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
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 Brady
Represented by Ms. Maire O'Brien
Ms. Teresa Kavanagh
Mr. Peter Sweetman
Own representation
Portmarnock Community School
Mr. Pat Doherty
Mr. David Sweeney
St. Helen's Senior National School
Mr. Bill Lowe
St. Margaret's Concerned Residents Group
Mr. Peter Bland, Solicitor
Ms. Helena Merriman
Ms. Sheelagh Morris
Mr. Noel Reilly
Mr. Jim Scully
Ms. Deirdre Colgan
Ms. Helen Gilligan
Mr. Karl Searson, Searson Associates
Mr. Greg Farrell
Mr. Matthew Harley
Own representation
Mr. Nap Keeling
Mr. Connor Gallagher
Mr. Thomas Murphy
Mr. Christopher Morris
Ms. Angela Lawton
Own representation
Ms. Maire O'Brien
Own representation
Mr. Trevor Sargeant
Own representation
An Taisce
Mr. Ian Lumley
Portmarnock Community Council
Mr. Michael O'Neill
Mr. Brian Byrne
Mr. Robert Kelly, RKelly and Associates Consultants
Dr. Anthony Staines
Prof. Stansfeld
Mr. Fred Walsh, Acoustic Associates (IRL) Ltd.
Mr. Eamon Madden, St. Nicholas of Myra National School
Mr. D. Pearson
Ms. Emma O’Rourke
Ms. C. Caulfield
Mr. B. Hall
Mr. B. Ennis
Mr. Tom Purcell
Mr. 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, SC
Mr. Pat O’Callaghan, Senior Executive Engineer
Mr. Christy O’ Sullivan, ILTP Consulting
Mr. David Stanley
Mr. Sean O’Faircheallaigh, Senior Planner
Mr. Myles Farrell, Senior Executive Planner
Ms. Anne McElligott, Senior Executive Engineer
Mr. Gerry Clabby, Heritage Officer
Mr. Eanna O’Kelly, Eanna O’Kelly & Assoc. Consultant Acoustic Engineers
1st Party
Mr. Michael O'Donnell, BL
Mr. Richard Hamilton, RPS Planning and Environment
Mr. David Hardcastle, Mouchel Parkman
Mr. Mark Foley, DAA
Mr. Barry Drinan, DAA
Ms. Mary Coveney, DAA
Mr. Declan Brassil, Declan Brassil & Co. Chartered Planning Consultants
Mr. Nigel C. Mason, York Aviation
Mr. Graham Vernon, Det Norske Veritas
Mr. Michael Bailey, Envirocon Ltd.
Prof. James, Heffron, UCC
Mr. Andrew Evans, Scott Wilson
Mr. Wolfram Schluter, RPA-Consulting Engineers
Mr. Gerard Morgan, Aquatic Services Unit, UCC
Mr. Richard Park, Mouchel Parkman
Ms. Sheila Lane, Sheila Lane & Assoc., Consultant Archaeologists
Ms. Jenny Neff, Cenv MIEEM
Dr. Gavin Fennessy, Fehily Timoney & Co.
Prof. Callum Thomas
Mr. Neil Chapman, Austin-Smith:Lord
Mr. William J. Martin, Martin & Rea, Incorporated as Martin & Assoc. Ltd.
Mr. Douglas F. Sharps, Sharps Edmore Partnership
Mr. Damian Kelly, AWN Consulting
Dr. Martin Hogan, Employment Health Advisors Ltd.
Mr. Alan Levey, DAA
Observers
Kenneth Millar
Cllr. Peter Coyle
Cllr. Meaney
Cllr. C. Daly
Mr. Brendan Ryan
Rail Procurement Agency – Mr. Rory O’Connor
National 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 Barnes
Mr. 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.