents on the impact of the proposal on their lives and properties - Mr. N. Reilly (submission BC1) Mr. J. Scully (submission BC7), Ms. H. Gilligan, Ms. Deirdre Colgan (submission BC2), Ms. S. Morris (submission BC3) and Ms. H. Merriman (submission BC4). Further submissions by P. & M. Deighan (submission BC6) S. Hand and J. Scully


(Submission BC7) were presented on their behalf. Submission BC8, which includes supporting details including copies of correspondence with various groups and individuals, was taken as read.

Mr. F. Walsh (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submission BD) stated that the EIS does not fully investigate the existing and likely noise impacts in Portmarnock. The issue of the sound level meter setting (slow) of the INM method of calculation and the SEL and LAmax

values derived from same was also raised. Use of the A-weighted noise scale is inappropriate for assessment of noise from low frequency content such as aircraft noise. His submission also details the health effects of aircraft noise including impact on children. The further information provided to the Board showing noise levels measured relative to the INM data and comments accompanying same suggest that the DAA does not have effective noise monitoring in place. Noise contours used for describing aircraft ‘footprints’ are a very coarse metric. Larger aircraft will cause significantly higher noise levels than current aircraft. He recommended conditions should the Board be disposed to a favourable decision. Mr. Walsh stated that there were large differences between the figures from Sharps Redmore and those from Mr. O’Kelly which puts a question mark over the reliability of the noise monitoring system.

Mr. Madden (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submission BD1) stated that the noise levels experienced at St. Nicholas of Myra National School makes teaching difficult. Tests have been done by Aer Rianta at the school but average readings were taken. It is felt that they should be peak readings. Insulation should be provided. The new runway would have less of an impact than the existing runway. The tests carried out in relation to dust and air quality are difficult to confirm due to traffic on the nearby road.

Mr. Byrne (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submission BN) raised the issue of the impact of noise on other areas such as amenity spaces, churches etc.

Mr. Harley (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submissions BE and BE1) stated the contours as given on the map for the new runway are taken from the existing runway and moved north-eastwards as no LAmax data (taken from DAA figures) for the new runway was available. It can’t be assumed that technology advancements in terms of aircraft noise will advance as they have in the past. While LAmax is particularly relevant at night it is not irrelevant during the day especially in the context of children and learning. He stated that there are in excess of 11,500 children in over 18 schools in the affected area. As the fleet operating out of Dublin airport consists of a large proportion of new aircraft they will be used for a long time period therefore any technological advances will not be experienced. Aircraft movements are increasing. The population experiencing the noise is also increasing. It is expected that there would be a population of 100,000 by 2025 in the area of Swords, Portmarnock and Malahide. There is a problem between the airport ensuring maintenance within the environmental corridors and Air Traffic Control approval for same being breached. Amenity areas such as Portmarnock beach would also be adversely affected.


Mr. Sweetman (Disc 2 – 09/10/06) states that no baseline noise study was done for Portmarnock and thus the application is invalid.

Ms. Kavanagh (Disc 2 – 09/10/06) stated that the EU Environmental Noise Directive has been in circulation since 2002 and has come into force in terms of Irish legislation in April 2006 and cognisance should be had of same.

Mr. Lowe (Disc 2 – 09/10/06) stated that the nuisance levels from aircraft noise is significant. Windows in St. Helen’s Senior National School have to be kept closed. Students are denied psychological restoration. Students, including those with special needs, have a right to a better learning environment. Increased insulation can give rise to increased risk and issues relating to health and safety. As yet there is insufficient research to show that insulation works.

Mr. Sweeney (Disc 2 –10/10/06) stated that the Portmarnock Community School is already suffering from noise and referred to the structure of the building. Over 2500 students are affected. The documentation accompanying the application is silent on major areas of health. He also referred to the fact that economic benefits are outweighing children’s futures, that alternatives were not properly explored and that the proposal is contrary to the policy of decentralisation. The impact on Portmarnock Strand was also raised. Mr. Sweeney stated that Malahide Community School wish to be associated with the comments.

Mr. D. Pearson, Ms. E. O’Rourke, Ms. C. Caulfield, Mr. B. Hall, Mr. B. Ennis, Mr. T. Purcell and Mr. J. Fitzmaurice made submissions on behalf of Portmarnock Community Association as to their opposition to the proposal and raised, among other issues, the impact of the proposal on their amenities and health. Mr. Byrne read a letter from Martin Walsh into the record. A letter from St. Anne’s Church (submission BN) was also read into the record.

Questions to 3rd Parties (Disc 2 – 09/10/06)

Mr. Madden stated that to date research is not available to support claims that insulation in schools would be adequate to address the problems of noise. Certainly it would help.

Mr. Searson answered questions on the noise measurements he undertook and the WHO document to which he referred (1995 document). He confirmed that the properties at which he took the measurements did not receive insulation from the original scheme. Mr. Searson stated that the SEL and LAeq are not affected by fast or slow. To get a reduction by 1 or 2 decibels would be relatively easy however it gets progressively more difficult in getting a further reduction. He confirmed that the phrase ‘creeping background’ is used in a conventional sense and not with reference to LA90 levels.

Mr. Walsh answered questions on his submission including clarification of how frequency of flights at night would not affect LAmax levels and stated that the LAeq and A weighting is not ideal for aircraft noise and stated that the D or E scale would more


accurately reflect human perception. He also clarified that he referred to the 2000 WHO document.

Planning Authority Submissions

Mr. Stanley (Disc 1 - Submission AA) stated that the view of individuals concerned must be taken into account. It is recommended that a suitable Stakeholders Airport Liaison Committee be established to take account and minimise, as far as possible, the impact which this development has on the areas affected.

