an bord pleanála · the development will consist of the construction of: 1) a passenger terminal...

PL220670 Proceedings of 223

An Bord Pleanála

A 10 year planning permission for development at Dublin Airport, east of the existing terminal building adjoining Pier C. The development will consist of the construction of: 1) a passenger terminal (which will be built in two phases) of ca. 92,049 sq.m. in 4 no. interconnecting blocks ranging in height from two to four stories with an overall height of 35m, which partially bridges the access road to the existing passenger terminal building; 2) a three storey Pier Building with an overall height of 18m (ca. 24,052 sq.m.), complete with 19 no. air bridges and associated fixed links. 3) a two storey over basement energy centre containing water storage and plant for power supply, heating and cooling systems (ca. 5,049 sq.m. with total height of 11m and a chimney stack of 38m); 4) external service yard; 5) realignment of existing internal access road infrastructure and provision of new access roads, including pedestrian and cycle routes, all contained within the existing airport campus; 6) Rearrangement of the existing coach park adjacent to the north of the existing terminal building; 7) separate car, taxi and bus set-down areas; 8) associated services connections; site development; and landscaping works, including a feature access area; 9) refurbishment of the existing Pier C; 10) demolition of the following; Corballis House a two storey protected structure with an area of ca. 482 sq.m.; a single storey storage building (ca. 1295 sq.m.); 3 no. single and two storey car hire buildings ca 280 sq.m., 690 sq.m. and 1925 sq.m.); a single storey boiler house building (ca 373 sq.m.); single and two storey DAA Maintenance offices (ca 1,290 sq.m.); a mainly single storey Hanger Building (ca 2,165 sq.m.) and fixed links to Pier C (ca 380 sq.m.). All on an application site of ca. 32,646 ha. The following will be included within the passenger terminal and pier; check-in areas including 58 no. manned desks and 24 no. self-service facilities; passenger services and associated terminal support facilities; departure lounge; baggage processing hall; baggage reclaim area; ca. 5,813 sq.m. of retail (ca. 840 sq.m. landside, ca. 4,973 sq.m. airside); ca 2,730 sq.m. of catering facilities (ca. 643 sq.m. landside, ca. 2,087 sq.m. airside); 2 no. public houses totalling ca. 1,278 sq.m. (1 no. landside of ca. 491 sq.m., 1 no. airside of ca. 787 sq.m.); airline security, immigration and customs offices( ca. 4,625 sq.m. airside); links to a future multi storey car park and the existing passenger terminal; security check-in and arrival areas; associated plant, circulation and toilet space. An Environmental Impact Statement will be submitted to the Planning Authority with the application.

VOLUME 4 – PROCEEDINGS


CONTENTS

POLICY MODULE

ADEQUACY OF EIS AND COMPLIANCE WITH EIA DIRECTIVE

TRANSPORT

AIR QUALITY

CLIMATE CHANGE

ARCHITECTURAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

URBAN DESIGN, BUILDING DESIGN, PASSENEGER EXPERIENCE, VISUAL IMPACT

ECOLOGY

DRAINAGE

NOISE

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY PLANNING AUTHORITY

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS


The oral hearing was held at the Great Southern Hotel (Radisson SAS) over a three-week period commencing on 16/04/2007 and finishing on 04/05/2007. It should be noted that on most days the hearing continued well into the evening. Some of the modules while extending over several days, were not examined on consecutive days to facilitate some parties. Therefore, the following narrative of the hearing does not follow a date order. A substantial amount of additional documents were submitted during the hearing. These were in addition to those requested by the inspector prior to the hearing, and were circulated to the parties. The parties and observers were advised of the general format of the hearing in advance, though some revisions to the order were made during the hearing, in an effort to meet the needs of some attendants. Those in attendance were: Applicant – Dublin Airport Authority

• Michael O’Donnell Counsel for DAA Snr. Counsel • Mark Foley DAA BE; MIE

• Mary Coveney DAA Forecaster

• Alan Lamond Pascall + Watson Arch. BSc BARL; RIBA

• Regine Weston Arup Consulting Engineers Eng/Airport planer

• Colm Moran Project Mgt Group Chartrd.Engineer

• Andrew Evans Scott Wilson Ltd MA MSc C eng.

• Alan Whelan Tiros Resources Ltd BA(Hons); MRUP • Damian Kelly AWN Consulting Ltd BSc.; MSc

• Terry Dix Arup Consulting Engineers BSc CEng.; FCI

• Paul Coughlan Arup Consulting Engineers BE; MICE; MIEI;

• Niamh O’Sullivan Arup Consulting Engineers BE; MSc; C Eng.

• Stephen O’Driscoll Arup Consulting Engineers BEng MICE Ceng

.

• Mark Johnston Gunne Residential Assoc. IAVI


• Douglas Sharps Sharps Redmond Partnership Acoustic consult

• Gabrielle O’Donovan DAA Stakeholders prog.

• Michael Bailey Envirocon Ltd BScMSc Env Eng.

• Paul Willis Arup Consulting Engineers BSc (Hons) Eng

• Pádraig Butler DAA Forecaster

• Helen D’Arcy Arup Consulting Engineers B Eng (Env.)

• Barry Drinan DAA B Arch.; MRIAI

• Deborah Spence Anthur Cox Solicitor

Fingal County Council

• Dermot Flanagan Counsel for FCC Snr. Counsel • Seán O’Faircheallaigh Fingal Co Co Snr. Planner • Rachel Kenny Fingal Co Co Snr. Planner

• Sean McGrath Fingal Co Co Snr. Ex. eng

• Christy O’Sullivan ILTP Transport consult

• Fionnuala May Fingal Co Co Snr Architect

(Heritage)

• Myles Farrell Fingal Co Co Snr. Exec. Planner

• Les Doyle Fingal Co Co Snr. Staff Officer • Loretto Moore Fingal Co Co Clerical Officer

• Pat Finn Fingal Co Co Snr.Exec. engineer

• John Daly Fingal Co Co Snr.Exec. engineer

• Angela Ryan Fingal Co Co Clerical Officer

• Mary Garrick Fingal Co Co Snr.Ex. Solicitor


Appellants Angela Lawton Teresa Kavanagh (represented by Peter Sweetman) Máire O’Brien Bridget Byrne (represented by Brian Byrne) An Taisce

• Ian Lumley An Taisce Heritage Officer

• Marina Mitrovic An Taisce Planning Manager Portmarnock Community Association

• Matthew Harley Portmarnock Comm. Ass. • Joseph Fitzmaurice Portmarnock Comm. Ass.

• Anthony Staines Epidemiologist PhDMS

• Frederic Walsh Acoustics consultant

Ryanair

• Martin Hayden Snr. Counsel

• Jim Callaghan Ryanair Regulatory Affairs

• Anthony Manahan Manahan Planners Town Planner

• Louise Congdon York Aviation Airport Planner

• Robert Kelly RW Kelly & Associates Engineer; Urban Planner

• Tom Shearer Ryanair Regulatory Affairs

• Simone Kelly Manahan Planners Planner

• Jenny Noctor A & L Goodbody Solicitor

• Lucy Nelligan A & L Goodbody Solicitor Observers

• Trevor Sergeant Green Party


• Sheila Morris St Margaret’s Concerned Residents Group • Owen Shinkwin DTO

• Jeremy Ryan DTO

Observers to EIS

• Colm MacEochaigh HEAT

• Seanán Oliver Manfred Kerr SPURT co-founder Invitees

• Brian K Duffy DoEH&LG National Monuments Service Chief Archaeologist

• Dr. Frederick O’Dwyer DoEH&LG Architectural Heritage Advisory Service, Senior Architect

• Dr. Morris Aiken DoEH&LG National Parks and Wildlife Service, ecologist

• Rory O’Connor Railway Procurement Project Director Agency

• Ronan O’Dea National Roads Project Mngr. Engineer Authority

• Hugh Cregan NRA

• Derry O’Leary Dublin Bus BE; MSc; MBA

Other attendees

• Bridin O’Leary Comm. For Aviation Economist Regulation

St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents who had missed the legal deadline for written appeal and observation was granted ‘observer’ status by the inspector.


Preliminaries Following opening of the hearing (16/04/2007) and outlining minor amendments to the previously circulated format of the hearing the inspector invited parties to introduce themselves. This was followed by introduction of those invited by the inspector to provide expert opinion. Mr. Sweetman stated that the planning authority documents showed no evidence that an assessment was carried out by the regulatory authority (in this case Fingal County Council ) as required by Article 3 of the EIA Directive. He further stated that as the DAA was an emanation of the state and as An Board Pleánala was also an emanation of the state direct effect of the Directive had to come into place. He inquired if the hearing a review as required under Article 10(a) of the amended Directive (2003/335). Mr. Flanagan did not accept that there was not an adequate assessment of the EIS, and if there were such a view no doubt Mr. Sweetman would explain during the course of the hearing for the adjudication of the Board. He emphasised that as this was an appeal, the process was starting all over again. Mr. Sweetman inquired whether the hearing was not a review under 10(a) and rather consideration of the application as if it was made in the first instance. The inspector confirmed that the application was being considered de novo. Mr. Lumley stated that amendments to the format would cause inconvenience to third parties who did not have financial facilities at the same level as the others, and questioned why the format of the EIA Directive was not followed in the hearing. He asked whether Climate could be discussed under a separate module where specialist witnesses could be provided and others could be questioned. He also asked if ‘interactions’ would be discussed under ‘other’. The inspector pointed out that the amendments were minor and that the inspector had discretion regarding the format of the hearing. Confirmed that ‘interactions’ would be discussed under each module, and that though it was intended that ‘climate change’ would be discussed in the same module as ‘air quality and emissions’, it could be discussed as a separate module to facilitate attendance of specialist witnesses. Mr. Lumley requested that a video link be provided to facilitate expert witnesses. Inspector stated that such a facility was not being provided. Mr. Lumley inquired if there was a technical difficulty as the hotel did have such a facility and stated that absence of such facility would inhibit their ability to provide a witness. The inspector noted and stated that the matter would be brought to the Board’s attention. Mr. Harley stated that the DAA has considered the hearing to be redundant as they had told to the Aviation Regulator that it was a government policy under Aviation Action Plan, and he should stop inquiries regarding costs. The inspector stated that the comments made outside were not a matter for consideration in the hearing. In response to the argument that the proposal constituted project splitting, the inspector stated that the issue of project splitting would be discussed in detail later.


Brief description of development At the invitation of the inspector Mr. Alan Lamond (Director of Pascal Watson Architects, and lead architect for the T2 project) provided a brief description of the proposed development. (exhibit A- 16/04/2007) They were applying for a ten year permission for a new terminal facility to be located to the east of the existing terminal building, incorporating the existing pier C. the site outlined was 33 ½ ha. The development consisted of

• A new terminal building to be completed in two phases (with an overall area of 92 000m2 and overall height of 35m.)

• A three storey pier building with 18m height and 23000m2 floor area to accommodate 19 air bridges

• 2-storey over basement energy centre • external service yard • re-alignment of the external access • re-configuration of the coach parking area • re-configuration of the taxi pick-up and drop off areas

The proposal also included demolition of Corballis house, a Protected Structure The primary functions at the departure level were check-in desks at 56 positions, security area and departure lounge with 5600m2 retail and 2700m2 catering facilities. The arrivals level included baggage hall. Baggage handling etc, were at the apron level. The design provided a simple but comparatively unusual approach to road systems. There was a clear differentiation of traffic to T1 and T 2, and clear differentiation of departure kerb and arrival kerb The design included future integration of underground metro station at the heart of the campus under the GCT The building would have 75000m2 in the first phase and 92000m2 in the second phase. One unique feature was centrally located way-finding spine. The terminal incorporated the existing pier C. The driving principle was to provide a passenger experience as enjoyable as possible which would be easily understood and as straight forward as possible. There were no level changes at the arrivals hall where 75% of the passengers would move into car park / Ground Transportation Centre, while 25% dropped to forecourt. For arriving passengers it provided a spacious and welcoming point of entry. He described passenger experiences with the help of diagrams noting that it was radically different from T1.


• The building faced kerbside directly and with simple architectural treatment provided a welcoming environment.

• Following check-in the passenger would move comfortably through security and the to spacious departure lounge with spectacular views over the airfield and the landscape beyond.

• Pier E was a simple elegant building with 19 gates. The landscape design with woodland, pools and lawns reflected the primary attributes of a modern airport complex and provided the setting for an elegant building with 2 curvelinear back-to-back elements. The high level bridge unified the two. The double curvature created a powerful experience and facilitated natural way finding. The proposed development utilised the inherent characteristics of the setting but also refreshed the approach to T1, creating a headroom and easing the congestion. This was arguably the most important public building to cater for 15 million passengers ( three times the population of Ireland) annually in an efficient, appropriate, sustainable and elegant building. Evidence by Angela Lawton (As Gaielge) (Exhibit B-16/04/07) This appellant wanted to make her submissions in the Irish language, and was facilitated with a translator. This service was confined to the main submission only. The appellant wanted to inform the Board of the difficulties encountered by an Irish citizen in preparing an appeal in the Irish language. Fingal County Council did not make an Irish language version of the Dublin Airport LAP nor the County Development Plan was in Irish. The DAA refused to provide an Irish language version of the non-technical summary of the EIS. She thanked the Board for allowing her to make her presentation in Irish as a right and not as a favour. The appellant questioned the need for such a big expansion of the Dublin Airport. Referring to the PM/SOM study which states that Ireland was the only country without a land link to other areas, asked if it was not the time for such a link to be provided. She referred to suggestions regarding an undersea tunnel connecting Ireland to Wales, and high speed rail bridge between Rosslare and Fishguard. Dublin- London route was the most heavily used and short flights were not efficient. Terminal 2 and the runway were not necessary especially after the Stern report and IPCC. The airport master plan were outdated and the SEA for the LAP did not take account of the carbon emissions from the aircrafts. Aircraft emissions were 2-4 times more damaging any land-based transport. DAA had asked the EPA to increase their carbon emission allowance.


The foundation of the planning system must be for the common good, and allowing expansion of the airport would be a bad decision. The aviation industry received huge subsidies and did not pay land costs. It cost the exchequer 1 billion Euro a year in subsidies and land costs. There were no taxes for internal flights in Ireland, while other countries did impose such taxes. Public service obligation subsidies made flying to Cork cheaper than taking the train. If polluter pays principle were to be applied to the aviation industry there would be no demand to fly. The whole master plan hinged on the runway being in place. This was a clear example of project splitting. According to s. 3.5.15 of the EIS the MSCP was to be in place before the terminal which would be in place before the runway. As a result of the terminal the number of flights would be increased from 43 to 86 per hour. Chemical and noise pollution would increase accordingly. The children at Portmarnock Community school were in a chronically disadvantaged environment. Airport authority had increased the flight corridors without consulting local residents. There was no night time curfew on flights. The EIS did not assess the population increase in the surrounding areas. The EU Directive 2002/49/EC required that noise should not be increased at source. T2 would allow larger aircraft which would be noisier. There were serious health implications for the communities arising from fear of crash, sleep disturbance, and chemical pollution arising from de-icing. PM25 and NO2 impeded on blood flow and led to heart attacks. There was no health impact assessment. The proposed expansion of Dublin Airport did not coincide with the government policy on decentralisation and undermined the regional airports, necessitating recently announced financial packages to regional airports. The NRA had objected to IKEA on grounds of congestion. The proposed expansion of the airport would lead to more congestion. majority of the passenger originated from outside Dublin. They should not be put into position to use M50 and contribute to the congestion. In her final comments the appellant stated that the application was based on a master plan, a LAP and a Sea which were outdated and faulty. No consideration was given to environmental changes of the future. No cost benefit analysis as required by the DoF for projects over 30 million was carried out. No studies were carried out regarding alternatives outside the airport box. The EU president had suggested examination of cooperation between airports before expansion of airport infrastructure. Link with Belfast airport should be considered. ICAO conference executive report suggested bilateral cooperation between airports to alleviate the burden on the communities. This was ignored by DAA. The proposed development was not in the interest of the local communities or the country as a whole. She asked the Board to refuse permission as it was not sustainable on environmental grounds, in terms of quality of life issues, on health and education grounds, and in the long term on economic grounds.


Statements by observers to EIS The inspector allowed two observers to make short statements, prior to proceeding with the first module. Colm MacEochaigh for Heat stated the there was a necessity for a unified environmental impact statement for the whole of the airport and not just the terminal, as this constituted project splitting. He referred to constitutional justice and the cost and resource implications of attendance to such a lengthy hearing by third parties who did not have the same resources as the applicants. He drew attention to the team of experts assembled by the DAA and asked that copies of witness statements be provided in advance and not just before the presentation to enable other parties to prepare questions. This would allow third parties to attend to some sections of the hearing only. The inspector responded that holding of the hearing on an issue basis would allow people to attend the hearing selectively if they wished to do so. This would also facilitate the invitees who would provide expert advice in certain issues only. In response to the question by the inspector as to whether they would be prepared to provide copies of witness submissions in advance, Mr. O’Donnell for the DAA stated that while they had copies of the statements for the first module they were not yet available for the other modules. He did not agree with Mr. Mc Hookie’s assertion that as matter of law they would be entitled to those statements well in advance. They would be providing them for the convenience of the inspector and the others. Relevant information was already in the public domain through EIS and other documents submitted to the Board. Seanán Oliver Manfred Kerr co-founder of Spurt (stated to be a UK based organisation for aviation growth) read from a submission, similar to the written submission to the Board, at the end of which he regressed to a type of behaviour more appropriate to children’ playground, disrupting the hearing. The hearing was advised that appropriate procedures would be initiated against him. Policy Module (16/04/07-20/04/07) The first module examined the proposed development in the context of various policies and lasted five days. It covered areas such as ‘need for the development’, ‘alternatives’, ‘master planning’, ‘growth forecast’, ‘location options’ and ‘capacity’. The last section of the module included recent history of planning permissions and observations by Trevor Sergeant (Green Party)


Evidence by the first party The first brief of evidence for DAA was entitled ‘Transforming Dublin Airport’. (Exhibit C-16/04/06) The speaker Mark Foley, was director of DAA Capital programs which was responsible for delivering capital projects for Dublin, Shannon and Cork airports. He wanted to provide the context for the proposed development before the Board. Dublin Airport has been through a period of unprecedented growth with passenger numbers increasing at 10% compounded. It had also experienced low level of investment. The infrastructure deficit issue was serious, and passenger services were at unacceptable levels. The Government following extended period of consideration on the infrastructure for Dublin Airport and how it can be financed, had issued its decision through Aviation Action Plan of May 2005. Terminal 2 project was one of DAA ‘s response to the AAP. Dublin Airport played a pivotal role in the Irish economy supporting 50 000 jobs nationally and 14000 on airport campus generating 1.4billlion income for the country and 290 billion for Fingal County. It was in the top ten airports in Europe and a gateway comparable to major airports elsewhere in Europe such as Copenhagen. It needed to provide a broad spectrum of services and options. Tourism was one of critical industries in the Irish economy and with open skies agreement it was posed to become a major gateway to Europe. 75% of all air traffic to Ireland was through Dublin Airport with 122 scheduled services and 161 destinations. 60 000 -90 000 passengers passed through the gates on a daily basis. More than 600 flights took off and landed. It generated 800 scheduled bus movements, 110 scheduled provincial bus movements, 350 car park shuttle bus movements, 6000 parking. It provided fire fighting and police security on c.1000Ha. Referring to a chart showing the increase of passenger numbers at a rate of 9.3% since 1995, he concluded that it would have to cater for 30 million plus passengers per annum in the next decade. Over the last decade the investment in Dublin Airport was only 10% of expenditures in other European airports. This under investment coupled with passenger growth had resulted in serious congestion. The Government Aviation Action Plan had five key points, one of which was to provide a new terminal by 2009 capable of being operated independently, and a tender process was required to choose the operator. DAA was required to increase airside capacity by building new piers. First of these D would be operational by 2007. In response to AAP, DAA had appointed independent consultants to review the PM/SOM master plan for development of Dublin Airport previously carried out on behalf of Air Rianta. They were mandated to meet the requirements of the AAP. The plan had many components, including terminal, piers and airside infrastructure. Metro north was a critical component of Metro North project. All other elements were designed around T2.