Mr. O’Kelly (Disc 2 – 09/10/06 Submissions BF and BF1) considered that the most environmentally friendly mode of operation was found to be Option 7B with runway 28R as the main takeoff runway and should be given serious consideration. It is suggested for the new runway that a night time noise criterion might be a LAeq,1h level (around 55dBA), rather than setting an LAmax level not to be exceeded, which could be impracticable. The setting of an LAeq, 1h level not to be exceeded would, in fact, put a limit on the number or types of aircraft movements per hour. He notes that there are 7 monitoring locations and detailed results from certain locations on certain days. He detailed the process of investigation where aircraft deviate from environmental corridors. Mr. O’Kelly also commented on conditions attached to the planning authority’s decision relating to noise. He notes that the EIS quotes SEL levels. There is no option for using fast or slow settings and that fast is applied. The use of the LAeq with respect to aircraft noise is used worldwide. Peak noise has a different connotation to the LAmax. Mr. O’Kelly considers that each school needs individual attention. He considers the contours as shown on the map submitted by Mr. Harley (submission BE) to be excessive. He said that it is factually correct that a baseline study was not done for Portmarnock but that the noise modelling looks at the current and future situations.

Questions to Planning Authority

Mr. Flanagan stated that Mr. O’Kelly’s review of both the proposal and the planning authority’s assessment of the issue of noise is independent and unsolicited. He stated that by reason of the documentation submitted to the planning authority, further information and clarification of further information it is the Council’s understanding that Option 7B is the preferred use of the runways. Conditions 5 and 7(c) reflect this preferred option. In terms of engine testing the Council feels constrained by its commitment in the LAP and a cautious approach to be taken to engine testing. Therefore it would still recommend its removal from the northern part of the site prior to commencement of development. It is accepted that some form of criterion is appropriate in terms of night time use of the runway and that the planning authority’s decision is not explicit in this regard. Mr. O’Kelly’s recommendations for an LAeq 1hr. 55dBA level are considered practical.

Mr. O’Kelly stated that the EIS quotes SEL levels. The LAmax is assessed under fast time constant. He accepted that the LA f max would give higher readings than the LA s max for a given variable trace and that it is possible that there could be deviations between the two of between 3 and 5 dB. He accepts that the INM uses the LA s max but doesn’t apply to


the SEL from which the LAeq contours are derived. He accepts that the British Standard and WHO Guidelines recommend that the fast time constant be used for LAmax.

Mr. O’Kelly stated that ISO 1996, which advocates the A weighting and the LAeq being the best descriptor for environmental noise, was voted and accepted by 27 countries including Ireland. The LAmax may supplement it. He does not necessarily accept that the LAmax is a more likely descriptor for sleep disturbance.

Mr. O’Kelly notes that the measured levels at monitoring station 20 are considerably lower than the predicted levels. He also gave details as to the location of the monitor in Portmarnock. He accepted that it is relatively close to the DART station. The issue of independent monitoring was raised. He accepted the computations provided by the applicant as satisfactory.

Mr. O’Kelly accepts that it is possible that inside bedroom levels of over 45dB LAeq could be recorded at night at properties of the St.Margaret’s Concerned Residents Group. While it would be desirable to have it lower such comparable levels prevail for 1000’s of properties. He stated that the NRA Guidelines for the construction of new roads sets a Lden of 60dBA and note that in many cases this may not always be attainable. It is a design goal.

Mr. O’Kelly stated that the INM model is considered to be one of the best in the world. It is automatically calibrated 4 times a day. He would reject Sharps Redmore’s recommendation that the measurement be treated with caution. Actual noise measurements are being taken at 7 locations.

Mr. O’Kelly stated that it would be desirable that noise levels be monitored at particular schools. He accepted that windows and ventilations units in schools must be treated properly. He accepted that a baseline study is useful but that the contour for 2003 is useful. Mr. Walsh noted that could be a difference of +/- 1 km for a 1dB difference. Mr. O’Kelly would like to see night-time flights limited. He considered that there would be difficulties having an absolute night curfew at the entire airport. He confirmed that night-time is seen as 11.00 – 7.00 and not 11.00 – 6.00 as written.

He stated that the conditions attached to the grant of permission should be clear and that operational use of the proposed runway as outlined in Option 7B should be explicitly stated.

Mr. O’Kelly is not aware of the number of deviations from flight paths and he confirmed that he did not look at St.Margaret’s in terms of flight deviations. Mr. O’Kelly was questioned about the map presented by Mr. Harley and about the flight deviations from the environmental corridor as shown on Slide 6 of his presentation. Mr. Flanagan (Disc 2 - 11/10/06 PM) clarified the source of the material used in the graph shown in Mr. O’Kelly’s submission as being from the Community Affairs Department of the DAA from the flight and monitoring system for the day of 21/09/06. The time and day was queried further by Mr. Harley.


Mr. Sweetman raised the issue that the data referred to Section 6 of Mr. O’Kelly’s submission has not been provided to the hearing and that the assessment of same is disputed. Both Mr. Sweetman and Ms. Lawton requested the said data and relevant map be provided. Following consultation with Mr. Thornely-Taylor I did not consider it necessary to seek same. The issue of discrepancies in the text on page 302 and Table 16.3 are noted with reference to the locations of Portmarnock North and Portmarnock South.

Mr. O’Kelly was asked questions about condition 5 and what noise levels it allowed for. The issue of the competent authority relating to noise was raised. Ms. Lawton queried the applicability of condition 5 relating to the use of the runways and the fact that the Air Traffic Control are responsible for same and can overrule the requirements of condition 5. Mr. Sweetman queried whether there was a noise condition attached to the decision, which if breached, would allow for the applicant to be pursued under Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act.

Ms. Lawton noted that Nottingham Airport insulation programme had a threshold of 55dB and 45dB for bedrooms and London City Airport has a threshold of 57dB. Mr. O’Kelly stated that the noise levels at which the buy-out scheme and insulation schemes would be activated are considered reasonable.

1st Party Submissions (Disc 2 - 10/10/06)

Mr. O’Donnell detailed the statutory context on which noise assessment must be carried out under SI 140, 1996. DAA will be the competent body for the drawing up of the noise maps required by the Directive.