In conclusion he stated that the proposition before An Board Pleánala was directed by Government AAP and supported by business. The cost of T2 was subject of independent verification. Mr. sweetman requested documentary evidence in relation to the cost of the project including the independent verification report referred to. The inspector ruled that costs were not a matter for consideration in the context of the hearing, and that the questions and answers would be at a later time as indicated on the format of the hearing. Mr. Hayden for Ryan air reserved his comments on the subject of cost. The second speaker for DAA was Andrew Evans of Scott Wilson who were responsible for a number of studies to integrate earlier planning and design work into the complete scheme. His evidence was entitled ‘Options Considered’.. (exhibit F-16/04/07) Reading from a written statement, he talked about a number of options in providing airport capacity (runway, terminal and other airport infrastructure). These included increased use of other airports, provision of a single runway airport elsewhere in the GDA either at an existing airfield or on a completely new site, and replacement of Dublin Airport on a new site. These had to satisfy the requirement to travel to /from a variety of destinations. Use of regional airports was not satisfactory as it would not be able to satisfy the demand where it arose. The DTO study of 2001 found that 80% of the passengers using Dublin Airport had origin and destinations within GDA. Use of regional airports to serve the GDA would necessitate increased surface access provision. The option to develop other airports at either existing airfields (such as Baldonnel or Gormanstown) or a new airfield in the GDA was found to be costly in terms of development of facilities and necessary infrastructure including surface access, and displacement of existing military facilities and without significant environmental benefit. Neither were in the ownership of DAA. The option to replace Dublin Airport on a new site would seek to substitute the environment impacts of the existing airport to another site. The study used constraint mapping to identify characteristics of potential airport sites in the vicinity of Dublin identifying zones of opportunity where such a development might be possible. These indicated that any site sufficiently close to Dublin to offset increase access impacts would likely have similar effect on the surrounding communities as Dublin Airport and sites away form developed areas would have high ecological value. In addition to develop a replacement airport and associated infrastructure would take many years to plan and implement and would not be available to meet the demand in the near future. Therefore this option was not considered preferable as it brought no significant environmental benefits though would have higher total costs. The option to replace Dublin Airport on a new site was also found to be inconsistent with Government policy, current development plans of bodies such as Fingal County Council and Railway procurement agency.


As none of the off-site alternatives was found to be preferable to providing additional runway capacity with its associated infrastructure at Dublin Airport, it followed that passenger terminal capacity should be developed at Dublin Airport. Mr. Harley stated that there was information in the presentation which was not included in previous Scott Willson reports. He asked if there was another more recent report. There was none. The third speaker for DAA Mr. Colm Moran of Project Management (PM), was a director of the company specialising in large projects. His evidence was entitled ‘Master Planning’. (Exhibit G-16/04/07) He described the growth of Dublin Airport from a small airport serving 2.5-5mppa between 1981-1991 to medium airport of 5-15mppa between 1991-2001 and large airport of 15 +mppa from 2001 onwards. Significant step change was required in 2001 as it was no longer possible to provide expansion on an incremental basis. The Board appointed PM/SOM/TPA to prepare a master plan. SOM (Skid Owen Morrel) were highly experienced in airport developments such as JFK, Hong Kong. TPS specialised in airport property services in British airports. The brief included growth to cater for 30mppa, future proof of site to its full development potential, examination of all options including land purchase if necessary, balanced development of landside and airside facilities, provision of multi-user, shared facilities. He explained the need to integrate into the wider planning context (NSS, CDP, Sustainable Development strategy for Ireland, National Roads Needs study, Strategic Rail review, PTPF (public transport partnership forum) measures, DTO platform for change). They also needed to coordinate with other studies for the airport (runways study/ NATS, Metro study, Car parking Study, International airport transportation study). Outlining the master plan principles of process and product, based on systems approach, he emphasized the importance of delivery of major projects at the appropriate point in time (too early unnecessary cost, too late capacity shortage). From baseline capacity analysis of aircraft stands, footprint of facility and frontage required on the landside, they developed options driven by stand requirements, facility requirements and landside requirements. The evaluation criteria was based on functionality, deliverability and cost. Functionality was betterment of services for airlines, for public, and for operating authority. One of the primary indicators of functionality was LOS (level of service) in terms of space, clarity of way finding, walking distances, lengths of queues at check-ins, security and immigration, baggage handling, catering and retail spaces, new


technology). The landside elements included ease of pick up /set down, kerb length and building frontage, access to/ from metro station, Ground Transportation Centre, car hire, taxi hold area, car parking and employee parking, and need for automated people mover. The airside elements included taxiway systems, stand configurations, refuelling operations, cargo operations, ATC and fire rescue services. The flexibility was important in terms ability to support modular expansion, ability to accommodate unforeseen changes, and to adopt different modes of airline operations, and ability to accommodate expansion beyond 30mppa. Deliverability of required capacity by 2010 and ultimate capacity by 2019, cost certainty, short term deliverability of contact stands, disruption to travelling public, clearance of existing facilities, land acquisition and heritage issues were considered under deliverability. The third criteria was cost related, including best early value for money, overall capital cost, annual spend and front loading of capital costs. There were consultations with stakeholders over a 2 year period. Service level ‘C’ was agreed. The baseline capacity study showed that in the existing terminal the arrivals was operating over capacity while departures was under capacity. Piers were operating at service levels of E and F. He outlined the key assumptions in deciding land use options. These included sterilisation of the land for northern runway, and crosswind runway, protection of the Old central terminal building, and gardens, public transport access to encourage higher modal split for public transport, capacity to grow beyond 30mppa if required. Arising from these four options for location of terminal facilities for expansion were considered with two runways and cross runway in place. Two were single developments on east or west of the cross runway. One option consisted of the existing terminal at 18mppa with another smaller (12mppa) terminal at a northern location. The last option was for two equal sized terminal facilities on either side of the cross runway at 15mppa each. The key drivers in deciding on facility requirements were growth scenarios (retaining current mix, increased short haul or increased long haul), ultimate airfield peak hour capacity (based on 93 ATMs per hour), ratio of contact to remote stands , LOS, and landside requirements. 17 different airports were used for benchmarking study. Assumptions were made about people’s use of the facilities, and time. Following examination of these four options were short listed namely east, west, east/west and north. These options were rated using the three criteria of functionality, deliverability and cost, and were rated. In terms of functionality option west was best because of green filed development and lack of any constraints. In terms of deliverability option east was best because of availability of existing facilities and services. Option north had problems associated with shallow depth (where only single loaded piers could be accommodated), and traffic being funnelled in front of OCTB. There was also problem of deliverability arising from necessity for removal of existing hangarage facilities. East/west options required two metro


stations, raised way-finding difficulties, necessitated duplication of facilities and had deliverability problems arising from land ownership issues. The south eastern option had adequate depth, good functionality, allowed for double loaded piers, provided improvements to T1 traffic, had minimum impact on the existing airport business, deliverability was possible within required time frame, though it had issues arising from location of Corballis house. Options east and north had nearly identical cost during the first phases. These were subsequently repeated using sensitivity analysis (at the suggestion of Ryanair) where eastern option again ranked best. Overall ‘option east’ was recommended on the basis that it ranked highest overall for combination of robust functionality and highest potential to achieve the five year capacity milestone. It offered best value in terms of early deliverability and represented the lowest overall capital costs to complete. In response to question from the inspector Mr. Moran stated that they concluded the study in mid 2003, and no, they would not consider any changes to their assumptions or conclusions. The inspector requested copies of a number of studies mentioned in the presentations such as Metro study, car park study. Mr. Sweetman was not able to read some of the prints. It was confirmed that they were reproductions of Terminal and Piers study circulated by the Board. Mr. Hayden (Ryanair) inquired about the origin of data used in tables on page 17 and 18 (table2- assumptions about people and appendix B). Mr. O’Donnell would check. The next paper for the DAA was entitled ‘Capacity enhancement Recommendation Report . (exhibit D-16/04/07) The speaker Alan Lamond (Director of Pascal Watson and deputy chair of British airports group) had extensive British and international experience in airport and terminal developments (300 projects in 19 airports and 27 terminals including terminal 5 Heathrow). He had extensive knowledge of challenges of designing and delivering additional capacity in airports. He was the principal author of capacity enhancement report and principal architect of T2 project. Their study was conducted in response to Government AAP (Aviation Action Plan). Their brief was to provide a fresh and independent review of previous studies, and to recommend a location for Terminal 2 in the context of appropriate, well balanced and incremental development plan. The stipulations were that pier capacity would be available by 2007, Terminal 2 be available by 2009, Terminal 2 would be capable of independent operation. The study only examine options in the eastern campus within DAA owned lands and did not consider ‘greenfield’ options.


The study critically examined the previous master planning exercises and considered the PM/SOM/TPS study to be thorough, well considered and very clearly presented. He described the methodology where there was regular consultations with stake holders in terms of future demands, review of spatial / lad use options and refinement of the design. The final recommendation agreed with conclusions of PM/SOM/TPS, and recommended a new terminal to the south east of the existing terminal adjacent to pier C. they also recommended that the Metro station is located at the heart of the airport campus, identified an optimised pier alignment and outlined development sequence. With the help of slides Mr Lamond explained the process. The main considerations for location of Terminal 2 were: stand and pier configuration, OCTB, surface access, airside circulation, functional performance and programme of deliverability. In terms of stand and pier configuration, main considerations were: optimising use of apron, maximising number of contact stands, maximising double sided piers, location of piers as closely together as possible, and provision of wide and narrow bodied stands close to the passenger processing functions. The proposed location to the south east of T1 met all these requirements. He explained their proposal to realign pier A, extend pier B, provide pier E and pier F to the south of pier F. there was a lot more apron space to the south of T1, allowing more contact stands to be located as closely as possible to minimise travel distances, and to maximise total and wide bodied stands. Airside circulation would be efficient as these would be closer to the terminals and the existing main runway leading to short taxiing distances. He provided a critical analysis of why location of Terminal 2 at a northern location would be sub-optimal. As this side was more compact it required more apron space and only single sided pier could be provided to the airside. A single sided pier was inevitably less compact leading to longer journey distances. Prior to operation of second runway there would also be congestion at the northern end. OTCB was another factor in deciding where T2 should go. Its location constrained the access to the north. Its very location put northern terminal away from the current centre of gravity at Dublin Airport. In terms of surface access the southern location offered the opportunity to provide segregated access to both terminals, reducing pressure on the existing congested T1 forecourts. A northern option would require major capacity enhancement to the forecourts of T1, a significant construction challenge. In addition a northern option would have constrained se down/ pick up areas. Southern location offered segregation of surface access for T1 and T2. In terms of airside circulation, southern side provided greatest number of stands located close to the runway leading to shorter taxing distances. Investments in


taxiways would be optimised. The airside circulation had more than adequate capacity to serve Terminal 2. In terms of functional performance Terminal 2 allowed location of both narrow and wide bodied stands close to the terminal. It allowed maximum number of double sided piers, and good connectivity between T1 and T2. this was very important particularly during construction stage when passengers could check in either terminal and access to piers. It offered optimal and balanced utilisation of airside, terminal and landside facilities. The southern location was relatively open and easily accessed site and involved comparatively modest demolitions not withstanding Corballis House. There was minimal disruption to T1 operations and access. A northern option would require removal and replacement of major hangar facilities. The southern option would be capable of delivery by end of 2009. In summary, having examined alternative potential locations for T2 they considered the proposed southern location to be undoubtedly the most appropriate in terms of optimal utilisation of existing infrastructure and assets, optimal balance of airside, terminal and landside development in ordered, logical arrangement, maximum number of contact stands and good access to runway, location of wide and narrow bodied stands close to new terminal and connectivity between T1 and T2, ideal location to present a new face to Dublin Airport and best deliverability. Dr. Mary Coveney, currently manager of forecasting and tariffs for DAA presented the paper on ‘Demand Forecasting.’ (Exhibit H-16/04/07) She had previously worked as operations manager in Aer Lingus, and was former chairman of ACI-Europe statistics and forecasting group, and vice chairman of ACI-Europe economics Committee. Her section was responsible for the development of annual Dublin Airport passenger traffic and aircraft movement forecasts. She said she would outline the manner in which annual passenger and aircraft movement forecasts are created and how they move from the annual forecasts to the daily schedule used for detailed specification of T2. The forecasts used as the basis for 2006 CIP (Capital investment programme) were produced using robust methodology and were reasonable when compared with suitable benchmarks. Full details were available in DAPF06/01. The approach adopted was a combination of statistical an judgemental methods. The traffic would grow in line with a range of drivers, most important of which were GDP and yield. The table showed a number of other drivers, such as fuel prices, exchange rates, market fragmentation, airline strategies, airline route mix and fleet. The projections were moderated in the short term based on local knowledge about planned new routes or frequency /capacity changes, provided during consultations with key airlines regarding their plans.


The DAA forecast methodology had been reviewed and endorsed on a number of occasions, in 1999, as part of review of Aer Rianta strategy, and more recently by Mott Mac Donald for the CAR (Regulator), who concluded the process to be appropriate for the purposes it was intended and represented the application of nest practice. It was also reviewed by the consultants hired by Fingal County Council as part of their review of DAA plans for building a parallel runway. Further review was carried out by Arup, as a preliminary step for its work on T2 report. DAA examined a range of scenarios as part of its annual forecasting process rather than a single forecast. The sizing exercise for T” was based on three scenarios (centreline scenario, DAA high growth Scenario and Aer Lingus growth scenario) all finalised in April 2006. In the wake of major expansion plans announced by home carriers. The key factors were Ryanair expansion (18 new routes and 5 aircrafts –some 50% increase in the number of aircraft based in Dublin), and change in Aer Lingus strategy and impending privatisation, moving form a simple strategy of pursuing lowest possible costs to a vision of Aer Lingus. There were two additional factors which could drive a high growth scenario. First of these was development of common aviation area between EU and US, and changes in current Ireland –US bilateral agreements. The current requirement for 1 for 1 operation levels of Shannon and Dublin would be replaced by 3 (Dublin) for 1(Shannon) giving upwards shift in the level of Dublin –US traffic. Aer Lingus had already announced three additional transatlantic routes. Second factor was peak hour departures. Particularly the low cost airlines preferred to fly as early as possible so as to maximise the number of flying hours. Therefore while currently only 70% of based short haul aircraft currently departed during the early morning peak period where demand is constrained it was possible to envisage a ‘peakier’ profile developing once the existing constraints were removed. In order to provide a robust basis for the planning and sizing of the terminal, the pier and other related infrastructure, peak day schedules for carious years were created based on the forecast scenarios, using all information. The starting point was ‘busy day’ a key metric used in airport planning. This was not an ‘absolute peak day’ for the airport but rather a level where 95% of the traffic can be processed at a specific target level of service. This was calculated on the basis of carious criteria such as movements, departing passengers, total passengers etc. latest available schedule would be used as a base to build a busy day schedule and movements would be added applying busy day ratio to the forecast annual number of aircraft movements for the year in question. The type of flights to add is determined from the forecast growth profile. Forecast schedules developed form this process wer used by ARUP as an input into sizing analysis. At the end of the paper, Mr. Harley required the figures for the growth diagrams showing growth scenarios. The inspector directed that figures for the graphs and copies of documents referred to in the paper be made available to the hearing.


Mr. Hayden for Ryanair noted that the documents referred to in the paper were not made available. He referred to in particular document DAPF06/01. It was not appropriate or adequate to rely on information not made available. Mr.O’Donnell stated some of the documents were of some antiquity and rather than making a copy for everybody they would place them on a table. He stated that the other document DAPF06/01 was a public document and Ryanair was already in possession of the same. They would make further copies available but that they would do so withholding confidential information. Mr. Hayden stated that they should have been provided with the appeal documents to enable him prepare questions. Inspector directed that the copies of documents referred to in the paper be made available, and if they could not be made available then they should not be referred to. Mr. Hayden stated that he was flagging the failure by the first party on the transparency of the information. Mr. O’Donnell stated that he would provide a second copy for Mr. Hayden. He repeated that some of the information was of some antiquity and they were using the hearing to explain the methodology and everything used in forecasting in more detail. Mr. Harley stated that he did have a copy of PDAF06/01 but at a recent conference the CEO of DAA Declan Collier had given different figures. He asked for the most up to date figures. The inspector directed that the most up to date information be provided to the hearing. The document DAPF06/01 (final version) was made available to the hearing, and to the parties. The next paper for the DAA entitled ‘Peak hour passenger demand and T2 facility Programme’, was presented by Regine Weston part of the ARUP team consulting DAA. (exhibit I-16/04/07) Her area of expertise was in translating annual demand into peak hour facility requirements. She had taken this type of work at more than 50 airports globally. She was responsible for the peak hour demand development, had reviewed the methodology and the results for T” facility programme requirements. In addition to the key forecasts identified by Mary Coveney a number of factors were considered when determining the peak hour passenger demand to be used for planning such as dominant peak, based aircraft, percentage of based aircraft departing at peak hour, planning horizons, range of expected values. Under ‘dominant peak’ she stated that arrival and departures peak hour effected different areas of the airport and at Dublin Airport departures peak was notably higher than arrivals peak as found in other airports worldwide. While both numbers were important the paper concentrated on departure peak hour passenger demand (DPHPD).


Analysis showed that DPHPD occurred in the early morning and was directly related to the number of based aircraft. As Aer Lingus was the primary home based airline at T2, their fleet especially short haul fleet was important to DPHPD. The next factor was percent of based aircraft departing within a single hour. This was currently 70% (as stated by Mary Coveny) but they had also considered an alternative 80%. Two primary planning horizons were established 2009 and 2015-2016 when additional capacity may be required. They had adopted an approach where they took the mid point of each period i.e. 2013 and 2018 as their planning year for capacity. Prior to 2013 the LOS (level of service) would be higher, after which it would become lower progressively until additional capacity is provided. They had also adopted a 5% range for the 2013 and 10% for 2018 planning year reaching a figure of 4200 in 2013 and 5500 for the year 2018. The sizing of the terminal building was based on a number of factors including number of units needed in each processing area (check-in, security, immigration, baggage claim), the space needed for each functional area (processing area, public concourse, waiting areas, holdrooms) and other areas such as toilets and concession areas. The process was an iterative one where there was regular consultations with operational agencies and architectural team, as a result of which they are converted into actual numbers (such as number of check in desks) as the building is laid out. The facilities were calculated for each of different types of counter and traffic (EU passengers had different requirements than long haul). There were discussions to establish the date and the authors of the document DAPF06/01. (exhibit –16/04/07) The next speaker for the DAA, Alan Lamond (of Pascal Watson architects and the lead architect of the T2 project) outlined the thought process in developing various options and reaching a final decision for the exact location and design of the terminal. (exhibit A 17/04/07) The PM/SOM study had indicated that the new terminal be located to the south east of the T1. Their own subsequent review had reached the same conclusion. In this presentation he would talk about the architectural investigation, the options considered that led them to the chosen design. These included options for avoidance or incorporation of Corballis House. The capacity studies outlined earlier had indicated a building of 75000m2 would be needed. This could be a building of 25000m2 in three floors, but they examined the option of a two storey building.


Key considerations included provision of a compact building to ensure short walking distance, baggage handling at apron level, easing of traffic congestion, minimum impact on apron and minimum construction impact. He discussed buildings with varying footprint designed to avoid Corballis House outlining the problems associated with each. Option 4 an elongated building would lead to long journey times for staff and passengers, the baggage handling systems would be seriously constrained, existing operational functions (such as catering facility) would need to be demolished. Larger footprint of building would be required leading to greater environmental footprint arising from increased energy costs. The operational efficiency would be seriously compromised. He reviewed the functional performance of options 5, 6 and 7 in terms of height, response to site context, integration with pier C, location of baggage hall, provision of combined or segregated forecourt with T1. They presented the options to DAA where they were instructed to look at an option incorporating operational benefits of option 6 (compact building, short walking distance, baggage handling at apron level) and road system and deliverability benefits of option 7 (splitting of T1 and T2 traffic, leaving of T1 traffic unchanged). Further studies led to options 8 and finally 9 which provided a compact building with short walking distances, baggage handling at the apron level, provided segregated roads to T1 and T2, and left T1 traffic unchanged, provided minimum construction impact with shortest programme and provide architectural opportunity to provide a building appropriate to its context at the entry to the airport. The building had two sections on either side of the access to T1. He then outlined various options considered in order to avoid or incorporate Corballis House within the chosen footprint. Incorporation had impacts at both apron and first floor level as it expanded the building volume and footprint. An internal setting would not be in the primary public area and provided co appropriate operational use. It lead to increased complexity of baggage systems and severely constrained primary passenger functions increasing travel distances. Incorporation of Corballis House within and internal recess had impacts both at apron and first floor levels, its setting would be compromised being viewed only off through to T1 with restricted vies, and an external recess would create a security risk. Accordingly they had concluded that avoidance was not feasible and incorporation would create unacceptable operational and performance compromises. They recommended its demolition noting Corballis House was of local historical importance rather than national importance. They studied various options for Pier E and concluded that 2 ½ storey option was by far the most preferred option by all concerned, provided areas required in the programme of requirement and provided the smallest footprint.


The next speaker for DAA, Alan Whelan of Tiros planning consultants talked about the planning context (exhibit E-17/04/07) He would provide a brief overview of the proposed development in the context of NDP, NSS, Platform for Change, RPG, County Development Plan, South Fingal Study, and LAP. He would also address some of the planning issues raised in third party appeals. The proposed development complied with two of the four objectives of the NDP 2000-2006, sustainable economic development and consolidating environment for international competitiveness. P44, 51 The NSS supported the critical role of Dublin Airport. P38 and then p42built upon. Proposed 62 referred directly to Dublin Airport serves the city region and country. Essential for competitiveness. P71 good quality links to ports / airports Sustainable development strategy rcognised the importance proposed 103, irish economy, noise reduction reduce the need to travel, mass transport. T2 complied with these in terms of efficient use of existing airport and supporting provision of Metro. Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006) fully supported 23.3mppa It also stated that access to Dublin Airport would be improved, QBCs would be provided. He referred to South Fingal Study, policies TAP3, TAP4, key elements Dublin Airport action plan, how Fingal County Council should work with DAA, and the alternative configurations. Dublin Airport master plan was adopted as LAP. In his response to issues raised in third party submissions he stated that the proposed development was not premature in the absence of a decision on the runway and that T2 could be constructed in advance of the runway. He discussed the arguments in relation to demolition of Corballis House and stated there were exceptional circumstances as T2 was of strategic national importance and expansion of Dublin Airport was of critical importance to the economic development of the county. Removal from list of Protected Structures was not a preferred option as it would lead to pre judgement of the terminal application. He did not agree it would set a precedence as each had to be examined in its own merits and in this case there was exceptional circumstances as outlined above. He did not agree with the assertion that there was a need for SEA. The regulations did not require SEA for an individual application. There was an EIS for the project. Dr. Mary Coveney’s second presentation was in response to two specific issues raised by third parties, in their written submissions. (exhibit B-17/04/07) The first was in relation to the suggestion that growth at Dublin Airport would have a negative effect on regional tourism. The recent studies by ITIC showed decrease in number of tourists to the regions as well as decrease in length of stay. Indeed there


was changing tourist behaviour patterns in other European countries as well where time poor people were now choosing city weekend breaks. Constraint in Dublin Airport did not protect the regions as the tourists simply choose other European destinations. Also as the 75% of the traffic at Dublin Airport originated in Dublin region it would not be feasible to force the passengers to the regions by not allowing Dublin to grow. The second was in relation to the argument that development of a second Dublin Airport would be preferable to expanding the existing one. Noting that there has never been a barrier to the development of a second commercial airport at Dublin, but no one had chosen to built a facility elsewhere, she stated that experiences elsewhere showed that this did not work. Montreal second airport opened in 1975 was closed recently as anticipated traffic shift never materialised. EU commission following complaints from carriers prohibited Italian government from forcing mandatory transfer to a second airport at Milan as it would disadvantage them. Belfast had two airports, but this effected both negatively. The only times a second airport was successful was when the old one was closed. Only large conurbations such as London and Paris with 8-9 million populations could support multiple airports. The argument for provision of a second airport would need to examined in the context of its impact on demand, and how it would be received by the airlines, and by the passengers. For the first group there would be switching costs. These would be market share costs (high risk of losing market share without all competitors moving), stranded assets (loss of investments made at the existing airport) sunk costs (additional costs of replacement facilities), elimination of economies of scale , elimination of economies of network density (splitting over two airports would effect transfer passengers adversely). For the passengers the level of connectivity would be effected, and the cost would ultimately be paid by the passengers. There were also other costs to the tax payer, and in terms of provision of public infrastructure (roads, rail etc) as well as aeronautical infrastructure. With such serious impacts without corresponding benefits opening a second airport would not meet the needs of the customer airlines or passengers and would not be supported by experience from other airports. It would be an in appropriate solution to accommodating future growth in air travel in Ireland. Evidence by the planning authority The first speaker was Seán ÓFaircheallaigh Senior Planner in charge of Strategic Planning Unit. (exhibit C-17/04/07) Purpose of the brief was to set out the planning policy framework for the future of Dublin Airport at national, regional and local levels. He referred to specific polices under NSS, NDP (2007-2013), Transport 21, Sustainable development strategy,


National climate change strategy (2007-2012|), Public safety zones (2005), Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA (2004-2016), DTO strategy Platform for change 2000-2016, South Fingal Planning Study (2004), Fingal County Development Plan (2005-2011),and Dublin Airport LAP. He examined the location of the proposed new terminal and Pier E and stated that the Council had reviewed the locational analysis carried out by Pascall Watson Architects and PM/SOM and accepted the proposed site as providing the most viable and deliverable location for the development of a second terminal in accordance with the Government AAP of may 2005. Deliverability was a critical consideration having regard to the pressures on the existing terminal facilities and the time scale laid down by the Government. The site identified for a possible northern terminal was not considered to be capable of redevelopment having regard to the existence of extensive hangar facilities which would need to be relocated elsewhere before any work could commence on the development Northern location would offer no advantages over the proposed site with regard to surface access Taxiing movements could not be predicted in advance of An Board Pleánala decision on the northern parallel runway. Distances between T1 and T2 was not excessive and significantly less than a possible northern terminal Location in proximity to T1 would facilitate transfer between transatlantic and European carriers Vehicular arrangements were acceptable and satisfied the requirements of the LAP for additional separate kerbside drop-off It was considered essential that additional short term car parking facilities would become available in parallel with the new terminal, but a separate application could be made for such a terminal. The LAP set out for incremental provision of facilities. In conclusion the proposed development secured planning objectives at national, regional and local levels. A national level the NSS recognised the critical dependence of the continuing economic health of Dublin and country at large on good international access via Dublin Airport. The proposed development would facilitate the Government objective of expanding the level of services available form Dublin Airport to an even wider range of destinations in the interest of underpinning Ireland’s future international competitiveness. The proposed development was specifically provided for in the NDP 2007-2013. The proposed development would be complementary to transport proposals set out in Transport 21 and would be supported by the proposals included in the Public Safety Zones Study


While sustainable development strategy recognised that air transport is an increasing source of polluting emissions, and that aircraft noise is poses a particular problems in the immediate vicinity of airports, it also asserted that air routes are vitally important to the Irish economy providing access to and from Irish and World markets for both goods and passengers. In the future there might be tensions between air access and climate change, but having regard to Ireland’s peripheral location and open economy the country was likely to remain heavily reliant on air links for the foreseeable future. At the regional level the proposed development supported the provisions of the Regional Planning Guidelines which identified Dublin Airport as a premier international access point to the Dublin region and to the Country as a whole. The guidelines regarded continued development of Dublin Airport as being crucial to underpinning Ireland’s future international competitiveness. The guidelines explicitly stated that to achieve predicted airport passenger numbers new terminal facilities would be required. At local level objective DAO4 of the current development plan was to facilitate on going augmentation and improvement of terminal facilities at Dublin Airport. The Dublin Airport LAP provided for new terminal and pier to be located to the south east of the existing terminal. The reconstruction and development of Piers A, B, D would complement the new terminal. Any further terminal capacity would be located int eh Western Campus. He submitted that thus the proposed development was integral to panning policy in relation to Dublin Airport at national, regional and local levels. In response to question from the inspector, he stated that LAP was adopted on June 2006. Yes it was subject of an SEA, and was subject of consultation process. No there was no legal challenge to the SEA. The SEA was completed a few months prior to the adoption of the LAP. Yes the period for challenging SEA had expired. Third party submissions At a special request the inspector gave priority to observers St. Margaret’s Concerned Residents. (exhibit 17/04/07) Sheila Morris secretary of the group stated that they were a small community, brought it to the Board’s attention that they had missed the deadline for making an appeal because they were at the time attending the ‘runway’ oral hearing, and did not have the time/resources to make an appeal for one hearing and attend oral hearing for the runway at the same time. In addition the information they were provided with was in disk form requiring high power computers, which the residents did not have access to, and as a result it was nearly impossible to download information which contained large amounts of maps. The three main areas of concern were noise, roads and consultations.


The EIS for both the runway and the T2 stated that there would be no additional noise as a result of the proposed development. They strongly disagreed with this. She drew attention to three maps (figures 6.1.V3) contained in the EIS showing road connections form Cherryhound roundabout into the western section of the airport , going through the heart of St. Margarets village. There was no planning permission for this and should not have been included as given. These roads were indicative and had yet to be decided upon by Fingal County Council, in consultation with the residents. No consultation had taken place between DAA , FCC and the Concerned residents groups. The so called special policy area was a fabrication by FCC to manipulate the situation. A meeting had taken place on 22nd March between ARUP, FCC1 but it was no consultation. While the community groups were a part of DASF (Dublin Airport stakeholders Forum), they did not have a voice having their concerns addressed and taken seriously. It was just a cosmetic exercise. The increase in aircraft would generate additional fumes and noise and would therefore be a health hazard. The proposed T2, the runway and the roads would have significant adverse impact on their community. Separation of these constituted project splitting. She also stated that this application in the absence of a decision on the runway was premature. Mr. Lumley inquired if ARUP was acting for Fingal County Council and asked if this would not constitute a conflict of interest as ARUP were also acting on behalf of DAA. Mr. Flanagan (FCC ) stated that there was no conflict of interest and ARUP together with Atkins consultants were looking at the roads layout for FCC as part of the LAP proposals for infrastructure. Mr. Hayden disagreed and stated that this issue would also be raised also during traffic module, and it was clear that ARUP were in both camps. He just wanted to flag it for the time being. Mr. Mc Grath for FCC stated that there was considerable amount of development being planned in south Fingal area (population of 40-50 000) and considerable amount of infrastructure needed to be planned to serve such population, including connection between Baldoyle and Blanchardstown. Consultants were retained for standard work such as road design, route selection and constraint mapping. ARUP were the consultants for Baldoyle to Stockhole lane running parallel to the southern runway. Atkins were working on Stockhole lane to Malahide Road. Mr. Sweetman stated that there was no question of whether there was a conflict of interest. This was conflict of interest. Mr. Lumley stated that he has been making representations to An Board Pleánala on many occasions and this was the first time he had come across such a primae fascia


and irreconcilible conflict of interest. The panning authority in carrying out their functions as an independent authority were employing a firm of consultants as lead consultants for road proposals which were required to serve the proposed development, who were also the consultants for the applicant for the proposed development. In his view ARUP’s role as a consultant for the planning authority and also for the DAA constituted an irreconcilible conflict of interest as to impune on the integrity of the EIS. Mr. O’Donnell (DAA) categorically refuted that there was such a conflict of interest but would deal with the matter during traffic module. Mr. Flanagan (FCC) agreed. Sheila Morris confirmed that a meeting had taken place in November attendee by four representatives from ARUP and two from FCC in which they were shown a constraints map. They had asked their community to be retained intact and not to go ahead with road proposals going through their village. They got an e-mail from FCC stating that the meeting was a conversation. They had no voice. If the roads went ahead there would be nothing left of the community. Some had already been CPO’ed in the 70s. the planning authority was not being upfront. Mr. Sweetman stated that the local authority should be the guardian of the people, not the developer. He stated that in this case the conflict of interest was so severe, the hearing needed to be abandoned. Inspector stated that the matter would be brought to the attention of the Board, but the hearing would continue. Next Speaker Brian Bryne (for Bridget Byrne) was a resident of Portmarnock for over 40 years and had worked at the airport for 30 years. He was objecting to the proposed development on grounds of project splitting, and promotion of unsustainable development. An Board Pleánala had two significant development applications before it. The runway an the T2. during the runway hearing they were prevented from entering a dialogue regarding traffic generation on grounds that only the terminal would generate additional traffic. They were passed from one to the other to prevent full scrutiny of the whole project. They had just been told there would be subsequent application for a car park. All these separate applications either pointed out to in competency or a deliberate attempt to mislead people. There was a well known airport development concept: “never build a runway without knowing where the next one is going to go”. He asked what the long term development of the airport was and was it planned as part of the national infrastructure and not as a commercial benefit to DAA which was a private company and no longer a semi state body. FCC was in acqiuesence with the DAA. They represented only 1/3 of the planning authorities in the region and did not subject the proposed development under independent scrutiny it deserved under national interest. There was no national aviation policy.


It was no longer the case where what is good for Aer Lingus it is good for the country, as it was now a private company. Similarly DAA was becoming one and did not have the national interest but rather commercial interest. The consultants were recruited and employed by the DAA (preparing the EIS). They would have come up with different conclusions had they been employed by a third party. He had living in Portmarnock concerns regarding health, noise, road congestion. All these were brushed over in a haste. The FCC saw themselves as facilitating the DAA, they also had responsibility to him and to the residents. They were quoting selectively from the NSS to make the development look acceptable. This was grossly misleading. His understanding was that the eastern sea board was overpopulated and the NSS sought to redress the balance by encouraging development in other areas. If one looked at the routes where the airlines were flying from Dublin Airport they were all to cities with two airports, but there was only one airport for Dublin. Ms. Coveny’s arguments were commercial, and using Ryanair to support her argument was not appropriate. The same logic would lead to a single airliner. FCC had rushed through the application in haste perhaps to get the rates. An Board Pleánala had to take the national interest into account as the fundamental issue of planning was not commercial. An Board Pleánala need to take a strategic view and require a rigorous assessment of the aviation infrastructure, not based on commercial interests of DAA. Mathew Harley speaking on behalf of Portmarnock residents community association (UPROAR) was also representing some of the other third parties in relation to economic issues was an engineer and economist, and had worked as a policy analyst in various government departments and OECD. His paper was entitled ‘The proposed expansion is bad for Portmarnock and bad for Ireland’ (exhibit E-17/04/07) Noting that the module was concentrating on policy issues, he stated that so far one policy that was missing was ‘value for money’. This was an overriding government policy and would apply to all projects. Under the Critical infrastructure Act the Board would also need to take ‘costs’ into account. While the policies outlined in the NSS and referred to by the first party and the planning authority were aspirational, concentrating on generality and totalogy the overriding policy value for money cut through all these. While it was true that Dublin was good for the economy, this did not follow that any development in Dublin was good for the economy.


They would also argue that the second runway, the terminal, piers, car parking were all part of the Dublin Airport expansion programme, and should not be separately considered. This constituted project splitting. Through a long and very detailed submission lasting two hours, Mr. Harley presented that the DAA was planning an expansion for 60mppa over the next two decades (by 2030) at the expense of tax payer and the local communities. This was not in the national interest. He referred to the supreme court decision that if the state invades the rights of individual citizens it could only do so in the interest of common good, and this must not be disproportionate. (Aug 2000, regarding Planning and Development Bill, 1999). He referred to the sustainability test by the Taoiseach to ensure wider economic and social environment is taken into account before projects go ahead at all and examining sustainability principles concluded that a development would be sustainable only if a balance is achieved between the three dimensions (social, economic and environmental) and the balance must be tested by an economic analysis that objectively assesses the trade off between conflicting impacts taking time dimension into account. This would need to be done for alternative proposals. They claimed that the DAA expansion plan failed the test of sustainability twice. He referred to CBA (cost benefit analysis) used by CAR (Commission for Aviation), as well as DoF guidelines (applying to projects over 10 million since 1994), and CAR conclusion that no CBA has been prepared for the major increase in airport capacity through T2 and R2 projects. In their view no real alternatives were considered. Only ‘do- nothing’. Improvement of runway 29/11 was not considered, social costs were not included, land costs were not included, climate change costs were not included, time lost due to congestion was not included, cost of developing airport box (roads) were not included, cost of Metro was not included. He stated that DAA was requiring CAR to abandon CBA because the expansion of Dublin Airport was government policy. If Government policy was final there was need for Planning and Development Acts, An Board Pleánala, DoF guidelines for appraisal of public expenditure, NDP requirements for appraisal of its components. We could have a gold plated T2 regardless of costs. DAA’s economic case was job creation, but there would be no additional job. Indeed the 30% claim was retracted by the consultants. Overheating labour market was un economic. UK guidelines now stated that building airports in areas of no unemployment must be taken as negative. Using CBA they were claiming that the Dublin Airport expansion would cost 4.5 billion of public and private assets, while a second airport in t GDA would bring a 7.4% return on investment at similar passenger charge as Dublin Airport (unsubsidised). In their analysis they had included land costs, rezoning of lands, and opportunity costs as used in other jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand, and recommended in UK Green Book. They calculated that the cost of Dublin Airport expansion would be 3.4billion with additional 2.3billion in additional costs (roads,


loss of property values etc). Cost to climate was not included. This would turn a national asset into a liability. Dublin Airport lands were assigned only 20 million (total lands) in the CAR calculations. This was not acceptable as the land was owned by the public. The reason no body was building a second airport was because of this subsidy on land cost. The argument that there was no blank space in Ireland to build a second airport was not correct, one had to look at a satellite image of Ireland with large tracks of bogland. New infrastructure was not just needed for a second airport. It was also needed in this case (airport box, metro). Duplication of services argument was flawed. It created competition. Dunnes stores, Tesco all provided competition through duplication of services. What was being created was a monopoly. The argument that two Belfast airports competed to their mutual detriment was flawed. Competition was not detrimental to the consumer. It was required for the benefit of consumer. All the arguments put forward by DAA was anti-competitive, without clear analysis. He referred to the argument by the first party that CBA is not a planning issue, and that the DAA’s application precedes the 2005 Guidelines. DAA’s methodologies included approaches outlined in DoF Guidelines. They were in place since 1994. These guidelines were Government guidelines and planners needed to have regard to them. The consequences of the subsidy meant Dublin Airport dictated national aviation policy. It meant driving an unsustainable growth to 60mppa, while there was no chance for regional airports or private airports to compete. He provided some figures for land charges, and compared London City airport with Dublin. Dublin Airport was being subsidised by the tax payer at a cost of 400 million per annum. That’s why second airport elsewhere was not an alternative. Nobody could compete with tht kind of subsidy. There was need for examination of alternatives with full costs, and CBA including subsidies arising from land costs. He asked the appeal be upheld. The first speaker on behalf of Ryanair was Jim Callaghan head of legal and regulatory affairs. He would provide the context for Ryanair opposition to proposed terminal. (exhibits F,G, O-17/04/07) He was with Ryanair for 7 years. Ryanair had grown from 5mppa (neck and neck with Aer Lingus) to 53mppa, from 10 aircraft to 20 aircraft based in Dublin (130 based in Europe). 75% of all the traffic in Dublin was short haul (point-to-point). Dr. Coveney’s presentation earlier had put her finger on the issue, ‘a complete monopoly’. Most European cities had either a low cost second airport or a second low cost terminal. Ryanair had offered to build a second low cost terminal, but the Government had decided to support a monopoly.