Mr. Sharps (Submission BH) detailed how the noise contours were prepared, the effect of the proposed additional runway in terms of the changes to the noise contours and noise levels and the provisions of the noise mitigation scheme. He also commented on the further information submitted following the request by the Board. He also gave details on the EU Directive on Environmental Noise. He stated that the LAmax levels are described in terms of LAmax(slow) as is required for aircraft noise in accordance with the provisions of ECAC Document 29 and ICAO Annex 16. LAmax(fast) levels will be around 3dB higher than those displayed. In his opinion the proposal will not result in a material effect in the southern part of St. Margaret’s (school) albeit this is an area of high annoyance already. Similarly, provided Option 7B (semi-mixed mode) use of the two runways, as is assumed in his analysis, the proposal will not materially affect Portmarnock other than at the southern tip of the village cut by the 57dB low annoyance contour. As the existing runway is to be used at night there will be no material change in the LAMAX value at a given location. The proposed runway may be needed to be used at night on rare occasions during periods of maintenance or poor weather conditions. There will be benefits from the cessation of regular use of the cross runway. The conclusions do not take into account the beneficial effect of the recent introduction of the Boeing 737-800 replacement for the noisier Boeing 737-200 or the likelihood that noise levels from


individual aircraft will continue to reduce in future. Mr. Sharps detailed a number of inaccuracies in the further information forwarded to the Board and noted that the maps in Appendix A and B are not on similarly scaled maps. The inaccuracies relate to the LAmax

values which are wrong. The SEL values in the Table and relevant footnotes are correct and accurate. In relation to the contour validation the measured levels are similar to, or slightly higher than those predicted. The 2025 Option 7b noise contours that reflect the introduction of Boeing 737-800 show a marked reduction in size compared to the contours with Boeing 737-200s. Accordingly the contours in the EIS and EIS Addendum overstate the impact and in this respect are robust.

Mr. Kelly (Submission BI) gave details on the appraisal of the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed runway in terms of road traffic on the existing network. Details are also given on ground noise which typically consist of taxi-in and out activities, aircraft system supports and engine testing. Reference is made to the further information submitted to the Board. Noise impact associated with ground noise issues on the existing environment is not significant.

Dr. Hogan (Submission BJ) gave details of the health impact assessment carried out. He stated that there is no risk of noise induced hearing loss due to aircraft outside the airport. He also addressed the issues of interference with speech communication, conversation, sleep disturbance, health impacts including mental health, effects on residential behaviour and annoyance and impact on schools. Noise insulation of schools within the 60dB contour is recommended. He concluded that in terms of the health effect of environmental noise there is some limited evidence of effects on blood pressure, cardiovascular risk, school performance, mental health and sleep disturbance. Many effects are only demonstrated with ambient noise in excess of 70dB. Given the number of residences within this contour the effect is negligible. There are few, if any, residences exposed to these noise levels and therefore the human health impact of noise from the proposed facility is assessed as negligible. Dr. Hogan also commented on the submissions made by Dr. Staines and Prof. Stansfeld on behalf of the Portmarnock Community Association. He stated that there is enormous common ground between a Health Impact Assessment and an EIS. The assessment of health effects cannot be performed by medical people alone. There would be input from noise and air experts, toxicologists etc., all of whom had input into the EIS.

Mr. Levey (Submission BK) gave details on the previous noise insulation scheme operated for the existing runway 10/28. He stated that a similar scheme is to be offered to those within the 2025 63dBA contour and that it would be available from the start of the runway construction.

Questions to 1st Party (Disc 2 - 10/10/06 & 11/10/06)

Mr. Sharps answered questions as to the issue of likely significant effects and that the only reference made to ‘significant’ is in the context of the change in the noise levels. Table 16.1 of the EIS is similar to one used widely in the UK. There was no assessment made in terms of residual significant effects after mitigation in terms of change in noise


levels. He stated that the significant effects are assessed in terms of the number of properties that would come within different noise bands and the change in the numbers. The 63 contour would be seen as ‘significant’. The extent of the impact is the number of houses within that contour as against the number of houses in the do nothing scenario. There are no guidelines to allow for determining significant effects in terms of LAeq levels at night. In terms of night time there would be no change in the situation and as such there would be no significant effects at night. Mr. Sharps considers a ‘material change’ is a perceptible change.

Mr. Sharps estimated that Kilreesk Lane in 2025 would be about LAeq 79db. The night time figure would be 56LAeq 8hrs. The LAmax slow would be 92.4 slow in 2025 which is estimated to an LAmax fast of 95.4. That would be the loudest event over a three month period. Mr. Sharps answered questions on the noise recordings taken by Mr. Searson at residences in St. Margaret’s. He confirmed that noise measurements weren’t taken at Kilreesk Lane. He accepted that should the runway be used at night the residents of Kilreesk Lane etc. would be woken.

Mr. Sharps stated that the 6dB significant increase and material impact would occur in the northern part of St.Margaret’s. There would be no change at St.Margaret’s school.

Mr. Sharps answered questions regarding his comments regarding caution in terms of the INM system and the withdrawal of material which was submitted in response to the Board’s Section 132 response. He stated that the co-ordinates in the SEL comparison are correct, the INM co-ordinates are not the same as the monitor co-ordinates. The co-ordinates on pg. 10 of the Section 132 response are incorrect therefore the LAmax levels relating to same are incorrect. The validation is quite good and is what would be reasonably expected.

Mr. Sharps did not contradict Mr. Walsh that no baseline monitoring was done in Portmarnock or the larger area affected by aircraft overflights. Mr. Sharps stated that prediction is preferred to measurement. There are baseline figures for 2003 which are predicted. It is not stated anywhere that these predicted figures be validated but this was done for SEL values following a request from the Board for main aircraft types. The SEL values are the building blocks for the LAeq values which are the descriptors on the contours. The regulations were followed and the documents to which the regulations referred. ECAC Document 29 refers to two models one of which is the INM model.

Mr. Sharps stated that the monitoring system was put in place in 2001. The monitor along the Portmarnock Coast Road remains (c.10km start of roll). It is preferable to have a monitor at 6.5km start of roll and St. Doolaghs’ noise monitor was installed in April 2006. Mr. Levey detailed the process of setting up the monitoring sites.

The contours are a single value and if outside the said contour it doesn’t mean there isn’t noise. It is a constant reduction in noise the further the distance from the airport.


There was a preference for the LAmax rather than the LAeq for night time noise. The EIS does not say that the LAeq for night do not form part of the picture.