Initially they had supported a proposed second terminal of 50,000m2, at a cost of 170 million. But within a year the building had grown from 50,000m2 to 92,000m2, and the cost had increased from 170 million to 800 million, quadrupling the costs of the previous year, and including the destruction of the existing Pier C. They would not have been here if the original plans remained. The plans for T2 violated the FCC policies as expressed in LAP. Over 20mppa passengers going through T2 would create chaos on the surrounding roads and the M50. The LAP had capped the development at the eastern campus to 30mppa. The proposed T2 would bring this to 40mppa and violate it. The two terminals together would reach to 46 million. The splitting of applications was to mask the cumulative impacts. The issues of project splitting, cumulative impacts and destruction of Pier C had to be addressed. There was a serious conflict of interest arising from ARUP acting as consultants for Fingal County Council and as consultants to the DAA. The proposed timing of the proposed development was arbitrary and there was no drop dead urgency to build by 2009. It was based on a Government statement. DAA’s own traffic forecast and reports by CAR indicated that there was no immediate need for a second terminal given the recent developments of pier D and check-in area 14 in the basement of T1, and 2012 was a more realistic date. The increase in size seems to be based on peak morning demand which did not exist anywhere in the universe. The basis for these were not disclosed. As a result the passenger charges could increase from €6 /passenger to €11/ passenger. This would constitute 25% of cost of a ticket for Ryanair passenger. Major airports including Schiphol were developing low cost terminals. Though the 75% of the traffic was low-cost, point-to-point, the DAA was spending a lot of money to provide a high cost terminal. One needed to question why. The end goal seemed to be spend as much as possible. Mr. Moran had stated that no changes had occurred since the completion of their report in 2003. In fact a lot had changed. Ryanair traffic had doubled while Aer Lingus stagnated. The traffic dynamic had changed. It was very difficult to see the impetus for this proposal. Spending 800 million instead of 200 million as originally agreed was because DAA was compensated on the basis of all assets. Why build to achieve a return of 1.5mil while you can get 6 million? CAR gave guaranteed rate of return on CAPEX. The driving force behind the sudden and unexplained reason was maximising the profits by increasing the size. Deep queuing was no longer necessary. He looked at the history of developments by DAA /Aer Rianta, which he described as ‘bad’, including Cork airport catering for only 3mppa but at a cost of 180 million, ten times the cost of airports by other European cities. Referring to the current design he said why build two buildings instead of one? If the design had to be changed why not go back to the basics and check the requirements? The design of the building was not ideal. It put the building into a cul-de-sac. It


scrapped pier C built seven years ago at a cost of 150 million. Another 400 million would be spent putting T1 back to 15 million capacity. Already 325 million was spent getting T1 to 21 million capacity. He quoted ‘ the addition of T1 extension will increase terminal capacity to 4800 per hour’ (DAA general manager, 2007). This would equate to 26mppa. He asked whose growth this was to cater for. Ryanair had an alternative option using northern apron as a box at the end of pier D. It eliminated long walks to pier D. It would necessitate removal of only one hangar (as opposed to Corballis House and destruction of pier C). It was in the right location, relieved traffic congestion, had right design, and was at right cost. It had no impact on OCTB. It had better access to both runways. The proposed T2 was the latest in line of grossly inefficient and costly developments that had lead to the current inefficiency and congestion at three main Irish airports. It was based on increasing costs and charges. DAA was incentivised under regulatory system to maximise capital expenditure in order to inflate passenger charges. The DAA had failed to establish a ‘need’ for the facility proposed. The 50,000m2 increase in the size of the facility breached FCC LAP and would contribute to unacceptable congestion. It was quite clear that DAA intended to breach the 30mppa cap on the eastern campus. This would be unauthorised development by stealth. There were numerous planning applications relating to the airport capacity, for which there was no EIS to show cumulative impact. It was quite clear that the EIS treated T2 in isolation. The proposed building was designed to increase cost and passenger charges. Alternative buildings have not been properly considered. He concluded the Board must now overturn the decision of Fingal County Council. The next speaker for Ryanair was Tony Manahan Planning consultant with extensive experience in local authorities and in private sector. (exhibits H, I, J, K, L-17/04/07) In relation to policy issues subject of this module he would not talk about the big picture as outlined in the NDP and RPG, but concentrate on the policies at micro level namely LAP and CDP. The CDP recognised the importance of Dublin Airport to the county, the region and the State and had a policy to facilitate expansion of Dublin Airport in an orderly fashion. To decide how it should happen it required preparation of an LAP, which was adopted in June 2006. He described the zoning provisions of the LAP, and noted that the LAP had made a strategic decision that the development would take place in Eastern/Western campus. The LAP stated that the Eastern campus should cater for a maximum capacity of


30mppand thereafter the development should take place in the western campus. The reasons for this were preservation of the capacity of M50 and M1, allowance for other development such north fringe, Ballymun, and allow ease of access to the airport. Based on 2005 Pascall and Watson study, the LAP proposed that the most effective way to provide capacity for short term was to provide a second terminal and piers in the eastern campus. Referring to paragraph 4.2 of the LAP, (location to the south east of T1 and incorporating Pier C) he noted the LAP made no reference to the size of the terminal. With the help of slides he examined the space between Pier C, and Corballis House (logical as it was presently used as a surface car park), and submitted that there was adequate space to build a second terminal in this space without demolition of Corballis House or jumping over the road. The LAP was quite clear regarding of protection of Corballis House a Protected Structure, and any proposal for its demolition clearly contravened this policy of the LAP and thus the CDP. Their thesis was that the proposed terminal building was overly large, and seems to have been driven by the forecasting (to be discussed in the next paper), rather than development plan policies or availability of the space. The capacity figures provided by the DAA indicated that the numbers using the airport in 2006 were 20mppa, and with completion of Area 14 and extension for 7400m2 extension would be in the region of 23mppa in 2007. This would be catered for in T1. While T2 was stated to cater for 15mppa they would show that it was well capable of processing 20mppa. As such the total capacity of the two terminals would be 46-52mppa in the eastern campus. This would clearly be in contravention of the LAP as it would exceed the strategic figure of 30mppa set by the LAP. He questioned how would this comply with 30mppa requirement. The paragraph 4.2 stated that central to the design of T2 was provision of passenger links to short term car parking and Ground Transportation Centre. The proposed development did not include short term car parking, and did not comply with the objective. Nor did it comply with the objective for provision of convenient access between terminals. He examined the kerb side facilities proposed and concluded that the proposed development did not comply with the objective for improvement of kerbside facilities for T1. Summarising all the requirements and proposals he concluded that it was clear the proposed development did not comply with the requirements of the LAP and was in contravention of the same, particularly in terms of demolition of Corballis House. He then examined the planning authority report on the application of some 34 pages, and stated that the report came to an abrupt end without analysis of pros and cons of the proposed development.


There was space for a smaller building in the area indicated and Ryanair would not have objected to such a building. The proposed building had large retail space which forced the passengers to go walk distances longer than necessary. There were 28 separate applications in 3 years and 9 in the last six months for various developments. He provided a list. Such an approach amounted to project splitting. Some were made immediately after decision on another one, though one depended on the other. These were very confusing to others. In this case the Board was being asked to consider T2 without the MSCP. In response to questions by Mr. Hayden, he stated that the DAA did not show exceptional circumstances, there was adequate space for a building of smaller size at the location indicated in the LAP, which would comply with the requirements of the LAP, there was an insular approach to developments (28 applications in three years) which did not examine the cumulative impacts of the total development and that there was no reasoned argument in the planning authority report to indicate why the decision was made. The next speaker for Ryanair was Louise Congdon managing partner of York Aviation, and a specialist in airport planning and development, forecasting, economic impact analysis and airport business planning. (exhibits M and N-17/04/07) While she would refer to policies set out in the LAP she would mainly concentrate on capacity, design parameters, achievement of a balanced development of the airport campus, and economic justification and cost effectiveness of the proposed T2. Her key conclusions from detailed examination was that T2 was to big, would result in unbalanced development of capacity at Dublin Airport, was at wrong location and that it did not represent an economically efficient development. The LAP had set out a clear cap on development of the eastern campus of the airport at 30mppa. The plan relied on the Pascal &Watson capacity enhancement report of 2005 for the DAA (only recently made available). The proposed development based on this plan was in fact for a development on the eastern campus capable of handling 41mppa. This raised significant issues as well as potential environmental concerns. All of the options in the Terminal and Piers Capacity study provided at Dublin Airport to be a total of 30mppa, (western only, east/west, east/ north, eastern only ). The CIP consultation for airlines gave a total capacity of 30mppa on the eastern campus whether located north or the south of T1. The required size was 47000m2 at a cost of 170million and this proposal was supported by Ryanair. The CIP also included proposals for Pier D and Area 14 to improve service and provide additional capacity in T1 to accommodate 22mppa. The P&W study which have started from the premise to cap development at T1 at 15mppa, was inconsistent with this.


Good utilisation of existing infrastructure and assets was one of he objectives of 2005 P&W study, but the proposed development would result in loss of pier C both during and after construction. By 2006 the scale of the T2 proposal increased to 75000m2, capable of accommodating 11.4mppa in the first phase. Second phase would bring it to 15mppa. The CIP had also referred to further extension of T1 to give hourly capacity of 4800 departing passengers. This would translate to 26mppa. Therefore T1 and T2 together would provide a capacity of 41mppa, significantly in excess of the 30mppa cap of the LAP. The principle of excess capacity was confirmed in the EIS which referred to 35mppa. Referring to the EIS that Aer Lingus would be the anchor tenants and that a number of American airlines would also be accommodated, she produced a graph stated to indicate passenger demand by the said airlines for a typical summer Friday. The EIS stated that the design hour for T2 was based on proportion of Aer Lingus fleet which departed on busy morning hour increasing from 65%to 80%, and this (bunching) in her calculation would bring the numbers from 2310 to 2860 passengers. This bunching would mean a growth of 46% for Aer Lingus passengers while the growth in overall passengers using Dublin Airport would be 32%. There was no explanation why demand in T2 would grow substantially faster. This would require at least 9 additional based short haul aircraft by Aer Lingus or city jet by 2013. No such fleet were ordered by Aer Lingus, which was planning at least one base located outside Ireland, while city jet were planning growth in London. She provided a number of graphs showing various airlines and airports in UK and Australia, to indicate design capacity of T2 was excessive and would lead to inefficient use of capacity. The ‘busy hour’ ratio which seem to be used to convert it to annual throughput would leave T1 to 1100 passengers in the busy hour (though T1 would have a capacity of 4800pph). Based on current ratio of busy hour departure demand she calculated the ratio as 0.000184. Using a number of BAA airports terminals as benchmarking, she indicated on a graph that the while Dublin airport currently fell in a place similar to those unconstraint airports (such as Stanstead and not constrained ones as Heathrow) the proposed T2 would bring it at levels to high way beyond any expectation. Taking into consideration of loss of efficiency in the region of 15-20% for each additional terminal, she repeated the graph concluding that by any means the proposed ration of busy hour to annual passengers proposed at T2 was grossly inefficient. Assuming no further spreading of the peak, the annual capacity of the T2 would be 22.8mppa for phase 1 and 29.9mppa for phase 2. Together with the expanded capacity of T1 at 26.1mppa, would bring the total capacity to between 46 and 52mppa. This


would clearly breach the LAP policies and give rise to wider implications including surface access. Leaving only 1100 passengers in T1 during busy hour would result in gross inefficient utilisation of existing and recently refurbished and extended infrastructure wit a capacity of 2800pph. The LOS (level of service) for T2 was designed for full service airlines, while the majority of traffic using Dublin Airport was short haul, no frills traffic. This gave rise to excessive floor area increasing the cost compounding those caused by excessive design hour. Demand for Dublin Airport could be handled within an expanded T1 until 2011 which would give time to develop appropriately sized and configured new terminal capacity included in the northern section relocating one hangar. In any event the runway capacity would be insufficient. The available capacity at peak period (at 31 movements ph) was limited to enable the terminal capacity to be used. T2 would use 28 movements ph. T2 would not result in net gain of apron capacity taking into account of loss of pier C, there will be a net gain of 10 stands. Additional capacity would be in remote stands not improving passenger service. The proposed development would result in an inefficient layout of the airport, resulting in extended walking distances particularly to pier D, for majority of the passengers (except those using pier E) T2 was too big relative to rational use of facilities at Dublin Airport as it was sized to handle an excessive busy hour volume of passengers and was capable of handling far more passengers per annum that stated by DAA. It provided capacity which could not be utilised in the short term due to stand and runway constraints, and it was designed to an inappropriately high LOS, and duplication of services such as US pre-clearance which already exists in T1 T2 was not only too big, but was also too expensive. Analysis by CAR had calculated T2 at 4,418 /m2, this was very high particularly for low cost carriers. Recently developed terminals at Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Frankfurt Hahn, and Marseilles, were in the region of €4-8 /mppa while in the case of T2 the cost was €60 per mppa A smaller terminal could be located at the southern end of Pier C retaining 4-5 stands and providing additional 15 stands (also retaining Corballis House) Increased size equated increased cost and increased profit In conclusion, the proposed development did not meet the objectives set out for the development as it did not provide additional capacity until the runway was built. It did not provide additional stands, did not represent good utilisation of additional capacity and resulted in unbalanced development of the eastern campus, resulted in significant


loss of operational integrity through loss of Pier C and associated stand capacity, did not meet the user needs and resulted in excess capacity. It was clearly in breach of LAP, too big relative to rational airport design parameters, would in combination with T1 bring the capacity to 46-52mppa, could not be effectively used until the second runway is completed, would lead to lengthy walking distances, and poor customer service, and was costly and economically inefficient. Mr. Sweetman speaking on behalf of Teresa Kavanagh said he agreed with a number of arguments put forward by Ryanair, and would not repeat them instead he would concentrate on other issues. The planning permission granted by FCC was invalid because it did not comply with the consolidated EIA Directives. Referring to Yvonne Scannell’s book Environmental and Land Use Law (s 5.12), he stated that the Directive had direct effect. He stated that despite limited interpretation by Irish Law, the European Court have indicated that the entirety of the Directive must be taken as law. Reading from various sections of the EIA Directive he questioned if the planning authority had taken anything into consideration. Going through a number of conditions imposed by the planning authority he stated that the conditions particularly in relation to roads, water, sewer, construction compound requiring surveys to be carried out, details to be provided, proposals to be revised, mitigation and monitoring measures be provided all indicated that the EIS was inadequate as these matters should have been addressed in the EIS. The EIS was inadequate in addressing alternatives, interrelationships, or cumulative impacts. There was no impact assessment of the MSCP shown on the model. Cumulative impact of all the development within blue line must be assessed. The Article 10 (a) of the Directive 2003 /335 required public access to a review procedure carried out by an independent authority. The planning authority decision was so lacking in assessment of the EIS this oral hearing could not possibly be a review of the planning authority’s decision. The Board had to look at the proposal as if it had been made to it in the first instance. The Board could not possibly grant permission, because the information required under the Directive was not provided. The conditions imposed by the planning authority supported this argument. He examined conditions requiring road junctions, road realignments, road works and stated that none of these were in the EIS, nor were they within the blue line (lands in the ownership of the applicant). He referred to the conditions requiring short term (1750 spaces) and long term car parks, which were not part of the proposed development and not included in the EIS. Redesign of the project to include a large car parking as a condition, without an EIS and cumulative impact assessment was not acceptable.


The condition in relation to MMP required surveys to be carried out. That should have been carried out before submission of application, and included in the EIS. Traffic management plan for construction traffic must be submitted with the application to enable third parties to examine the effects. Agreement with planning authority only prevented public participation in the process. Water was a specific item under the EIA Directive. The planning authority had imposed a number of conditions requiring works o be carried out outside the blue line, discharges into water courses, details of dewatering and attenuation to be provided later. This was clearly in breach of the Directive. The conditions in relation to foul sewer requiring revision of design details clearly showed the information was wrong, and in contravention of the LAP and County Development Plan. The conditions requiring details of ground water investigation, or measures in relation to contaminated soils were not acceptable. Mitigation measures had to be in the EIS. The EIS did not comply even with the minimalist implementation of the EIA Directive by Ireland. The condition requiring application for a remote compound for activity which had direct effect was clearly project splitting. The planner’s report had referred to further information but there was none. This application was reliant on the parallel runway. It was conceded that the runway application was invalid. Therefore there was no need for this application. Condition number 30 did not comply with the European Court judgement 183-05. trees were required to be felled during the hibernation of bats. He referred to the submission by Eastern Fisheries Board. Discharges into Sluice River were being proposed without any reference to the otters whatsoever. The Board had no option but to refuse the proposed development. Mr. Ian Lumley speaking for An Taisce stated that being down in the order of speakers meant a number of issues he was going to raise were already raised by other appellants. Ryanair had already made an overriding request under Irish Law. He would therefore concentrate on the issues arising from validity of the application and compliance with European Law. The issue of validity of the public notice had also come up in the other part of the project (runway). The planning authority had already identified major difficulties in relation to infrastructure. Conditions imposed by the planning authority already indicated that there were many elements such roads, water and sewer provisions


(some of which required land-take and effecting third party rights) which were not identified in the public notice. Instead of requiring an appropriate public notice to be submitted together with an appropriate EIS, the planning authority had simply chose to use conditions to address the problems. They were simply not entitled to do so as these nullified the third party right (residents or businesses).They needed ask further information and revised public notice with revised EIS, or simply declare the application invalid. The Board had no entitlement to validate an application retrospectively. He invited the inspector to adjourn the hearing which was costly and time consuming to the third parties. The Board could ask for Council’s opinion on the matter which could nullify the process. The board also had powers to go directly to the High Court though they had not exercised that right up to now. The inspector would bring the matter to the attention of the Board, but would proceed with the hearing. Mr. Lumley continues with other points noting this was without prejudice to the argument that the Board could not retrospectively validate an invalid application which denied the third party rights and which did not comply with the requirements of the EIA Directive. There was no specific Irish legislation to implement the Council Directive 2000/ . Therefore it had direct effect. EPA had produced a SEA methodology. Both the DAA and FCC had referred to a number of policy statements contained in documents at national, regional, local levels (NDP, NSS, RPG, LAP etc). Only two of these really mattered, NDP and LAP. The first was an overriding Government policy (and included funding). There was no SEA of the NDP. NDP was an over riding plan with specific policies for roads, aviation, etc, including funding. It had to be subject of an SEA. Article 3 of the Directive and 11 sectors linked the SEA to the other directives such as EIA and Habitats Directives. NDP was in breach of the Directive. He noted that this was brought to the notice of European Commission who was investigating the matter. An Board Pleánala would need to be aware that Ireland was facing breach of Directives more than any other European country. While it was possible to assess the impacts of all aspects of the development at the airport through a single, integrated EIS for all, this was not done so. This amounted to project splitting. Interrelationship between various factors were not examined. SEA directive similar to the EIA directive required provision of an environmental report, public consultation in the process, assessment of trans-boundary effects (climatic impacts). The proposed development was nullified by the failure to subject NDP to SEA. He was pleased to see that the format of this hearing would include relevant European Directives (as specified under item 3). An Taisce was a prescribed body for consultation in the preparation of a County Development Plan and individual projects, but it was not included in the new SEA regulations as such for LAP. They were simply not aware that a LAP was being prepared. They only became aware of its existence after the planning application for


the runway at which time they discovered a serious deficiency in the SEA of the LAP. It did not include one of the headings to be covered under the SEA Directive, namely Climate. In the case of the airport there would be land based transport generated emissions as well as air based emissions. This rendered the LAP null an void under the SEA Directive. He noted the earlier question by the inspector regarding statue of limitations for challenge of the SEA for the LAP. There was no time limit if the case was Primae fascia, as in this case, omission of one of the headings. The An Board Pleánala could not deal with the case until the Council admit the deficiency and subject the LAP to proper SEA. Ireland had the fastest growth in aviation and land based emissions at 160%, significantly higher than allowed under Kyoto (30%). The split assessment of the project on a piece meal basis was in breach of the Art 5 and 4 of the EIA Directive. The description of t development did not include development outside the site though these were clearly considered necessary by the planning authority through conditions. There was no discussion of alternatives to obviate the proposed development. Suggestion by Andrew Moran (2.1) to dig a tunnel to a remote part of Wales was not the case. Institute of Engineers of Ireland had drawn preliminary proposals for a tunnel at Tuscar Rock, to connect to a high speed rail network which would then lead to Europe through channel tunnel. As stated by Mr. Harley there was no adequate cost /benefit analysis. As stated in the Stern report the long term impact of climate change on the GDP was simply ignored. In terms of alternative sites within the airport they found the Ryanair argument that a northern location would remove the necessity for demolition of Corballis House to be persuasive. There was significant information deficiency regarding impact of road proposals in the surrounding community especially St. Margaret’s, regarding soil contamination (no trial hole investigation regarding pockets of hydro carbon collection under the tarmac). Water and foul sewer disposal issues were unresolved, all raising serious questions regarding credibility of the EIS. He reserved the right to comment further during specific modules. Rebuttal by Regine Weston Ms. Weston for DAA wanted to respond to capacity issues raised by Ms. Congdon for Ryanair. The paper discussed these under the headings of ‘busy hour’ demand and capacity, annual passengers, airline market share, terminal size and level of service. (exhibits A, B, C, D 18/04/07) Ms.Congdon was working from correct numbers, and the issues had arisen from use of the numbers. Dublin Airport was operating at a level of constraint agreed by the DAA and the airlines as per Dublin Airport Capacity Declaration, 2007, at 4050, though the demand from the airlines was 5838. This was because arising from the


terminal capacity constraint, airlines were moved away from the hour they wanted to fly. In other words the 60 minute limit of 4050 artificially reduced the demand to fit inside the terminal capacity, though the demand was 5838. The purple section of the graph showed these. Using the 5% growth projection to 2013 would bring this number to 7900 at peak hour. Using numbers quoted by Ms. Congdon, the busy hour capacities in 2013, would be 4800 for T1 and 4200 for T2 bringing a total of 9000. The inefficiency of 15-20% used by Ms. Congdon would bring total busy hour capacity to 7200-7650. using the same numbers the demand would be 7900 bringing the inefficiency down to 12%. The primary reason for inefficiency arose from differing profiles of airline traffic using different terminals. The second graph also showed the combined peak to be over 4050 showing 11% inefficiency. Peak hour and annual demand were not tied as closely as submitted by MS. Congdon. The relationship between these was unique to each airport and changed overtime. While it would be worth noting that the selection of airports in Ms. Congdon’s graph represented a number of terminals in Heathrow and Gatwick which were capacity constrained, rather than airports comparable to Dublin, other airports added to the graph such as Oslo, Athens, Lisbon and Manchester would be located at much higher levels than the line shown on the graph. These were capital city airports. A better way of calculating annual passenger volumes would be to consider total airport forecast passenger demand and the market share of airlines likely to be assigned to each terminal. The assumption was that 45% of scheduled traffic would use T2 and remaining 55% would use T1. The forecasts by Ms Coveney (DAA) had shown an airport wide projection of 27.7mppa for 2013. This would mean 15.3mppa for T1 and 12.4mppa for T2. The total figure for 2018 was 32.2mppa. The figures of 28-32mppa were the correct figures and not the 46-52 as argued by the appellant. When these figures used in the graph, location of Dublin Airport fell to its correct position well below the level of other capital city airports including Manchester but would provide a level of service at acceptable level. Dublin was unique as airline market share was dominated by two airlines (Ryanair 40%, Aer Lingus 37%, leaving only 23% for all the others). Manchester on the other hand had a number of airlines where the two biggest had market shares of 14% and 12%. In Dublin it was not viable to design a terminal for 8-10mppa. Based on the current share of the market each terminal had to provide for at least 37% of the total traffic (Aer Lingus) The sizing of the terminal was based on future planning day of airlines, and six potential peak hours. For example Aer Lingus had announced a 50% increase in aircraft numbers, taking the fleet to 42 with 34 narrow bodied aircraft. At 80% this would yield a peak hour demand of 4155, which was completely consistent with planning day figure of 4200.


The level of service (LOS), was IATA determined. There were 48 scheduled airlines using Dublin Airport majority of which were members of IATA, and endorsed the LOS ‘C’. Also CAR supported service level of C. A lower LOS did not necessarily mean less space was required as suggested. Smaller space meant longer waiting times and increased depth to accommodate longer queues. Thus check-in at level D service would require a 10% increase over LOS ‘C’.

Questions by An Taisce Ian Lumley for An Taisce had a few questions to the planning authority. He asked for a hard copy of the SEA for the LAP to verify that a section on climate was missing. He had downloaded it from the web site, and wanted to make sure they contained the same information. The inspector gave her own hard copy. Sean O' Faircheallaigh senior planer for FCC stated they did not accept that climate was not covered in the SEA of the LAP. Both the scooping report and air quality sections required green house gases and emissions to be … the environmental objectives, backbone of the entire LAP had two specific objectives EO14 (to promote minimisation of green house gas emissions) and EO15 (to support action on climate change). The entire LAP would have been tested against environment objectives. Had they done the environmental report now, having regard to the current prominence of the issue, they would have included a separate section under climate change. Mr. Lumley stated that air quality monitoring did not cover climatic change effects. Annex 1 of the SEA Directive indicated that climate change must be included in the environmental report. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that the LAP was on public display and this issue could have been raised during that time, to which Ian Lumley responded as before stating that An Taisce were not a consultee in the LAP process and simply was not aware. He asked if a map could be provided to indicate all the areas within and outside the red and blue line where works would need to be carried out as a result of the planning authority conditions (roads, sewer etc including way leaves). Dermot Flanagan for the planning authority stated that the Board could choose to impose different conditions. Mr. Sweetman stated that they were in the first instance appealing against the decision of the planning authority and the planning authority must provided such a map. Inspector ruled that the exact implications of the conditions and specific locations would become clear during discussions on each module. Ian Lumley also asked ARUP to provide details of consultations in relation to road projects whether on behalf of the planning authority or for DAA. Mr.Sweetman stated that work was already under way and would be lodging a complaint. The inspector stated that enforcement was outside the scope of the hearing.


Mr. Sweetman stated that the Board could not grant permission for extension to an unauthorised development and there was a court case. Mr. Lumley requested specific sections of the SEA where climate change was referred to. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh referred to Appendix A ‘scoping’ report and revised scooping report, environmental objectives referred to earlier and pages 90-94. Mr. Lumley went through sections maintaining there was no specific reference to climate change and air quality was local air quality. He requested the baseline data and monitoring data. Mr. Flanagan (FCC) stated that the subject of this hearing was a planning application and its EIS under Irish Law. Information required by Mr. Lumley was for another forum. The inspector ruled that indeed the adequacy of the SEA was a matter for another forum, but the questions regarding the same would be brought to the attention of the Board. Mr. Sweetman stated that the Counsel for the planning authority had not understood his points. This was not an assessment of an EIS but assessment of a project. Whether the Council considered the adequacy of the EIS under Irish Law was irrelevant. He was appealing the ‘non-assessment’ of the development by the planning authority and they would be challenging the Board on this issue all the way to the European Courts, demanding their costs. The decision of the planning authority was ultra vires of the European Law. Responding the Mr. Flanagan’s points Mr. Lumley stated that petition was taken by An Taisce to challenge the SEA and was taken very seriously at the European level. DAA was relying on this LAP to justify this development, which in turn relying on an SEA legality of which was impuned. There was a requirement under SEA Directive for ongoing monitoring. EIA Directive only applied to parts of the whole development. The serious deficiencies of the EIA was already highlighted and accepted by the planning authority through their conditions. Questions by Mr. Harley (for Uproar) Mr. Harley provided a single sheet on the sensitivity tests carried out by DAA on the master plan. (exhibit E-18/04/07) He argued any number of headings could be used in addition to the three categories such as heritage, and the figures obtained were very close to each other (4.6 v 4.7). Mr. Moran (DAA) stated that the three categories contained a number of sub categories. Heritage was included in the deliverability as a constraint to constructibility. The three categories were devised Merril Lynch architects with world wide expertise (in JFK where TWA terminal was such a heritage issue), and accepted by American Institute of Architects . They had also carried out consultations with stakeholders, no body had suggested another category.


Mr. Harley concluded that scheme was arbitrary and could produce any result required. Only a single numeraire method would avoid the problem. Following discussions, Mr. Harley requested that Ms. Coveney produced the actual forecasting projections for the 30 year period. Discussing options of a second airport in Dublin, he confirmed with Mr. Evans that there was no specific economic evaluation. Mr. O’ Donnell stated that it would be part of an overall cost evaluation including environmental cost. Mr. Harley stated that dismissal on cost basis was only a personal opinion. He asked Mr. Wheelan why duplication of services at a second airport was a problem, as that was the basis of competition, and why increase in land prices as a result of a second airport was a problem. Mr. Wheelan could not locate the documents referred to and would come back later. Questions by Ms. Lawton, (She was advised that a translation service was no longer available) Referring to introduction of internal environmental taxes in other jurisdictions such as Norway a Britain she asked Ms. Coveney if her forecasting include a scenario where such taxes were imposed. The answer was no as there were no such taxes and no plans to introduce them. If they were introduced low growth scenario would happen. The main consideration in growth scenarios was GDP while secondary drivers included taxes, fuel prices, population, demographic factors, market fragmentation. The central line assumption was that the fuel prices would remain constant as a result of the increased (12%) efficiency in aircrafts. In response to question by Ms. Lawton that as a result of the continuous developments such as area 14, and Pier D, T1 would be able to accommodate future expansion, Mr. Foley stated that these were extraordinary measures to respond to unprecedented growth in an attempt to alleviate congestion. In response to question he stated that the design capacity of T1 was 10-15mppa, but was presently operating at 22mppa. Yes the LOS was low and at level F in some sections. Following its completion, the headroom in T2 would allow them to refurbish T1 to bring it to same service level as T2. In response to question for the application for a new commercial section at T1 he stated that the passengers using Pier D would not be going through the existing duty free area, and they needed commercial facilities to capture them and generate revenue which the DAA dependent upon. Ms. Coveney responded that yes they had taken into consideration of the constraints introduced in Heathrow and Standstead in their forecast.


Mr. Wheelan agreed that yes, a national aviation policy would be helpful to the planners, as well as other strategies such as NSS. Mark Foley stated that for the first time there was AAP which required break up of DAA into three authorities. Mr. O Donnell disagreed there was a project splitting in this case as both the runway and T2 had separate EISs. Project splitting was a legal concept where there was avoidance of EIS. Questions by Ryanair to DAA Mr. Hayden for Ryanair stated that the present involvement of Ryanair in the hearing was without prejudice to the fact that the information requested by them was not provided by the DAA. Gateway 1 and 2 were specifically identified in the documents and it was clear that the planning authority did have access to these. Also in the Annex 2 of the P&W study though not submitted with the application, was referred to in the LAP. Basis upon which the capacity justification for T2 is driven was based on information from airlines, which was specifically excluded. He referred to letter from Tiros, stating that some sections were removed. In examining the methodology upon which scheduling and predictions made regarding capacity they needed that information. Also in the 06 forecasting report, schedule for 2005 was not included although it was provided for 2000-2004, and for 2006. Everywhere he went to objectively identify the basis upon which the numbers were driven forward for capacity were not provided. The Board was being asked to adjudicate in the dark. There was a fundamental flaw in the process. He wanted note it before proceeding further with his questions. Mr. O’Donnell stated that as much document as possible was being provided, with the exception of those given to the DAA in confidence. Ms. Coveney explained that in the reason why there was no 2005 entry in PDFA2006 was because it was not finalised in 2005, and was simply moved into 2006. There was nothing missing. The figures contained in the EIS and in DAPF06 were identical, ad same figures were used for forecast. In response to questions in relation to various items on the graphs Ms. Weston stated that the graph was generated using information provided by ACL (airport coordination Ltd). Same source used by Ms. Congdon. She did not have specific access to information regarding how much of it was Aer Lingus. That could be requested if necessary, from the company.


In relation to a number of questions as whether the orange in the graph showed excess capacity in T1 she responded that the graph was about demand not capacity, and that one was a demand graph while the other was a forecast graph. In response to the question as to how much of the purple demand in T1 created the demand for T2, she stated that the forecasting was not based on that. In response to the question as the T2 peak starting at 7 o’clock did not justify capacity at T2 she said there was no causal relationship. In response to question by Ms. Lawton regarding prohibition of night time flights extending to 7 am she stated that one of the scenarios they looked at was a curfew for T2. Mr. O’ Connell stated that this was a theoretical basis for creation of the model for demand forecasting. There were further explanation of where the figure of 4200 came from, regarding peak hour between 615 and 715 at 15 minute intervals and the buffer between each slot. In response to request by Mr. Hayden to provide busy day schedules, Ms. Coveney stated that they had extensive consultations with airlines about their future plans, and revealing of information received in confidence was not appropriate. Revealing full schedule of T2 would reveal explicitly the plans of Aer Lingus as it would be the main user. They were asked by Aer Lingus not to do so. Mr. Hayden insisted that he was entitled to busy day schedule the basis on which 92,000m2 development at T2 was justified. Mr. O’Donnell stated that busy day schedule was not the basis, but was one of considerations. Following further difference of opinion as to whether Aer Lingus was going to purchase extra aircraft, Mr. Hayden suggested the information be provided to the inspector only. The inspector advised that any information she received would have to be made available to the parties. In response to suggestion by Mr. Hayden that the inspector engage an aviation expert to interpret the numbers, the inspector stated that the inspector and the Board would have regard to the views of both sides in their deliberations. Mr. O’Donnell distributed a copy of the document entitled ‘Independent Verifiers Report’, (exhibit G-18/04/07) which he stated was commissioned by the minister for transport and reading from page 3 of the said report stated that the report had verified that the methodology used was appropriate. In Mr. Hayden’s view the report was an assessment of delivering a terminal with pre-determined capacity, and was assuming the need was there. The response to Mr. Hayden regarding source of information relating to airports at Athens, Lisbon (rebuttal by ms. Weston) Paul Willis of ARUP had worked at projects for Lisbon and Athens. Mr. Hayden requested the raw data and stated that the graph


showed Manchester to have value of 0.002 while their figure of 0.004 would have brought it more inline with the graph. There were explanations of the concepts busy hour and peak hour. The former was based on historical data (listing of all days in a year in a descending order in terms of passenger numbers and choosing the value at 95%). The other definition involved use of peak hour on the day when Rider Cup was held, while busy day was a busy day without any external driver. The hearing agreed to use the term busy hour to prevent confusion. In relation to the question regarding discrepancy between EIS and the response document of Ms Weston 12.4mppa vs.11.4mppa, Ms. Weston responded that her figure of 11.4 was arrived using today’s conditions and market share to make a direct projection to 2013 (27.7 x 45%) to demonstrate how the figures of 46-52mppa given by Ms. Congdon was inconceivable. The projection methods used in s. 2.2.4.5 of the EIS were much more sophisticated. There were further discussion relating to the second graph of Ms. Weston’s response paper, and in particular the accuracy of the figures arrived, whether the inverse of the formula was used, and whether the correct number was indicated after division of the figure 4200 by 11.4mppa annual capacity. The next day M. O’Donnell announced that the documents required (capacity, benchmarking, DAPFo6/01, rebuttal evidence by R. Weston) were made available on the table for third parties. Those could be photocopied were also provided to the parties. In response to query from the inspector he sated the studies such as car parking and planning history indicated on map would also be made available. Also provided was a copy of Draft Gateway 2 (exhibit F-18/04/07) Further rebuttal papers were prepared by both parties overnight. Ryanair continuing Mr. Hayden stated that the benchmarking papers did not provide the information requested. The source of the information was not provided for verification. Gateway 1 and 3 were not provided. It seemed to be based on absolute wish list of Aer Lingus but even then they were not able to verify, because they were not given the source information. He also argued that Boyd report (Verifier’s report) did not rely on Gateway 2 or 3, and did not verify how they got to 4200. Ms. Congdon stated that based on the shortage of information they decided to use other airports as benchmark to see if the 4200 figure was plausible, sensible and realistic. The information regarding the airports they used was verifiable, while they could not do so regarding information about the other airports which were presented in the rebuttal paper as being more comparable to Dublin.