Submission BO gives aircraft movement assumptions for option 7B used in the INM. Mr. Evans explained the submission in that it gives percentage usage of runways for options including option 7B and the input data for option 7B (corresponding with Appendix G6 of EIS). In 2025 ‘no development’ scenario’, the usage of runway 16-34 would be 7.9%. Figures are for the day-time model.

In terms of replacement of 737-200’s with 737-800’s Mr. Sharps stated that the latter are certified Chapter 3 but that they comply with chapter 4 noise requirements. They were built and designed in anticipation of Chapter 4. The use of 737-200’s are insignificant. In 2005 there were 22,000 movements. In the first 6 months of 2006 there were 500. RyanAir which is the largest fleet is completely 737-800’s.

Mr. Sharps stated that the approx. decrease in noise between the 737-200’s and 737-800’s would be a halving of loudness c. 10dB but will vary depending on whether taking-off, landing, lateral or under the flight path. It is a broad figure. He couldn’t give a figure for Portmarnock.

Mr. Sharps answered questions on the maps delineating persons and households provided to the Board and the apparent anomalies in figures provided for the ‘with’ and ‘without’ development. Mr. O’Sullivan also answered questions on the anomalies. He stated that the difference in the statistics is explained by the inclusion of the cross runway in the no development option with a flight path over Dublin city. The statistics were used to identify the most environmentally friendly option. He stated that the cross runway would be used for 2% of the time. Mr. O’Sullivan estimated that for no development (2025) there would be 2206 population and 968 households. For Option 7B there are 397 houses and 914 population. Thus there would be a positive significant effect based on projections. The actual number of houses on the ground are much lower. Mr. O’Donnell stated that every house within each contour was not counted but considered that the figures provided on the maps can be used to identify the likely significant effects. Mr. Taylor considered that it is strange that the dramatic positive significant effect was not explained in the EIS. Mr. O’Sullivan explained Submission BM (which was subsequently submitted) which gives electoral divisions within each contour.

Mr. Sharps answered questions as to what determines the small number of departures to the west.

Mr. Evans stated that the mode of operation is set out in the EIS Addendum Section 16 Table 1. He considered that there could be problems if there was a condition restricting use of the runway at night in terms of maintenance considerations. Mr. Evans clarified that it is not intended to use the runway at night save in certain circumstances dictated by safety, maintenance, emergency environmental reasons and Air Traffic Demand. The latter was included to cover broader air traffic issues not necessarily covered by safety or environmental issues at Dublin which may occur due to widespread air traffic disruption


over a large area arising from such issues such as adverse weather conditions, technical problems to ATC systems or declared emergencies at other airports. It does not mean air traffic capacity or ability. In terms of increased take off run available it is not intended to be used for that purpose and in that sense does not mean air traffic capability.

Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that the proposed runway would not be used at night (2300-0700) save in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Evans stated that the proposal is not a longer landing runway. It is a longer departure runway and it may be an issue of longer early morning departures (06.30am). Mr. Sharps confirmed that the contours have been based on 0700 to 2300 hours and if departures occurred at 06.30 these would be classified as night-time. The contours were based on information provided and was advised that the proposed runway would not be used at night save in rare occasions. He couldn’t advise Mr. Taylor on the longer runway.

Mr. Harley raised the issue of deviations from environmental corridors in what Mr. Sharps said (2% of time) and what was shown on Mr. O’Kelly’s diagram (over half). Mr. Sharps gave a general answer regarding the ATC process not specifically to Dublin. There are procedures for pilots which must be complied with. There are also procedures in place to get explanations for deviations and methods to penalise aircraft.

Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that ATC controls movement of aircraft and is the supreme authority. But requirements of a planning permission would have to be complied with and would be no defence to say ATC directed otherwise. The applicant would have to incorporate into the operating of the runway ATC requirements and thus it is asking the Board to allow to operate the runway as requested. The IAA was supplied with a copy of the application and indicated that it was happy with what is being proposed.

Mr. Sharps answered questions on the EU Environmental Noise Directive. He notes that the Lden and Lnight indices have not yet been agreed. Other indices may be employed. The SI 142 Environmental Noise Regulations 2006 postdate the EIS. He believes the indices used are appropriate. The Airport Authority will be the competent authority in drawing up the strategic noise maps and the making of the plan will be the function of the Local Authority.

A noise climate is the all encompassing noise within an area and would include a number of different sources. Ms. Lawton queried how the population under cross runway have been greatly affected when the number of flights on same were always small and decreasing. Mr. Harley also raised this issue in terms of weighting of actual events per day. Mr. Sharps stated that this is reflected in the contours. If there are fewer events the contours are smaller. Mr. Sharps and Mr. O’Sullivan gave details of how the contours were produced and overlaid onto ordnance maps.

Mr. Sharps stated that the Wilson Committee Report of 1963 has been validated by a number of studies which continue to verify the LAeq 57 dB as Low Annoyance. He


accepted that the report recommended that the guidelines figures for rural and suburban areas at night time should not be exceeded more than 10% of the time. The NNI levels were abandoned in 1990 in favour of LAeq 16hr. LAeq 8hr and LAmax should be used for night.

Mr. Sharps states that dispersion has the potential to effect the shape of the contours. Contours are based on recommended flight tracks, observations and reports produced which state that 98% stick to the flight tracks. Actual contours are being developed from actual tracks.

Mr. Sharps stated that the criticism of the INM underestimating side line noise is no longer valid as the model has been changed in accordance with SAE updates in recent years. Mr. Sharps stated that the pointed ends of contours arise due to using the default settings of the INM in terms of dispersion and in terms of refinement and tolerance. It was assumed that there isn’t dispersion on arrival and departure. This was based on advice given and confirmed by observations. Radar track records were not available. He answered questions as to the assumptions regarding dispersion as set out in ECAC Document 29 Chapter 10.

He considered that it would be unlikely that the contours produced by the Bruel and Kjaer system in conjunction with the INM link up would be greater than the contours produced in the EIS.

Mr. Sharps stated that the buy-out would be initially determined by the contours. He stated that within St. Margaret’s north the dominant influence would be take off and landing. Initial thrust would not be the dominant influence. The original offer to purchase and sound insulation will be based on the 2025 69dB contour which was developed on the basis of unconstrained, high growth and represents the overall envelope that the airport is unlikely to get to. The buy-out scheme at the 69dB contour is irrespective of which runway generates the contour or indeed should the contours from the two runways merge. The contours would be updated on a bi-annual basis and the buy-out scheme would be reviewed in terms of properties which may come within the contour and would be based on actual noise levels (taking into account dispersion the contour could be wider and shorter). It is a similar system as operated at other airports.

Mr. O’Donnell stated that the buy-out scheme would come into operation even if there is a delay in construction of runway. Mr. O’Donnell stated that there is also the same commitment for the insulation scheme for houses at 63dB and schools at 60dB. He confirmed that the buy-out scheme involves offer to purchase houses not land. There is no compunction to sell. It is considered that there would be a degree of flexibility in terms of individual cases. The houses bought would be retained and rented/used as residences. Those who do not want to sell will be provided with insulation. There is no specific proposal to provide insulation above the 63 Leq scheme. For houses within the 69 interval it may be appropriate to consider a more sophisticated noise mitigation


scheme. It is expected that the take up of buy-out would be slow and that the impact in community terms would not likely to be significant.

Mr. Taylor expressed concern about the buying out of half of a village and replacing it would other persons and that the community effect has not been assessed in the EIS.

Mr. Levey answered questions on the insulation scheme including details of the previous scheme. The insulation package previously agreed was to achieve a minimum reduction of 35dB outside to inside. The outdoor noise levels were the NNI contour of 50 which was the qualifying level which equates to 66 LAeq. Government approval is needed for the insulation scheme and would be based on the current agreed scheme. He stated that there are four schools which will eligible for insulation and the DAA is in discussions with the Department of Education as to the particular requirements to be agreed with them.

Mr. Sharps stated that London city airport has a stringent system with insulation eligibility kicking in at 57dB and reflects the circumstances of that airport.

Mr. Kelly clarified the figures given in Tables 6.7 and 6.8 relating to taxiing noise.

Mr. Sharps stated that WHO doesn’t say annoyance starts at 50 and severe annoyance at 55 but that noise effects below those levels could be considered to be negligible. Mr. Sharps stated that WHO guideline values are not limits or levels above which there are necessarily significant effects. The National Physical Laboratory report for the DETR in the UK considers that the guideline values are levels below which there would be negligible effects in terms of annoyance during the day and sleep disturbance at night. Dr. Hogan agreed with this and that the 35 dBA is an ideal and would be a no effect level. There are a number of schools which do not achieve the ideal. The effect level would probably be around the mid 40’s.

Dr. Hogan stated that in terms of a statistical likelihood of an event ie. a person being affected decreases when a lower number of persons are involved. Dr. Hogan stated that four schools fall within the 60dB contour. Portmarnock Community School on review of the contours with the 737-800’s falls outside the contour but regardless the DAA has committed to insulate it. It is possible to insulate anything the cost of same is another matter. Mr. Levey gave details regarding insulation of residential flat roofed structures. It has been impractical to insulate flat roofed port-a-cabin type structures. The DAA is working with the Department of Education to come up with an appropriate scheme.

Dr. Hogan’s stated that his assessment is based on the assumption that there would be no night time flights on the new runway. He accepts that if there are 6.30 am flights there would be an effect on sleep. Dr. Hogan stated that in dealing with a scientific assessment you must deal with data not anecdote. The levels quoted are internationally accepted. You can’t legislate for individual persons. The guidelines for sleep disturbance are ideal levels and may not be achievable in all circumstances. There are persons who won’t get used to such noise even below levels set out in guidelines.


Dr. Hogan stated that the scale of annoyance for day time (57, 63 and 69) as referred to in the Wilson Report is internationally accepted. The figures for night time are less well defined. The WHO LAmax of 45 would be the ideal figure for 8hrs at night. He estimated a level of 55LAmax would probably be more appropriate. Mr. Bland referred to Mr. Searson’s uncontradicted measurements of noise of 60dB LAeq.

Dr. Hogan answered questions on the RANCH study and insulation. There is no scientific data to allow interpretation of the issue of duration of planes flying over schools. LAeq figures are relied on. Dr. Hogan stated that there would be a higher amelioration of 15dB when estimating a noise level from that recorded outside when dealing with an insulated building (parts of St.Margaret’s School not insulated – prefabricated). The noise inside is the most important not outside. Windows in St.Margaret’s do not open in the insulated section. He is not familiar with British Standard 8233 for noise in a class room of 35dBA which is the same as set out in American design. In designing a new school this would be an appropriate figure. Dr. Hogan noted that the WHO guidelines for pre-school indoors is 35dBA during class and 55dBA in an outdoor playground.

Dr. Hogan states that higher levels of 15dB attenuation can be got with more recent build.

Dr. Hogan considers the precautionary principle to be relevant. The lack of scientific certainty should not prevent development going ahead.

Mr. Kelly stated that the 7am to 7pm construction working hours are typical in Ireland. He stated the suitability of the noise indices used and confirmed that the LAmax used for construction is the slow time constant.

Mr. Kelly answered questions on generators and air conditioning units. The existing systems are not a significant noise issue off site and would not change significantly as a consequence of the development.

Mr. O’Donnell stated that while the airport has no interest in expanding engine testing it is an important element of the airport. He discussed the wording of condition 11. The applicant would be severely restricted if required to remove the engine testing prior to commencement of construction. After the runway becomes operational there would be greater flexibility in reorganising activities at the airport rather than during the construction stage. He said it may be necessary that authorisation be sought from the EPA as the activity is subject to an IPC licence and the movement will have to be agreed with both the EPA and the planning authority. Given the timescale for the construction it is not a hugely significant period in terms of time, it is only a significant period in terms of logistics.