There was a long discussion regarding methodology used in arriving the critical figure of 4200. Ms. Weston explained how they would reach their figure. This was the approach used in the EIS. The graphs (which were based on Ms. Congdon’s paper) were omitted but the 5 main points remained the same. The main argument put forward by Ryanair was that as they did not have access to the information used by DAA (Gateway 1, 2, 3 ) they had used other airports as benchmarking to indicate DAA figure was not realistic. In particular elements of Gateway 2 (chapters 2 and 3, parts of chapter 8, and index) were not provided. They maintained that their own figures were verifiable. Ms. Weston explained that they did not develop a methodology using benchmarking. Such an approach was not seen elsewhere. They had instead used the local data which was more relevant based on demand at the local airport. Secondly they would not use the airports used by Ms. Congdon. She stated the far column in the submitted paper did in fact provided the source of the information regarding those airports (Athens, Lisbon etc) In response to the question by the inspector whether there was an agreement on the methodology (by the two experts), and whether the same figure would be reached, if an agreed methodology was used, Ms. Congdon stated that while they could use the same methodology based on design day time table, they would also ‘sense-check’ the figure using other airports as benchmark to see if the figure was realistic, sensible and economic, and to challenge the assumptions. There was no evidence if such a sense-check was used. In response to query from the inspector, Ms. Congdon stated that while they could not provide a figure because they did not have access to source information, they could state that if 4200 was used as a basis, it would lead to a grossly oversized terminal for the throughput of passengers. At the invitation of Mr. O’Donnell, Mr. Foley stated that in meeting its obligations to provide appropriate facilities to meet the future needs of Dublin Airport they used the most robust methods. They and their consultants ARUP had shown great diligence in their work. The project was conceived in the aftermath of the AAP, and because a number of parties were involved the state had required an independent verification of the process to check if it demonstratably met the needs in a cost-effective way. The Verifiers had direct contact with ARUP without any involvement by DAA which was kept at arms length, at the end of which DAA was advised that the Government was supporting the project. At the request of the DAA the Government had agreed to make the report public. He referred to S.6.2.2 of the report and in response to question by Mr. Hayden confirmed that the authors of the verifier’s report had access to all the confidential information. They had access to all pertinent information including Gateway 1, 2 and 3. In response to Mr. Hayden’s suggestion that Boyd was a construction company, with no aviation expertise, and that they were given 4200 as a requirement, to assess


whether it was good value for money from construction point of view, Mr. Foley stated that Boydcreetsweet (Writers of the Verifier’s report) had access to aviation and architectural expertise. He noted that the conclusion in page 4 had referred to Gateway 3. He categorically stated that the brief included evaluation of the full proposition, including user consultation, the process that led to the sizing of the terminal , efficiency, and construction costs. To infer that their brief was merely validating a predetermined sized terminal was not correct. In response to the question from Mr. Hayden he repeated that the T1 design capacity was 10-15 million. As a result of Government decision to examine alternative models for funding of transport, they could not proceed with their 2003 T2 proposal. Instead they were forced to introduce ongoing, interim, quasi-emergency measures, to alleviate the congestion. The current 22 million processing capacity was not an appropriate or acceptable level, and they intended to return to 15 million following completion of T2. Their aim was to provide a two-terminal system with 15 million capacity each. Mr. Hayden stated that they did not object to another terminal. It was yes to another terminal but no to the proposed 92,000m2 capacity. In response to the query from the inspector Mr Foley stated that the Pier D had no impact on the processing capacity. Mr. Hayden first asked what the operating capacity of T1 was then draw attention to reference (s.8.9) that the residual operating capacity of T1 was 20 million plus. Also the 1999 annual report had stated that with 6 bay terminal extension and pier D the capacity would increase to 20million. Mr. Foley stated that there has been significant changes in the nature of business, since 1999. There has been changes to the aircraft type from 120 passenger aircraft to 189 passenger aircraft ( 50 % increase in aircraft size), which necessitating increased processing capacity. Also there has been significant changes in security requirements (liquids etc). They had to remove a number of existing retail units to allow processing. The predicted 20 million capacity was not the same. In response to reference in Gateway 2 for residual operating capacity of 20million in T1, Ms. Westin explained that it was under the heading of alternative airline assignments and was one of the scenarios they looked at to ensure a robust analysis. What they were aiming at was a 32 million overall capacity in 2018 with 15million in T2. Mr. Foley was happy that Ryanair agreed there was need for another terminal. The size of the terminal had to be decided on the basis of at least one of the airlines operating from that terminal, to make it viable. They also had to provide an appropriate level of service. Operating capacity of T1 was not relevant in this context.


Questions to planning authority At the invitation of the inspector to express the planning authority’s position on the capacity issue, Sean O' Faircheallaigh (FCC) said crucial for them was the passenger numbers and not so much the size of the terminal. He stated that the reference to 30 million in S. 4.2 of the LAP was an approximate figure. There was no cap in the objectives. They would have included a cap if they wished so. Their main thinking was the overall development of the airport campus and balanced distribution of development within the campus. Two runway system would bring the overall capacity to 60 milllion. Their main consideration was to ensure the development of the eastern campus did not compromise the development of the western campus. Within this 30 million was very much a broad perspective. In response to the query from the inspector as to whether the figure of 30 million arose from carrying capacity of the existing environment and constraints, he said no, it had nothing to do with the environmental constraints or transport /traffic considerations. Their overall vision was to ensure the airport realised its full potential and that the development would move into the western campus following reaching capacity in the eastern campus. In response to question by the inspector in relation to reason behind condition number 28 Rachel Kenny for the planning authority stated that it was put to ensure the development accorded with the LAP. It was also considered that it was a reasonable figure to stimulate and ensure movement into western campus. They were working on consultations to stimulate development on the western campus, and to start receiving detailed proposals for development in the western campus. Further questions by Ryanair There were further discussions and disagreements as to whether the on going developments at T1 (area 14, pier D, portcabin area, removal of bank and retail) etc would bring T1 to acceptable level of service. DAA maintained to the contrary, while Ryanair maintained that in the CIP report this was presented as bringing the capacity in T1 to 20 million plus. Mr. Hayden referring to the earlier statement that Dublin Airport had two major airlines and the remaining 23% was not adequate to fill a terminal, stated that as part of moving Aer Lingus into the new terminal and the one world alliance which Aer Lingus belongs, the DAA was replicating facilities such as pre clearance into the new terminal. These already existed in T1 and had DAA considered building a low cost terminal and move Ryanair out of T1 and into the new terminal there would be no necessity for duplication of services, and demolition of Corballis House to make way for the large building. Moving Ryanair out of T1 would free 40% of the capacity in T1 and allow DAA to provide a level of service they consider adequate. Mr. Lamond referring to the capacity enhancement report stated that option B specifically looked at a northern location for a low cost carrier, but there were


fundamental problems in terms of surface access and necessity to demolish a number of hangars. A location adjacent to pier D as suggested by Ryanair would necessitate development within the curtilage of OCTB. It also had insufficient kerb side. All the traffic would have to go in front of T1. In contrast at a southern location they could dramatically improve traffic situation. In response to question from Mr. Hayden, Mr. Foley stated that the road access from Naul road (indicated on the LAP) was reserved as part of securing in the long term, access to the western campus at the eastern most point. The PM/ SOM study had concluded that in order to overcome the access and traffic difficulties, the terminal building must be pushed further east from OCTB, and the result would be a terminal too far away form public transport (Metro and GCT) located at the heart of the campus. It would also lead to a situation where two terminals operated in complete independence from each other rather than in unison. Ms. Weston stated that each terminal whether low cost or not still had to provide immigration facilities (those from outside Europe were required to go through immigration while travelling in Europe). The main driver for location of pre-clearance for US immigration in T2 was because the existing in T1 did not comply with US regulations. In response to the question from Mr. Hayden if they considered a low cost option in a southern location Mr. Lamond stated that the balance of wide body stands was towards south while narrow bodied aircrafts was to north. It was therefore better to provide a terminal which would accommodate airlines such as intercontinental with wide bodied aircraft. Aer Lingus with mixed bodied aircraft in the southern section was a better option. Questions to Mr. Evans (He needed to leave the hearing shortly) Mr. Sweetman referring to paragraph 2.1 of Mr. Evans’s report asked if he considered an additional airport to the south west. Yes it was considered and explained in the second bullet as a single runway serving GDA. The precise boundaries of GDA were not determined. No he had not looked at Portarlington. Yea availability of land was one of the considerations but commercial viability of the airport was more important. In response to question form Mr. Swetman he stated that environmental considerations were hazard, noise, coast line, and areas of special scientific interest or their Irish equivalent. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman as to what were the environmental considerations in the case of large Bord Na Mona owned midlands bog adjacent to railway, he said information was provided for reasons of completeness, an concept of another airport was not considered. Mr. Byrne concentrated on the term ‘preferable’ and asked whether the proposed development was preferable in the NSS context which aimed at moving development away from the over developed eastern seaboard. Was decentralisation a consideration and what criteria they had used in singling out one aspect of the Government policy


that is importance of Dublin Airport for the Irish economy. He stated that if this preferable to the DAA which is a commercial organisation. Scott Wilson report was limited to what is best for the DAA. In the runway appeal they were told the brief was for another runway. In this case the brief was for another terminal. There was no real consideration of an alternative airport. The key driver was the ownership of land rather than a serious assessment of where in the country it is best to locate an airport. There was no macro level objective assessment of where the airport should be located in the country. There was no Government policy regarding aviation infrastructure. The AAP was a knee jerk reaction, it was not a policy. There was discussion regarding the percentage of passengers originating in the GDA, whether 80% was from GDA or whether 70% from outside Dublin City and County. The Scott Wilson Report of 2004 had identified 79% of the passengers closer to Dublin Airport than any other airport. In response to question from the inspector as to how they examined accessibility Mr. Evans said it was map based. Proximity to existing infrastructure was weighted against other criteria on map basis. Ryanair continuing questions In response to question from Mr. Hayden, Mr. Moran referred to the three options considered in the terminals and Piers Study for future scenarios, as accelerated short-haul growth, accelerated long-haul growth and retention of existing mix of short and long haul. Within each option there were three more options. The eastern campus was the preferred option for the ultimate growth of 30million and beyond. After 30 million any further development ought to go west in the form of satellite piers. West meant west of the cross runway. He referred to drwg. On page 108, figure 6. The final was for a build up of 43million. They had envisaged 30 million by 2019. The landside access would come from the east. Additional infrastructure would be required after 2020. In response to the question by the inspector whether they were proposing to increase capacity beyond 30 million only through piers, he said it was in this option where it was envisaged accelerated long haul growth. Upper band option beyond 2020 was through land utilisation framework plan. Mr. Foley stated that PM/SOM underpin the location of the terminal, and looked beyond 30 million to ensure any construction up to 30 million did not prejudice post 30 million development. The base criterion for the 30 million development was that it would not constrain ultimate capacity. The ability of the airport to grow beyond 30 million had to be protected. The development before the Board was predicated on the ‘busy hour’ schedule for 30-35 million. Mr. Hayden referred to page 22 and busy hour rate of 2495 for 2002, and 3400 for 2004. He asked if 3400 was at an acceptable level for 17 million passengers (2004).


Referring to the predicted capacity of 6000 pph for 30 million capacity (paragraph.1.7), Mr. Hayden asked if Mr. Moran calculated this independently. Yes it was based on IATA space measures. In response to the question if 6000 pph was for the 30 million capacity and if 5500 was being required for T2 (second phase) would that not leave 500 for T1, Mr. Foley for DAA stated that Mr. Moran’s study was completed in 2003, when Aer Lingus had not formulated its detailed business plans. Now they had detailed requirements. Also Ryanair had increased its footprint at the airport by 50 %. There was also inefficiency arising from splitting of two terminals. Mr. Moran referred to his 3 different scenarios where he had predicted a low growth scenario of 4500 pph, and high growth scenario of 6000-6500pph. In the low growth scenario derivation footprint would be 82600m2 of net footprint. He noted this was net and not gross, which would be closer to 100,000m2. There would be inefficiency as a result of splitting two terminals. Referring to p 19 appendix B he emphasised that the 4500 passenger flow was for the lower end and 6000-6500 was for the upper end depending on different scenarios. In the context of master plan they had tried to capture the future changes. Iteration of the master plan they would still use the same methodology used by Ms/ Coveney and Ms. Weston for design specifics and would probably come up with the same figures. There was no change in the master plan context, but refinement would be required at detailed design stage. Following further discussions Ms. Congdon stated in order to achieve the busy hour rate proposed, all of the departures must be bunched into a single hour which she considered would not be the case (long haul busy hour was later in the day). Secondly the amount of increased in the aircraft to be ordered or leased by Aer Lingus was not realistic ( leased aircraft would be based elsewhere etc). This was her professional conclusion. In response to question whether the second phase (5500pph) would require the construction of pier F, DAA stated that pier E together with improvements to piers A and B would be adequate. In response to suggestion that this was unauthorised development by stealth he stated these would be applied for later. In response to question from Mr. Hayden that in view of the fact that the business profile of operators at Dublin Airport had shifted in the direction of low cost, point to point operation why they did not provide a terminal suitable for such operations at the chosen location, Mr. Lamond stated that the southern location was recommended by the master plan. As this section was more suitable to accommodate wide bodied aircraft it was more logical for location of a terminal that would use such aircraft. The LOS ‘C’ being provided was recommended by IATA as being minimum acceptable service at reasonable cost. A terminal which would serve purely ‘low-cost’ operators would be at a different level of service. Mr. Foley stated that IATA level of service ‘C’ was required by all those consulted and 90% of the airlines had signed up to it. In response to question by Mr. Hayden as to whether they were asked to design a terminal suitable for low cost model (at least 40% of the passengers were using the


other airline with low cost model), Mr. Lamond responded that they were asked to design a terminal with LOS ‘C’. Mr. Hayden objected that he did not get an answer, and objected to the ruling by the inspector to move on. There were further discussions in relation to the source of figures, whose graph it was and who could /should request the data from ACL. Noting that the same was discussed in the previous day, the inspector asked who ever had produced the graph in the first place should try to provide the figures unless there was a confidentiality problem. In response to question by the inspector Mr. Hayden stated that in their view the level of demand did not justify the size of the terminal being proposed. He repeated he did not get the answers to how much of the purple in the graph was Aer Lingus and what time line was being used to justify the 4200 figure. Failure to furnish the numbers was denying Ryanair the opportunity to see why this happened. He argued that there was an obligation on the inspector to present this to the Board. In response to the question by the inspector what would be the following question if he were given the source data, he said they would prove that the EIS and the methodology used for calculating numbers were fundamentally flawed. If they were not given the source data then they would argue that there was not that level of demand to justify the size of the terminal. He repeated that in the second phase (where master plan had predicted 6000 pph), 5500 pph would be through T2. This would leave T1 where Ryanair operated with only 500 passengers. He asked again what changed. At the direction of Mr. O Donnell, Mr. Moran responded by saying that there were no changes in the fundamentals of master planning. Schedules presented at the time provided range of values between 4500-6000. The range options for facilities would remain the same. They would follow the methodology used by Ms. Weston and Coveney if they were to provide numbers for detailed design. Ms. Weston stated the argument in relation to lack of information for peak was not correct. She referred to Appendix 1A (redacted Gateway 2 document), and graph entitled T2 planning day profiles and stated that the figure 4144 at bottom right was indicated between 615 and 714. There were 28 aircraft in that schedule. Mr. Hayden asked if IATA level C was comparable to the service required by low cost carriers. Ms. Weston was currently designing a low cost carrier terminal using IATA LOS ‘C’ Mr. Moran stated that the main characteristics of low cost carriers were 25 minutes turn around, ease of access to gate room, ease of access to landside, facilities for 189 passengers. They had considered these in addition to the IATA service level C, and they had also benchmarked it against other low cost airports in Europe and US. In response to the question by Mr. Hayden (referring to page 22 of DAPF06/01), as to how much of the growth shown in timelines between 2007 and 2013 was as a result of


Aer Lingus, Ms. Coveney referred back to her three growth scenarios and said there were various ways the market changed. Mr. Hayden repeated as to how much of the increased capacity reflected / represented what they have factored as Aer Lingus increase. Ms. Coveney stated earlier it was said the peak hour required 28 aircrafts. As Aer Lingus had already 28 aircraft, theoretically they could squeeze all their aircraft into the peak hour without purchasing any aircraft. There were two major players. Ryanair had already indicated very strong growth while Aer Lingus had plans to grow. Mr. Hayden noted the question was not answered. Mr. Hayden asked if their projections not included carbon tax. Ms. Coveney referred to the growth scenarios, an said ‘Cesar’ project would deliver 12% efficiency in fuel emissions. Mr. Hayden repeated the question as to whether carbon tax was included. Ms Coveney stated that it was not known when and how much but the low growth scenario would cover it. The charges regarding baggage and priority seating had not have any effect on the demand. Mr. Hayden said the EU charges would commence on 2011, and therefore ‘when’ was known. In response to question by Mr. Hayden that it was anticipated that the development would cater a lot more than what is presented, Mr. Moran stated that the terminal and piers would cater for 30 million. The ultimate capacity of the airport would be more than 30 million. In response to question if T2 was being designed for a capacity of 15 million, Ms. Weston responded that on the basis of busy hour 4200, phase I would deliver a capacity for 11.4 million, and on the basis of busy hour of 5500 phase II would deliver a capacity of 14.9 million. Following suggestion by Mr. Hayden that one would get 27 million using the ‘ratios’, she stated they were not using ratios. Mr. Hayden asked Mr. Moran what ratios he had used, and asked for an explanation of the discrepancy in the figures presented in the 2003 study and those presented in the hearing.. Mr. Foley stated that Mr. Moran had stewardship of the master plan, but was not involved since 2003. The new Board had asked P&W to re examine the conclusions. Linking of the two was not appropriate. I should note that throughout the questions and answers session Mr. Hayden demanded on a number of occasions that the person he asked the question should answer. This was opposed by the first party on grounds that the questions were being put to people who were not involved in the section of the project referred to in the question. (for example Mr. Moran had not been involved in the project since 2003, after completion of the master plan, and could not answer question regarding design evolved since then) Inspector ruled that the questions were to be put to the party, and be responded by the person chosen by the lead.


In response to question by Mr. Hayden Mr. Moran stated yes the master plan had envisaged a single building designed as an annex to the T1, but the fundamentals of the master plan for location of the building to the south east of T1 would not change. No northern option would not be preferred. In response to the question by the inspector why the design was changed from extension to T1 to two separate terminals, Mr. Foley stated that a key component of the Government direction was that a terminal capable of independent operation be provided and tendered out. In response to the question by the inspector to compare the present location for a separate terminal building with a northern location, Mr. Moran said he still would not locate a separate terminal in the northern location because of deliverability (removal of hangars), shallow depth of the apron, single sided pier, and risk of delays arising from impact on the OCTB and its curtilage. On balance he did not think he would change the conclusion that south east of T1 was the best option. In response to question can independent operation could be achieved if it relied on pier B, Alan Lamond stated that their brief was for a terminal managed independently, but it would have to have airside connectivity. In response to question whether they took up where the Terminal and Piers study left off, he stated that they were asked to review the work carried out previously, and had found that it was solid piece of work, but the world had moved on an. Nevertheless they had come up with similar conclusions. In response to question he stated that yes the four options examined were not the same as the previous study, but formed the basis of how one could seek to add capacity. Yes they had considered the option of extending the existing building in the south-easterly direction (p 20), but there were serious constraints, such as two circular concrete ramps, energy centre and the services for T1 went up through the ramps. Mr. Hayden noted these were still present when the previous option was chosen. The only thing that had changed was independent operation. Mr. Foley stated it was incorrect to say that the new DAA Board had accepted the previous body of work by its predecessor. The Government had asked for an independent study (assessment). In response to question by Mr. Hayden as to why the findings of the previous study was materially altered, Alan Lamond stated that they had to have a fresh approach in terms of deliverability with minimum disruption to the existing operations. In response to the number of stands in pier E, he stated that it was purposefully designed to have ‘mars’ stands (multi aircraft ramp stands) which could be used by either code E or code C type aircraft (Wide or narrow bodied). There were 19 contact stands. As 6 stands were lost in pier C the net gain was 13. In response to the question by the inspector in relation to the original brief to incorporate pier C, Mr. Lamond stated that the building was kept and the area use was


apron capacity. Yes there would be changes in terms of reconfiguration, and re grading of the apron, and re-alignment of the taxiways for optimum efficiency. There was a lot of discussion regarding ability of the pier E to accommodate all the narrow bodied aircraft generated by the 4200 capacity particularly when 5 wide bodied aircraft arriving in the morning would take up considerable area. DAA maintained that both pier E and pier B would be used, through different gate utilization chart. Mr. Hayden questioned how this would represent independent operation and maintained that in order to serve the proposed capacity pier F as well as configurations to other piers would have to be carried out and the development before the Board did not reflect the whole development required. Mr. Foley stated that no connectivity to the rest of the airport would lead to inefficiency which would not comply with the Government directive. He reiterated that the independent verifiers report was required to assure the Government. In response to the question by the inspector whether the pier capacity would be adequate to process 4200 passengers, Ms. Weston said yes until phase 2, and remote stands could be used if necessary, while Mr. Foley stated the plans for further improvements to other stands would be after 2009. Mr. Hayden referred to S. 9.3.1 and stated that that assumed already extended pier B. He referred to earlier discussion regarding inadequacy of kerbside facilities for northern option and stated that Ryanair had presented a plan to DAA showing that was not the case. He asked on what basis the plan was rejected. Mr. Lamond stated that they had looked at the previous proposals, and there was inadequate kerb side facilities and there were problems in terms of impact on OCTB, and traffic. Mr. Hayden further asked why section 10-14 of the Gateway 2 was not provided, and why there was confidentiality issue in retail areas. Following request for presentation of Ms. Congdons response to rebuttal paper (although the inspector had ruled that rebuttal of rebuttal style presentations would not be accepted), there was difficulty arising from non-availability of the two capacity experts for questions (Ms. Congdon would need to leave that evening due to prior commitments, and Ms. Weston would return to Canada the next day) There was also disagreements in relation to the late receipt /presentation of information. Ms. Congdons response paper was not presented to the hearing until 5pm in the afternoon (Exhibit A-19/04/07) This would present problems for DAA in terms of examination of the points raised in the paper by Weston, prior to departure of Ms.Congdon. (they maintained the paper was ready at lunch time and Mr.Hayden had the floor all afternoon for questioning) In return Mr. Hayden complained that they were given the information by DAA at 1030 the night before, which lead to a late night work by Ms Congdon. Ms. Congdon stated that it was important that she be given the opportunity to talk because there were flaws in the rebuttal. (DAA stated that they withdrew rebuttal


evidence in relation to points 9-18). She read parts of her paper at the end of which she concluded that there was nothing in the rebuttal paper which caused her to alter her assessment of the terminal capacity which would be provided by T2 proposed by the DAA. It was either

• Too big relative to the size of new terminal development required to enable 30mppa to be handled in the eastern campus, given the existing and planned capacity of T1, or,

• DAA would use the existence of spare terminal capacity to seek to justify the raising of the limits within the LAP to allow the full capacity of the terminal to be exploited.