OTHER ISSUES INCLUDING LEGAL ISSUES

3rd Party Submissions (Disc 2 –11/10/06 & 12/10/06)

Mr.Lumley is of the opinion that the EIS is inadequate. The issue of soil is not adequately addressed in view of the extent of the existing pavement to be removed and the potential for contaminated material. Adequate information has not been given on potential importation onto the site, the source of the said materials and the knock-on effects in terms of roads carrying the vehicles. Mr. Lumley (submission BQ 11/10/06 and BS 12/10/06) stated that climate is the single greatest deficiency in the EIS. The EIS does not properly address the different greenhouses gas generation impacts relevant to the doubling of airport capacity and the mitigation of greenhouse gas impacts refer only to aviation impacts and not the land-based transport or site energy demand elements. While stating that there would be no adverse impact on climate from additional aircraft no validation or reference was provided to substantiate the claim. The trans-national impacts are the single greatest impact. The EIS failed to quantify CO2 emissions, detail mitigation measures and provide verifiable independent data. There are two appropriate models for calculated total CO2 emissions generated from aviation movement arising from a particular airport and there is no reason why CO2 figures cannot be provided for Dublin airport. It is stated that the improvements in the aviation industry have not grasped the real issue. There is no agency in Ireland monitoring aviation emissions. There has been a failure at Government level and European level and the effects are being felt downstream. One way to effect change and limit the number of flights is limit the capacity of the airport. If done then the runway would not be needed. Mr. Lumley (submission BS) considers that the assessment of alternatives is entirely deficient. Multi-modal alternatives were not looked at. The common flaw of the five alternatives looked at is that they are predicated on passenger number increase. The issue of increased use of other airports including the additional capacity at Shannon or use of same as a freight hub have not been addressed. It is also considered that the EIS does not adequately address the issue of interactions as required by the relevant Directive. There is established practice on how this issue is addressed and should constitute a separate chapter. The manner in which the oral hearing has been conducted precluded such assessment of interactions. Mr. Lumley also raised the issue of the conditions attached to the planning authority’s decision and the extent of detail to be agreed post consent. It is considered that the application could be refused on grounds of inadequate information in the EIS (details of the asserted deficiencies detailed in submission BS). The inadequacy of the public notices in terms of the nature and extent of development described therein is also raised.

Mr. Lumley (Submission BR and BS and BT) raised the issue of project splitting and the inadequacy of the SEA carried out on the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan in accordance with Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC. It is contended that the proposal is reliant on a defective plan.

Mr. Lumley and Mr. Sweetman raised issues with regard to costs and that the oral hearing may be defined as a ‘review procedure’ as defined in Article 10(a) of the revised


EIA Directive under which there is a new obligation to ensure that any such procedure be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive. Mr. Lumley requested that An Bord Pleanala direct the Dublin Airport Authority to provide funding for environmental Non-Government Organisation legal representation of equivalent status to its own (Disc 1 – 29/09/06 - submission A). Mr. Lumley also sought details of the costs incurred by the applicant on the project to date. Mr. Lumley was advised that the inspector would not make a ruling on the said matters.

Mr Bland (Disc 1 – 26/09/06) on behalf of St.Margaret's concerned residents requested that the Board consider issuing a direction with respect to costs. Mr Searson also requested consideration of engineering and legal costs (Disc 2 – 09/10/06).

Ms. Kavanagh requested a ruling for the costs incurred by her.

Mr. Sweetman raised the issue of the engine testing and the need for an IPPC licence. The nature and extent of the development as described is inaccurate with no reference to engine testing and demolition of runway 11-29. The public notices should refer to the demolition of the existing runway. The non-technical summary is flawed and does not refer to said demolition. He detailed where he considers the proposal does not comply with relevant legislation and Directives. He considered that Section 35 of the Planning Act could be applied in terms of the applicant’s previous non-compliance with other conditions with respect to Shannon. He detailed the aspects he considered lacking and/or inadequate in the EIS including consideration of indirect and cumulative effects and inter-relationships, inadequacy of the non-technical summary, absence of data in the EIS and before the Board, inadequate consideration of alternatives and absence of consideration of cultural heritage. He also raised the issue of project splitting. He made reference to the opinion of the Advocate General in Case 05183 with respect to bats and that the planning authority’s decision is illegal in European Law. The Directive refers to ‘residents’ as did Ms. Neff’s proof of evidence. He is of the opinion that it may not be possible for the Board to make a legal decision with respect to bats as the European Commission has found the primary Irish law to be fundamentally flawed. He also referred to case C12702 with relevance to the Habitats Directive. In the context of the Environmental Noise Directive he referred to European Court Decision 2002-282 which would imply that due cognisance must be given to future implementation of Irish law relevant to European Law.

Mr. Sweetman raised issues regarding the validity of the application in terms of adequacy of the EIS including the non-technical summary. He also requested copies of reports relating to ecology, birds and alternatives referred to in the EIS. Mr. Sweetman contends that both the current proposal and the existing runway should be subject to an EIS due to the intensification of use of existing runway. Mr. Sweetman considered the issue of cumulative effects has not been addressed. Mr. Sweetman contends that the EIS does not give a description of the likely effects of the proposal as required by Article 25 of the 1999 Regulations.


Ms. Kavanagh (Disc 1 – 02/10/06) contends that engine testing is subject to an IPC licence and that the public notices should refer to the demolition of the existing runway.

Mr. Connor Gallagher on behalf of Mr. Harley (submission BU) made a legal submission including application for costs under Section 145 of the Planning Act and the costs and inconvenience incurred due to the rescheduling of the noise module in the oral hearing. Reference is made to project splitting, inadequate assessment of alternatives, the adequacy of information before the Board, the nature and extent of planning conditions which could be attached to a decision to grant permission and the reasons for the decision, consideration of legal matters, assessment of significant environmental effects and Article 10(a) of the Directive.

Mr. Byrne and Mr. O’Neill on behalf of the Portmarnock Community Association also requested costs to be awarded against the planning authority under Section 145 of the Planning Act. Mr. O’Neill also referred to Article 10 (a) of Directive relating to the equity and fairness and it is this in mind that costs are being sought.

Mr. O’Neill in a submission considered that the proposal assessed separately from the proposed 2nd terminal constitutes project splitting and detailed his reasoning behind this view in terms of the primary airport land use and its intensity and the correlation between number of passengers, number of trips to and from the airport and runways. There is no direct correlation between number of passengers and a terminal building per se. It is accepted that the efficiency and effectiveness of the airport in particular the runways would be improved by the terminal but the theoretical capacity of the runways is not affected.

Mr. Harley (Disc 1 – 03/10/06) stated that the EIS should clearly state the extent of development to which it refers. Otherwise the implication is that it could effectively refer to any development at the airport.


Mr. O’Donnell gave an opinion as to why the separate application for the runway relative to the 2nd terminal does not constitute project splitting. The proposal is not attempting to circumvent the EIS or EIA obligations. The Ballymun Regeneration and Arklow Holidays Ltd. cases are referred to including a decision made by the European Court in Bund Naturschutz (1994). He also detailed the timescale which elapsed between the lodgement of the application relative to the Government decision on the terminal. He stated that there are limits as to what can reasonably be included within an EIS. To include all developments outside the control of the applicant is an untenable proposition. It would mean that an EIS could never be drawn up. Can only deal with matters contemplated at the time of the application. He considers that the kernel of the issue for the parties could be whether the cumulative effects have been adequately considered. In terms of cumulative effects Mr. O’Donnell stated that the EIS deals with the worst case scenario in terms of unconstrained capacity and the cumulative effects of the totality of the development have been considered. Interactions have been given comprehensive


consideration. There is no prescribed form in how they should have been set out in the EIS. The EIS is to consider the significant effects. Prof. Scannell in her book details what would be an appropriate approach. Comprehensive consideration was given to alternatives. The Directive and Regulations require an outline of the main alternatives considered. The significant effects as required by the legislation have been identified and considered.

There is an aspect of the proposal which requires an IPC licence. Soil has been addressed in the EIS and it was identified that there was no contamination therefore the Waste Management Act 1996 does not apply. The notices that accompany the application are valid.

The issue of the SEA of the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan has no application to the hearing. The plan is valid.

In terms of the Directive of 2003 and the Aarhus Convention the determination by the High Court in the case of the Friends of the Curragh v. An Bord Pleanala is binding. The Directive would not have any retrospective effect and would not be applicable to the case before the Board.

In terms of microclimate there would be no significant change at and around the airport. In terms of climate change the emissions from aircraft are excluded from Kyoto and do not form part of the National Climate Change Strategy. CO2 from the aviation sector accounts for 0.16% of the national CO2 emissions in 2005 and it is projected for 2012 to account for 0.2%. The estimates are based on aviation fuel sales and include fuel consumed in domestic and international flights and extend beyond Irish air space. Thus the contribution from aviation is small in national and global terms. The European Parliament has adopted a resolution to reducing climate change and the impact from the aviation sector. A number of measures are being considered. The proposal in global terms is insignificant. The impact of the particular project in terms of the EIS and the likely significant effects is what is relevant.


OBSERVERS

Cllr. Coyle (Disc 1 - 26/09/06) represents the Malahide electoral area and raised issues relating to the prematurity of the Public Safety Zones until Guidelines are in place and health and safety issues. If schools are not allowed in PSZs then the corollary should apply. There are a significant number of persons in addition to schools affected by noise. A Health Impact Assessment should have been carried out. The impact of aviation fuel availability in the future was not considered. The EIS does not address the associated impacts of the proposal on the wider environment. The need for the runway has not been proven. The direction of the proposed runway is different from that detailed in the development plan in 1972 and would now affect communities such as Portmarnock. Regional facilities should be considered in line with Government policy for decentralisation. Efficient use of existing runway facilities should be pursued. A special area for engine testing has been included in the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan

Kenneth Millar (Disc 1 – 26/09/06) stated that the proposal constituted an infringement on rights. The constitution only allows for an impact on such rights when there is good reason. This is not the case in the current proposal.

Cllr. Meaney (Disc 1 – 29/09/06) states that the NSS and National Development Plan have not been met by the proposal. The CSO 2006 results shows a population decline in Munster with a very large increase in the Leinster counties.

Mr. B. Ryan (Disc 2 – 12/10/06 submission BV) raised the issues of inadequate consideration of alternatives, need for an independent study of alternatives, inadequacy of EIS, flooding and increase in traffic.

Cllr. C. Daly’s (Disc 2 – 12/10/06 submission BW) observation was read into the record by Mr. Harley. She raised the issues of climate change, increase in traffic and impact on road network, impact on residential amenities, lack of integrated national transport and aviation policy, potential for regional airports, development plan policies and advice given to Councillors, development of Portmarnock nullifying runway objective, LAP based on figures and surveys done by the DAA, need for Health Impact Assessment and need for alternative accommodation for the traveller halting site which will be displaced.


CLOSING SUBMISSIONS (Disc 2 – 12/10/06)

Mr. Bland made a closing submission on behalf of St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents and referred to the inadequacy of impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties and accuracy of the noise assessment undertaken. He also addressed the proposed buy-out scheme. He detailed issues for consideration and inclusion into conditions should the Board be disposed to a favourable decision.

Ms. Lawton in her closing submission (which was given in Irish and subsequently translated into English – submission BX) noted that documents were not available in Irish. She referred to the prematurity of the application relative to transport inadequacies, the inadequacies of the EIS and the disregard for community health. She questioned the need for the proposal.

Ms. Kavanagh referred to the inadequate description of the nature and extent of the development given in the public notices and EIS, lack of a Health Impact Assessment, engine testing, no derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive, project splitting and unsustainability of the project.

Mr. Byrne made a closing submission on behalf of Ms. O’Brien and referred to unsustainability of the project, the impact on the amenities of Portmarnock, inadequate consideration of alternatives, the adequacy of the noise assessment, need for a Health Impact Assessment, and that development which has been allowed since the objective for the runway was 1st included in the County Development Plan means that any right to the said objective should be abandoned.

Mr. Walsh made a closing submission on behalf of Mr. Sweeney and referred to the confusing data relating to noise and late withdrawal of information and the fact that dispersion was not taken into account. He considers that the inaccuracies cast serious doubt on the assessment done on noise. A cap on night-time flights or total ban should be considered.