Her best estimate was still that T2 as proposed once both phases are complete, would provide terminal capacity at Dublin Airport for around 46mppa. Capacity provided once phase 1 is complete, would exceed 40mppa. This was clearly not efficient and cost effective development. There were questions to Ms. Congdon by Ms. Weston, Mr. Foley and Mr. O’Donnell, (related to worldwide expertise of Ms. Weston, and joint work of the two experts) prior to her departure. Questions by Mr. Swetman to DAA The next person to ask questions to DAA was Mr. Sweetman, who concentrated on European requirements in relation to air transport policy, and EIA Directive ( in particular Art 5(1) and Annex IV). He stated that there was no reference to policies (/concerns) of Director General Environment in relation to sustainability of aviation industry. He asked about environmental considerations in making a decision for not choosing a low cost terminal at the same site. He queried whether the impact arising from works such as reconfiguration of the taxiways, aprons etc were included in the EIS. He required references in the EIS to the remote construction compound required by the planning authority. He concluded that the EIS was rushed and botched and did not comply with the requirements of the Directive. Questions to planning authority 20/4/07 By Ryanair In response to question by Mr. Hayden Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that while 30 million was the driving capacity of the eastern section it was a general guideline, and in the context of the current growth the planning authority had considered it was reasonable to accept 35 million. There was a question of inadequacy of the capacity before T3 kicked in. They considered 35mppa to be absolute limit.


Yes the LAP envisaged an eastern and western campus. This was the finding of Terminal and Piers study, but also of the South Fingal Planning study prepared on behalf of the planning authority by consultants of international experience. In response to the question as to whether size of the terminal was a consideration and whether it reflected a capacity of 30-35 million Rachel Kenny referred to objective DS4, and stated that they had started from the point that 35mppa was the upper limit. The size of the terminal was looked at in terms of design and layout to improve level of comfort and passenger experience. They had accepted the submission of the DAA that T1 and T2 together would provide up to 35mppa capacity. No they did not independently look at LOS (level of service) by using an external expert. Mr. Flanagan stated that a lot of work had been done in the LAP in relation to appropriate level of service and the FCC had made a submission to the Regulator stating that the conditions in T1 were not acceptable. Mr. Flanagan wanted to stress that capacity was not put as an issue by Ryanair to the planning authority during the application. They had looked at capacity from a different angle than Mr. Hayden. Balancing, appropriate level of service and passenger experience were main considerations. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that their concern regarding capacity was that (a) it should not go to an extent to frustrate the development of the western campus, (b) facilities in the eastern campus should be worthy of a gateway to the country. There was as such a push and pull. In response to suggestion by Mr. Hayden that the ‘entry’ to the country should be from T1 instead of a new gateway, Ms Kenny stated that they consider both T1 and T2 as gateway, and that there would be improvement to T1 after completion of T2. Mr. Hayden disagreed. In his opinion people used one or the other terminal. In response to Mr. Hayden’s question from the point of view of capacity whether they had looked the level of service, as presented to them by DAA, Ms. Kenny stated that they looked at it from the point of view of generous and well designed spaces. In response to query whether they sought services of an aviation consultant, Mr. Flanagan stated that they had looked at it from the point of view of up to 35 million capacity. A lot of work was done on he LAP which said appropriate level of service. A lot of aviation input had gone into the LAP. Following question as to whether the planners had access to Gateway 2 document, Mr. O’Donnell formally objected to the extent of reliance on a different statutory procedure, which was between the Aviation Regulator and the operators at the airport. Mr. Hayden insisted that it was relevant as a planning issue as the service had to be paid for. What was being built was discussed here, but they were looking at the regulator to pay for it. One could not have a different presentation to the Regulator


than what was presented at this hearing. Inspector suggested Mr. Manahan explain the parameters for planning process to Mr. Hayden. In response to request by the inspector to outline the parameters within which the planning authority had made their decision, Mr. Flanagan said before going into that he would like to state that he had no problem with the inspector deciding the relationship between parties, and he had no problem with a lot of issues being discussed, but he had concerns that Ryanair was attempting to bring planning authority into the appeal in a manner…. They had made their decision on the basis of the application made. As a matter of law Ryanair had to set the grounds of appeal. He had read the appeal submission by Manahan consultants on behalf of Ryanair very carefully. Nowhere was there any reference to a cap, or capacity or to the documentation ventilated during the hearing…the extent to which they elaborated on these was causing him difficulty. He referred to s. 1.2.7 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. They had made their decision on capacity, on solid basis. In response to the ruling by the inspector that Mr Hayden was given a lot of latitude to go beyond what was set out in the grounds of appeal, that the issue of the cost of the building was not a matter for this hearing and the capacity and the size of the structure was important only in the context of jeopardising objectives of the planning authority for the development of the airport, Mr. Hayden stated that he would accept the ruling of the inspector that ‘cost’ was not an issue, ‘whatever the consequences rose from that’. He repeated that Ms Congdon had stated that the building had a capacity of 42 million, and the gateway 2 had said there was residual capacity of 20 million in T1. The combined capacity would therefore exceed the cap. In response to the question by the inspector, having regard to the submission during the hearing would they consider the size of the proposed terminal would jeopardise the objectives of the LAP, Ms. Kenny stated that they had assessed the application on the basis that the combine capacity of T1 and T2 would not exceed 35 million. They did not believe it would prejudice the development of the western campus or the overall objectives of the LAP. In response to question by Mr. Hayden what considerations were given in the use of the two buildings if there was excess capacity, Mr. Flanagan stated that as a matter of law they considered the cap to be up to 35 million. All the documentation presented in the application including covering letter and EIS had capped it at 35 million. In response to the question by the inspector, having regard to the information presented at the hearing if they would make any changes to the approach or the decision, Ms. Kenny stated that in terms of size of the building, size per se was not of critical importance to them. They wanted a well designed and generous space. The critical issue was the 35 million cap, in terms of advancement of the western campus. They had inserted condition number 28 to ensure this, but if the Board wanted they could strengthen it. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that Government AAP highlighted the need to start planning for T3 as early as possible. During the preparation of the LAP there was


strong interest from the landowners on the western campus, who had hired aviation experts, and made submissions to the LAP. Mr. Flanagan stated that it was the LAP that talked about eastern and western campus. Early deliverability of T2 was an issue. The cap of 35 milion provided flexibility in terms of deliverability. The 30 million figure identified in LAP adopted in June 06 was based on previous data which indicated a figure of 20 million, but the plan allowed a margin as plans usually did. For the LAP deliverability of early T2 was most important. The remainder would be through individual planning applications. In response to the question from Mr. Hayden whether the constraints of the site was an issue in determining the size of a building or the needs of the landowner, Ms. Kenny stated that if there were constraints on the site they would influence and input the assessment of the site. In response to question as to what extent they had looked at site and Corballis House as a constraint, she stated that it was taken into consideration. The conservation officer would have an input into that. That would be discussed in a later module. In response to the question when it came to assess the building in question from the point of view of exceptional circumstances was there a constraint in terms of size, she referred to policy AH2 of the LAP. They would leave it to the heritage officer. Referring to map no 1 if the LAP (which was indicated to be diagrammatic) Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh, agreed everything after this went to west. No, PM/SOM or P&W study were not submitted formally as part of the planning application, but they would feed into the LAP. Mr. Hayden asked since the Board had received it after further information request (parts withheld), he asked whether the planning authority had access to the complete document, in particular to the annexes. The planning authority would check. In response to question by Mr. Hayden (and referring to an earlier point made by Mr. Sweetman) having regard to the size of the project why further information was not requested and why a number of conditions imposed by the planning authority were akin to additional information request, Ms. Kenny stated that there was no request of further information and conditions were devised by the planner. That was the recommendation that went up to the manager. In response to statement that normally one would see a section at the end of a planners report a debate, a process as to how the opinion is reached, and whether the one liner at the end of the document was hers Ms. Kenny stated yes it was, and the report had a series of sub conclusions. She disagreed with the suggestion that the statement at the end of the report effectively said the planning authority accepted that permission be granted as a given by the planning authority. There were 70 sub conclusions and there was no need for a final section to bring them all together. In response to question regarding further information recommendation on page 30, Mr. Flanagan stated that there were ongoing noise monitoring being carried out at the airport. The board would be aware that EHO conditions were standard condition.


In response to question whether any ‘scoping’ direction was given to the DAA by the planning authority, Ms. Kenny stated that there was no formal scoping, just pre planning discussions. No, it was not unusual a project of this size. It could happen either way. In response to the question what were the parameters of the EIS agreed by the planning authority and DAA Mr. Flanagan interfered and stated that one needed to be very careful here. S. 2.4.7 of the Act provided for pre planning discussions, and that did not in any way prejudice the planning authority or the Board. It was a matter for the applicant to decide what went into the EIS, and satisfy the planning authority and ultimately the Board. The inspector ruled pre-planning discussions were not relevant to the hearing. In response to the question that as T2 predicated on Pier F, as well as B and E, and there were 9 applications within the last six months and as each piece added on a new impact, if any body asked for an overall EIS, Mr. Flanagan stated that the onus was on the applicant to consider in the EIS all relevant issues. Also the LAP had gone through SEA which informed the pre application stage. Mr. Hayden stated that the EIS dealt simply with the T2 and this constituted project splitting. Cumulative impacts were not discussed. Mr. O’Donnell objected stating that none of these were put to his clients before, inspector ruled the issues of project splitting and cumulative impact were raised. She ruled they would be discussed but at a later stage, as Ms Weston would leave shortly. Questions to DAA By Mr. Harley (for Portmarnock residents Association) Referring to the table / graph presented in a previous session Mr. Harley stated that they showed 20.4 million for 2006, though we know now that the actual figure is 21.4 million, and that unless there was a dramatic down turn in the economy the high growth scenario would continue. He asked how do you get back into the centre line. Ms. Coveney referring to additional aircraft purchases since the data was gathered and announcement for further purchases, stated that in the short term they did not only look at the GDP but market and airline plans in the short term. Mr. Harley suggested looking at the figures one could argue that the passenger traffic was understated by 10-12 percent and that perhaps a bigger terminal was necessary. He suggested it was flawed. In response to question by the inspector whether they would change their forecast on the basis of the recent figures, Ms. Coveney said she would not. In response to question by Mr. Harley if increase in airport charges as a result of this development was included as a separate component in aviation charges, Ms. Coveney referred to GDP elasticity and airfare elasticity and stated that as airport charges


included a small percentage of airfare (4-8%) they were not included as a separate component. Following further discussions on demand elasticity, in response to question whether carbon tax was included in the model, Ms. Coveney stated that 2011 was for introduction of emission trading scheme for airlines, and not carbon tax. It was not clear what was going to happen, and while she predicted that fuel prices would remain relatively stable, if substantial changes occurred, that would be covered by the low growth scenario. In response to question that as 32 ha land was involved, how much value was attached to the cost of the land, or whether they included value of land in their analysis Mr. Foley responded that they had not. Mr. Harley referred to Government guidelines requiring that state lands be valued at opportunity cost. Referring to Mr. Moran’s presentation (Terminal and Piers study) and the three tests (functionality, deliverability and cost) he questioned would the results not be different if the value of land was included. Noting that the preferred option was an extension to T1 (which would be much less costly) then the present separate one, he argued as the proposed separate terminal would be more costly then a simple extension, the result of the analysis would be different. He concluded that any outcome could be achieved if different weightings were attached to the analysis, and the methodology was not adequate in meeting the guidelines for public projects. In response to question by Mr. Lumley in relation to percentage of transfer passengers and how much of the passengers originated from north of Ireland Ms. Coveney stated that the transfer passenger constituted only 5% of the total, and 75% had origin or destination from Dublin area. They would make Bob Laird aviation analysis available. In response to suggestion by Mr. Sweetman that the value of the land should be calculated on the basis of the price recently paid for locating prison in the area, Mr. O’Donnell referred to his expertise on the matter and stated if this was arbitration or CPO it would be relevant but it had no relevance in the planning context. Mr. Sweetman stated that land value, economics, and sustainable were interlinked and if something was not economic it would not be sustainable. He referred to final section of an inspector’s report making a recommendation in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Questions by Marie O’Brien to DAA In response to question by Marie O’Brien as to what would happen to T2 if R2 was not built, Mr. Foley stated that he believed the board of DAA would go ahead with building it as it was required to relieve the existing congestion In response to statement that all the drawings submitted showed R2 in place, Mr. O’Donnell stated that it was an objective of the development plan and had to be taken into account in their studies.


In response to capacity of T1 Mr. Foley stated that when T2 is operational it will remove enough passengers out of T1 to provide sufficient headroom for the improvements. They had promised to the operators remaining in T1 that it would be brought to the same level of service as T2. In response to question whether they were planning to fly all night long as a result of increased capacity, Ms. Coveney stated that forecasting demand did not indicate such a scenario. The modus operandii of carriers was to fly during day time In response to question whether it was Government policy to development Dublin Airport exclusion of regional airports, Ms. Coveney stated that they were mandated by the Government to develop Dublin Airport but the others would not be excluded as development of regional airports was also Government policy. The question of how soon T3 would be required would be more appropriate for the Government and FCC In response to question if the retail facilities were removed how much space would be available for processing, Ms. Weston responded that retrofitting was appropriate for T1 rather than planning the space from start. She referred to divertiture space (space used for security and processing). They had carried out a number of simulation studies to see how long does it take a person to go through various areas (take off laptop, and other items put on tray, put items back on at the other end etc) to come up with good design practices. Once some traffic is taken out of T1 there would be improvements. Mr. Foley added that they have been removing retail but they also depended on commercial revenue. In response to question if DAA reduced level of service, would it increase capacity Ms. Weston said the busy hour demand (in this case 4144) defined capacity, while processing (check-in and boarding) was determined by the airlines. The airport authority had only agreement on level of service to be provided. Reduced standards could not increase demand. Statement by Ms. Weston In a short statement prior to her departure for Canada Ms. Weston stated that the question of whether Aer Lingus did or did not purchase additional aircraft was not material as Aer Lingus already had 28 based aircraft. The arguments regarding additional wide bodied aircraft (as a result of new improved bilateral agreements between US and EU) would only indicate further growth, these were taken into account in the high growth scenario. In any event the demand by wide bodied aircraft would be later in the day. Questions were raised regarding aircraft gating requirements and necessity to use additional piers (Gateway 2 document). The number one requirement in this regard would be coordination of aircraft parking requirements with passenger processing. There would be good utilisation of Pier E because of its design to accommodate either narrow or wide bodied aircraft. Reading from Gateway 2 document which stated that


Pier B extension was not programmed beyond completion of T2, she said they had looked at if the existing facilities could accommodate full day demand and did not undermine the processing of 4144 passengers. If necessary, though not desirable bussing was completely feasible. The suggestion that check-in hall did not take into account latest trends was incorrect. The assumption was that 70% of the passengers would check-in online leaving on 30% for conventional check-in. Presently only 5% of Ryanair passengers were checking in on-line, while 55% of Aer Lingus were using kiosk and online check-in. Counters were required for bag drop in even tough they had boarding pass. There was a lot of reference to IATA airport development manual, but there were others such as FAA (US Federal Aviation Administration), which was in the process of being updated, to which she had submitted papers. She firmly believed that no one should not rely on ratios in airport planning (ratio of passengers to stands). For example if the JFK was used as an example there would be a requirement of 250 more stands. She had been involved in over 50 terminal projects over 5 continents, including (In Europe), such as Manchester, Glaskow, Edinburgh, Gatwick, Heathrow, Paris Charles De Gaulle. Every airport had something special and for that reason she preferred using real data and not ratios. Dublin was very unique in that it had two very strong home based carriers. There was nowhere else comparable. You needed to plan using these as basis. Even if you used all of the other carriers it did not give head room in T1. She had calculated the figure of 4144 herself (Mr. Hayden interjected stating that she was given the data to make the calculation). He argued that despite stating that 70% of the passengers would be using kiosks/ online check-in they were planning deep queuing. Ms. Weston responded by saying that demand for number of counters and queuing depth was calculated on the basis of long haul passengers (1345-1444hrs), not short haul passengers. She also wanted to stress that the she was the author of chapter 8 of gateway 2 document. In response to question by Mr. Lumley if contribution of global aviation and in particular Irish aviation were taken into account, she responded that her speciality was on calculation of internal arrangements such as checking counters. In response to the question by Ms. O’Brien whether it was envisaged that low cost airlines used air-bridges or stairs, Mr. Foley sated Pier E had the capability of air bridges and would be provided in agreement with airlines. Pier D did not have air bridge capability because the airlines did not want at the time. In response to the question what was meant by independent operation of T2, Mr. Foley stated that they had to provide a solution for T2 which could be operated


(commercially) by a third party. The proposal before the Board was endorsed by the verifier, as meeting this criteria.. In response to question as to how it could operate independently if it had to use pier B as well as pier E, Mr. Foley stated that there was airside connectivity between the two terminals. In response to question as to whether there was public consultation and ‘scoping’ exercise, Niamh O’Sullivan for ARUP said yes there was, letters were sent to residents associations and two day long consultation process was attended by members of the public and DAA design team. Alan Lamond stated that the focus groups were chosen by a market research company at arms length from DAA and included two main groups, frequent fliers and families with children. Their views were fed back to the design team. In response to request by Ms. O’Brien to make noise monitoring referred to by the planning authority earlier available, Mr. O’ Donnell agreed to make what ever data there to is available. During discussion regarding health and safety of passengers at T1 which could reach to 25 million prior to completion of T2 (what would happen in the case of a fire), and whether health and safety were under another code and not under planning acts, Mr. Sweetman stated that human beings and flora /fauna were not included in the planning Acts though they were the first two items in the EIA Directive. The hearing had to take into account of human beings. Mr. O’Donnell stated that he was referring to matters when dealing with a planning application and referred to inclusion of EIA regulations in the 2000 Act. Questions by Mr. Byrne In response to question by Mr. Byrne what considerations planning authority gave to locating a second airport outside the site Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that it was assessed within the context of LAP which was based on objectives of the County Development Plan. No there was no consideration regarding location somewhere else such as Co.Laois. Mr. Byrne maintained that the assessment of the planning authority was fundamentally flawed because they had considered alternatives only within lands in the ownership of DAA. They had narrowly interpreted what the NSS, NDP stated. There was no national aviation policy. AAP was not a policy. There was no study to examine alternative locations within the country as a whole. He agreed with other speakers that the decision had already been made to locate a second terminal (and runway) without examination of nationwide alternatives. Mr Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that they had assessed whether the proposed development complied with policies at national and regional level.