Mr. O’Neill made a closing statement on behalf of Portmarnock Community Association and referred to the population existing and expected which would reside in the outer noise zone and PSZ. He referred to the inadequacy of the EIS, project splitting, assessment of cumulative effects, and non-compliance with national policy. The proposal is considered premature pending upgrading of road infrastructure and metro link. He detailed reasons why the proposal should be refused and detailed conditions should permission be granted.

Mr. Harley in his closing submission referred to the probability of an accident occurring in the PSZs, the lack of sound economic basis for the proposal, need for a cost-benefit analysis, alternatives not adequately assessed, non-compliance with national and regional policy, need for a Health Impact Assessment, inaccuracies in the noise assessment, inappropriateness of the Stakeholders Forum and need for direct communication with affected groups, and potential for use of runway when other runway is not in use.


Mr. Flanagan (Submission BY) made a closing submission on behalf of the Planning Authority. It addressed the interface of the LAP with the County Development Plan with specific regard to the external access proposals. He also made a statement with respect to SEA, adequacy of EIA, project splitting and conditions attached to the permission including a suggested revised wording for condition 31 relating to the Western Access.

Mr.O’Donnell made a closing statement on behalf of the applicant and responded to the conditions recommended in Mr. Bland’s and Mr. O’Neill’s closing submissions. He made reference to the noise assessment, the EU Directive and Irish Regulations, consideration of alternatives, lead in time provided for by the 10 year permission being sought which would allow for facilities to be put in place, the traffic assessment which took the worst case scenario, evidence provided in terms of health impact, lack of evidence to support claims of devaluation of property and compliance with national, regional and local policies. He also stated that the revised wording for condition 31 put forward in Mr. Flanagan’s closing statement is acceptable and queried the issue of financial contribution towards the Ward River Gardens.


SUBMISSIONS TO ORAL HEARING

Item From Description Notes

Date: Tuesday 26/9/06

A An Taisce Correspondence which had been returned.B DAA-Mr. Hamilton Description of development.

Date: Wednesday 27/9/06

C A. Lawton Submission in its entirety.D St. Marg’s R. A. Re: Policy read on :4/10/06E An Taisce Traffic and transport. LetterF Port. Res. Assoc. Traffic and transport. - Mr. KellyG “ “ “H “ “ “There is no submission ‘I’J M. Harley Traffic and transport.K P.A. “ - P. O’CallaghanL “ “ - C. O’Sullivan

Date: Friday 29/9/06

M P.A. Map (re: Ms. Merriman query- traffic & transport)N “ LAP for airportO Port. Comm. Sch. Dr. Staines’ submissionO1 “ - supporting documents

Date: Monday 2/10/06

P DAA Submission re: transport- David HardcastleQ P.A. Dublin Airport Masterplan- TransportR DAA Conditions for transport- R. HamiltonS “ Mr. O’Donnell response to T. Murphy-journey timeT Port. Comm. Sch. Powerpoint submission- Prof. Stansfeld CDU T. Kavanagh Supporting pictures for presentation CD


V Mr. Harley Economic and social framework presentationV1 “ - supporting items CDW An Taisce Planning policies



X St. Marg’s R.A. Planning policyY P.A. Planning policy Mr. Sean O’FarrellyZ “ “ Mr. Myles FarrellAA “ “ Mr. Stanley (aviation)AB DAA Planning policy Mark FoleyAC “ “ -development history Barry DrinamAD “ “ -forecasting Mary CovenyAE “ “ -NSS&LAP Richard HamiltonAF “ “ -land use impact assessment Declan BrassilAG “ “ -economics Nigel MasonAH “ Condition # 31 re-wordingAI “ Comments on MetroNorthAJ “ Peak times graph Graph

Date: Thursday 5/10/06

AK DAA Public health&safety Graham VernonAL “ “ Mr. Michael BaileyAM “ “ Prof. Heffron

Date: Friday 6/10/06

AN M. O’Brien Noise submissionAO “ Site drainage- slides for submissionAP P.A. Site drainage Ms. McElligottAQ DAA Wolfram SchlüterAR “ Gerard Morgan- surface waterAS “ Richard KingAT “ Map re:drainageAT1 “ -details chartAU P.A. Ecology, archaeology, visual impact Mr. ClabbyAV DAA Cultural heritage Sheila LaneAW “ Flora & fauna Jenny NeffAX “ Birds Dr. Gavin FennessyAY “ Bird hazard Prof. Callum ThomasAZ “ Landscape/visual impact Nail ChapmanBA “ Agriculture William Martin

Date: Monday 9/10/06

BB St. Marg’s R.A. Noise Mr. SearsonBB1 “ -photographsBC “ Noise Sheila MorrisBC1 “ -noise submission from resident


BC2 “ -noise submission from residentBC3 “ -noise submission from residentBC4 “ -noise submission from residentBC5 “ -CD Ms. MorrisBC6 “ -noise submission from resident DeighanBC7 “ -noise submission from resident J. ScullyBC8 “ -addition to Merriman’s submission (received 12/10/06)BD Port. Comm. Ass. Noise Fred WalshBD1 “ -letter from St. Nicholas of Myra School - Mr. MaddenBE Mr. Harley Noise- chartBE1 “ - lettersBF P.A. Noise Mr. O’KellyBF1 “ -supporting submission CDBG T. Kavanagh Noise


BH DAA Noise Mr. SharpsBI “ “ Mr. Damien KellyBJ “ “ -health Dr. HoganBK “ “ -insulation Mr. LeavyBL St. Marg’s R.A. Households map Ms. Morris


BM DAA Clarification maps/contoursBN Port. Comm. Ass. St. Anne’s ChurchBO DAA Clar. For Mr. Taylor-data re:apx.G8-%use of runwayBP P.A. Clarification points- zoning historyBQ An Taisce Climate

Date: Thursday 12/10/06

BR An Taisce Compliance with SEA directiveBS “ EIA- evaluation of adequacyBT “ Irish law- P&D Act 2000BU M. Harley Any other issues- legal Conor GallagherBV* Clare Daly ObservationBW* Brendan Ryan Observation(BC8 received-St. Marg’s)BX A. Lawton Closing submission (submitted for translator)BY P.A. Closing submission -summary


summary of oral hearing proceedings - an bord pleanála · web viewno account was taken of ikea....

Documents