Mr. Sweetman following a long discussion of where the alternative locations were examined stated the South Fingal study did not constitute a proper examination of alternatives as required by the Directive. Questions by Mr. Mr. Harley Mr. Harley stressed that there were references to a number of Government policies the planning authority and DAA had to take cognisance of. The fundamental policy underlying all was the policy ‘value for money’. All public projects must pass this test. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh was aware but it was not planning authority function to examine such matters. It was between the Government and DAA. Mr. Harley pointed out that the Government action plan did not state build this terminal at this location. In response to question by Mr. Harley to quantify the temporary measures in terms of area and how much of the same would continue to be used after opening of T2, Mr. Foley stated that the temporary boarding facilities to south of pier D would be removed after its opening as the permission was temporary. The others such as whether area 14 would be returned to storage would depend on the circumstances. Mr. Harley maintained that the capacity at T1 would remain higher. Questions by Mr. Flanagan to Mr. Manahan of Ryanair In response to suggestion that the term material contravention was not used by Mr. Manahan in their submission to the Council, and not until the hearing, Mr. Manahan responded that while they made their submission on the basis of the amount of material available at the counter of the planning authority and within the very limited time available for making a submission, more information became available at the appeal stage, through documents circulated prior to the hearing and during the hearing, which deepen his understanding of the issues and the development and his views have become hardened that the proposed development would contravene the LAP. Following discussion at the hearing in his view while T2 was planned to have 15 million it could accommodate up to 25 million. Similarly T1 would have 25 million capacity though it was planned to bring it back to 15 million. As a result 50 million would be in the eastern campus which would materially contravene the LAP. In response to the suggestion by Mr. Flanagan that nowhere in the LAP a cap was provided as suggested by Ms. Congdon and Ms. Callaghan of Ryanair, there was long discussion as to how many times the figure 30 million appeared in the LAP and whether it was up to 30 million (1st page) or approximately 30 million in other pages. Mr. Hayden stated that the planning authority was now imposing a cap at 35 million, though they had said no cap was imposed. Referring to 2000 Act, and page 3 of Mr. Manahan’s written statement that demolition of Corballis House would contravene the provisions of the LAP, Mr. Flanagan drew attention to objectives AH1 and then AH2, and AH4, and stated that


while there was absolute imperative for protection of OCTB as stated in AH1, protection of others such as Corballis House would required to be consistent with development of airport facilities. Mr. Manahan stated that while the LAP seemed to refer to OCTB in a more favourable manner, there was no such distinction between structures in the County Development Plan, and they were equally listed. He disagreed with Mr. Flanagan in the manner one looked at County Development Plan then LAP. Referring to proposed 7 of the planners report, Mr. Flanagan argued that the document contained an appropriate assessment of the development, and drew attention to 70 conclusions. Mr. Manahan stated that in his view a section at the end was necessary to tie all the strands together and contain an explanation as to why the planner was going with the development despite material contravention such as demolition of Corballis House. Mr. O’Donnell wanted to remind to Mr. Manahan that one could not elaborate on the grounds of appeal once the appeal was lodged. He wanted to clarify that there were a number of matters Mr. Manahan was not aware of but as the hearing progressed formed additional views, and those were what he aired in the submission to the hearing. He agreed whole heartedly that time limits and procedures which the people had to operate when lodging and objection or appeal was putting too much pressure onto people. Mr. Manahan responded by stating that there were two choices, either to read out the original submission or shape it for the hearing especially in case like this where there were different modules. The inspector stated that one of the purposes of the hearing was to provide a deeper understanding of the development and the issues, and latitude was given to parties for that reason. At the request of Mr. O’Donnell for DAA), Ms. Kenny of FCC confirmed that LAP both in terms of policies and objectives required design of a building to a particularly high standard. She confirmed that objective DS4 required a generous, well designed building, suitable as entry to the country and to give pride…both internal and externally. The critical issue was not capacity but, throughput of passengers. Higher level of comfort, service, quality of space were more in accordance with DS4. Design criteria reflected the importance of Dublin Airport as the most important entry point to the country. Regarding level of service the development was assessed in terms of passenger experience and planners perspective. It was considered to be providing good level of service in accordance with the objectives of LAP. Mr. Hayden asked again if the County Council had access to an aviation expert during the 8 weeks period of adjudicating on the development, did anybody understand


whether IATA level of service meant flag carrier level of service C or low cost model. Ms. Kenny responded that it was not assessed against IATA levels. Jerry Barnes (transport consultant for the Board) requested the overall capacity when both runways are in place, noting that the information was already available to the Board through the runway hearing. The DAA would provide the figures. Planning history (20/04/07) In response to a previous request by the inspector planning history of developments at the airport (in the form of a list and map indicating locations) was presented to the hearing. (exhibit C-19/04/07) Observations by Trevor Sergeant, Green party (20/04/07) Mr. Sergeant stated that while he was the leader of the green party this was his constituency and therefore he was interested in the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. He had looked at the Dublin Airport master plan and had not seen any note being taken of the Climate Change issue. There was a reference in page 89 as a heading but to mean anything it needed to be backed up. The best strategy in his view was to put this development on hold to determine first the optimum size for Dublin Airport. There was need to look at the western sea board where much less development taking place and to provide a balance, rather than laise- faire addition of capacity to Dublin Airport. As a public representative he had responsibility in how the resources of the state were being utilised,. The cost not just in money terms, but in other areas such as land cost did not seem to have been examined. It seemed it was taken as a given that the land was in the ownership of DAA. It was not. It was state land and was not free. He felt the decision would be made without full knowledge of the real cost. He was concerned that the development if permitted could be seen as another impediment on the road for the country for being ‘carbon neutral’ (He was not talking about aviation industry being under the radar in Kyoto agreement, which would be revisited soon). An uninformed decision could come back to haunt us. It would be more difficult to comply with our responsibilities at international level morally and cost wise, if proper assessment was not made. It was important that the decision sought to address the regional imbalance. He suggested the issue be re-visited byway of questions being put to the developer. It was important to determine the optimum size for the airport. The residents of Portmarnock and St. Margaret and those travelling along these roads certainly felt it has been reached.


The inspector informed Mr. Sergeant that climate change would be discussed as a separate module and he was welcomed to attend. Presentation of evidence by Rachel Kenny (23/04/07) Following completion of first module the previous week, Ms. Kenny wanted to present her evidence at the beginning of second week. The brief of evidence included comments on policy issues as well as other areas. (exhibit G-23/04/07) Reading from parts of a written submission, she considered that the applicant had provided an adequate rationale and justification for the development. It was noted that it is anticipated that 30 MPPA would use the Airport by 2015 or 2016. Government policy in the form of the Aviation Action Plan supported the development of Terminal 2. Policies TP4 of the Airport LAP provided for the development of a second terminal to the south of the existing terminal by 2009 and TP5 supported the development of new piers in association with the development of a new terminal. A number of submissions had questioned the adequacy of the EIS on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information; and on grounds of project splitting and inadequate assessment of cumulative impacts. The impact upon human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape and material assets (including heritage issues) has been satisfactorily addressed. With respect to the issue of project splitting, she considered that the cumulative impacts of the second runway and Terminal 2 have been addressed. She emphasised that:

1. The two developments have different purposes and objectives and timing of their delivery are not inextricably linked. Furthermore design of one is not inextricably linked to the other

2. The package of projects for the Airport was considered in the context of the LAP and the associated SEA.

3. The projects were not split to avoid EIS, as an EIS accompanies both applications.

4. The T2 application was able to fully take into account the impacts identified under the runway application and EIS.

5. All potential impacts have been assessed. 6. The submitted EIS is adequate having regard to the Planning and

Development Act 2000 and associated Regulations 2001, as amended.

In relation to alternatives, it would not be possible to advance options which were not in compliance with Government policy or that of the Fingal County Development Plan. 2005-2011. Section 2.2.3.1 of the EIS adequately considers alternatives and in particular ,the ‘Dublin Airport Terminal and Piers Development Study 2004’ considered 8 land use options. In addition, the Pascall + Watson report considered a number of further alternatives. The following objectives were met by the proposed location:


1. The proposed terminal is convenient for airside facilities and has easy

access to existing and proposed landside transport networks. 2. The siting allows for flexibility. 3. It is the only site available to allow for delivery by 2009. 4. It would only modestly disrupt existing facilities.

The planning authority has taken the view that terminal capacity is the most immediate limiting factor. The second runway accords with LAP objective RW1 and it would facilitate both Terminal 2 and Terminal 3. The use of the second runway is not associated with any one terminal. The current runway system can accommodate a certain increase in passenger numbers and is therefore the subject proposal can be delivered as a separate project to the second runway. In relation to terminal capacity, she highlighted that increases in the size of Terminal 1 has allowed that facility to accommodate the increase in passenger numbers. However, these increases in capacity at Terminal 1 were only interim measures pending the development of the second terminal and thereafter restructuring within Terminal 1 “would occur”. (Ms. Marie O’Brien highlighted that Ms. Kenny added this phrase when reading her text into the record). The service level in the existing terminal has deteriorated over the last number of years. The proposal would allow for a higher standard for passenger services to be achieved in both the new and existing terminals. She emphasised that independent of the size and capacity of Terminal 2 and in the event that the proposed level of service ‘C’ was reduced, the throughput of Terminal 1 and 2 should not exceed 35 MPPA. She wanted to outline the building design rationale. She noted that a number of the third party appeals considered that the proposed development is excessive in terms of scale and bulk. Terminal 1 would be operating at and beyond capacity up to 2009 and after Terminal 2 is completed there would be a rebalancing between the two terminals. This would allow for improved passenger experience in accordance with LAP objective DS4, which requires well designed public areas to ensure that the Airport becomes a statement of pride for the country’s principal gateway. She was satisfied that the size of the proposed building does not prejudice the ultimate delivery of Terminal 3 on the western campus, particularly having regard to the conditions attached to the planning permission. In relation to design, she said there is no one design style characterising the Airport. The planning authority prioritised the passenger experience within the proposed building. She then suggested variations to conditions 38, 39 and 40 (page 8 of submission G), but the Inspector considered that the hearing would return to these conditions at the appropriate stage. On the issue of passenger experience, Ms. Kenny considered that these related to: a) The ease with which passengers can access/egress the Terminal. b) The wayfinding system. c) The quality of external architecture. d) The quantum and quality of internal space provided.


A pedestrian bridge would link Terminals 1 with 2 and from Terminal 2 to the proposed multi-storey car park. Both terminals would be linked to the future proposed Ground Transportation Centre. Variations to conditions 29 and 34 are proposed, but discussion of these is deferred until the appropriate stage of the hearing. She considered that issues relating to signage and wayfinding can be satisfactorily addressed by way of condition. Section 19.2.3 of the EIS adequately addresses the issue of access for the mobility impaired. She confirmed that regard was had to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the LAP. Conditions 6 and 7 identified road improvements required, which restrict the opening of Terminal 2 to the completion of the identified road improvements. Ms. Kenny, however, acknowledged that initially Terminal 2 will allow for a rebalance between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 passengers and the Board may wish to consider a rewording of the conditions. On the issue of Metro, Ms. Kenny suggested that conditions 13 and 36 relating to the reservation for Metro North be amalgamated with a new wording. She also noted that since the granting of planning permission, Fingal County Council adopted a Section 49 Scheme relating to the provision of Metro North. Pages 12 to 15, which related to Drainage, Utilities, Built and Natural Heritage, Residential Amenity/Noise Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions were deferred to appropriate stage in the hearing. She concluded that: The proposed development was of national, strategic and local importance and accords with relevant policies. In particular,

• It accorded with Dublin Airport LAP objectives: TP1, TP4, TP5, TP7, IA1, IA4, PT1, PT2, PT3, PT6, PT11, PT12, PT13, CP8, CP11, MW1, AR1, AR2, AH2, DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4, DS5, DS6, SW4.

• Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 • The proposed does not prejudice the implementation of the full extent of the

LAP, including Terminal 3 and facilities. • The design of the building is appropriate. • The EIS adequately addresses all relevant issues and is augmented by

condition as appropriate. The third parties then posed a series of questions to Ms. Kenny, in relation to contents of her report for the planning authority.


Adequacy of EIS and compliance with EIA Directive, Project Splitting, and Cumulative impacts (20/04/07) The first to speak was Mr. Sweetman on behalf of Teresa Kavanagh This was a development by emanation of the State and Irish Law was not relevant. The European Law had Direct effect, and absolute precedence. Referring to a number of Europan Court cases (C81/96 , C 287/98, C41/92) he submitted that projects must be subject to appropriate EIS and meet absolutely the mandatory requirements. In particular the projects must go systematic assessment irrespective of whether separate or added or had links with previous development. In this case every development within the blue line irrespective of whether they were completed prior to 1988, required a complete EIA. In this case developments such as the construction compound or the car parks were not included in the EIS. The main alternatives relevant to the Directive were not included in the EIS. Impact on human beings had to be taken into consideration. As required (under Article 4), the likely significant impacts arising from existing projects had to be taken into consideration. In this case the existence of an airport, including car parks needed to be taken into consideration. An EIA of the whole airport development was required. He went trough specific sections of the Directive (nuisance- airport was the biggest creator of nuisance in the country, use of natural resources, elimination of waste, there was no reference, forecasting of impacts- was not provided…). They clearly did not know the environmental effects of the ‘alternatives’. Non-technical summary was completely inadequate, and was more like a sales brochure. It did not contain any information. He concluded that the application before us did not comply with European Law. Mr. Lumley for An Taisce stated that this application clearly constituted project splitting. It had become quite clear that there were parts of the overall development which were not included. The impacts of the MSCP such as increased traffic generation and emissions (shown in the model) were not included. The conditions attached by FCC indicated serious deficiencies. Condition number 7 showed, to be feasible a whole series of phase based road projects were necessary for the development. These were not assessed in the EIS, an some were outside the land take of DAA


The condition in relation to extension of 900mm sewer and water again clearly indicated deficiencies which were not addressed in the EIS. There were no information regarding route, land-take or way-leave required and the impacts. Condition number 19 required a sewer holding tank capacity and location of which were not identified and not assessed. A large scale construction compound was required off-site, by way of conditions without assessment of its impacts. A separate planning application would not necessarily have an EIS. The EU Guidance document was absolutely emphatic that construction impacts area assessed. There was project splitting not only in terms of separate applications for runway, terminal, car parks, but also a whole series of other categories which would be generated by this terminal were not assessed in an integrated manner. For example stabling and servicing of additional aircraft which would be generated by the proposed terminal was not assessed. Similarly there would be additional catering, and fuel requirement. Requirement for storage of additional fuel and ‘cordon sanitaire’ for such storage areas were not assessed. Engine testing of additional aircraft and the noise it would generate was not assessed. Land based transport demand as a result of the proposed development not just for passenger and staff but also servicing of the increased facilities was not assessed. There was need to put forward a unitary proposal so that all of the impacts including cumulative impacts could be assessed. While some individual proposals had EISs others did not. He concluded that there was a haphazard, piecemeal and illogical approach taken to development of the airport. This amounted to complete subversion of the EIA Directive requirements, which required that everything must be assessed. Mr. Hayden for Ryanair stated that the EIS presented T2 as a stand alone concept, and purposely did not address what was going on at the airport as a whole. We had just seen some of the development permitted at the airport in the last 9-12 months. All these permissions had increased the capacity of T1 to 4800 passengers per hour. The minutes presented by the DAA indicated this as acceptable level of service, and not as sub-standard. The EIS did not take into account of the effects of these developments. In particular the area 14 and extension to T1 had to be taken into account as they increased capacity. The proposed T2 and northern runway were inextricably linked. You could not get more people out without the runway, and you could not get more people out without the terminal. It has been said that because of the terminal constraints the number of


flights were restricted to 31. As T2 has been proposed to cater for 28 take-offs this would mean T1 would only cater for 3 take offs. There were other developments such as MSCP which would clearly have impact. The P&W report of 2005 had informed the planning authority LAP. he drew attention to the conclusion on page 10 appendix A. this showed the overall development the DAA intended to do. Complete changes and extensions to pier A, B, additional pier F. All these should have been part of the EIS. Referring to the Gateway 2 document (paragraph 9.1), he submitted that DAA knew what the total project would look like but were presenting only a portion of it in order to indicate a reduced impact. Bussing operations in the morning was not mentioned anywhere in the EIS, they needed extra apron space to cater for the capacity required, but there was no mention of it. Paragraph 9.3.2 was fundamental and example of project splitting. To cater for 49 narrow bodied aircrafts extended pier B, pier E and pier F were required. The 94 000 m2 building could not operate without pier F. York Aviation had already stated that phase 2 could not work without additional apron space. Extension to T1 was indicated in the P&W study as a capacity enhancement measure not as a triangular shopping area as presented in this hearing. In paragraph 8.9 of the gateway 2 study they had referred to 20 million residual capacity in T1 and how the overall would go beyond 35 to 40 million. The overall aim was to expand the capacity beyond was presented in an incremental manner. Referring to pages 13,14, 15 of P&W study he reiterated that all these development was already planned as being necessary for the capacity enhancement but they were not included in the EIS. They could not get the gate capacity for T2 unless all these additional facilities were put in place. The cumulative impact of all needed to be examined, as they were not, this was project splitting. He referred to pier G sometimes referred to as pier F, which was precisely what Ryanair was proposing to build at the northern section. While they were not allowed to talk about CIP (capital investment programme) the study was referring to it in appendix D. Referring to aircraft stand demand NBE and WBE (narrow body and wide body equivalent) and various numbers provided by DAA in their report he concluded using their figures and ratios, the proposed development would cater for 47 million passengers. The EIS simply did not present assessment of that ultimate figure. There was clear project splitting though incremental development. They knew what was going to happen, but was not putting it before the hearing. Mr. Harley (UPROAR) stated that he was not going to repeat what was said before. This was not a case of pure project splitting so that non of the individual projects are large enough to require an EIS, but a more subtle version of the same as there was a failure to identify the entire project. Rather, separate applications were being made by


the same body, in the same location, and in quick succession. There was a general requirement to examine cumulative impacts altogether. He referred to the court case Arklow holdings v An Board Pleánala, and more importantly European Court case C227/01 where Spanish government had subdivided a railway project to 13.2 km long sections, where the European Court ruled that such an approach would compromise the effectiveness of the Directive. Mr. Byrne was looking at it from a lay person’s point of view. He did not know the legal consequences, but this was clearly project splitting. There were so many applications one after the other, some overlapping. This had clearly frustrated the community’s ability to keep up with all, and engage relevant consultants to understand and respond to different aspects. Especially in the runway appeal they were not allowed to discuss traffic and were told that the runway itself would not generate traffic on the road. They were critical of the role of the FCC as the guardian of the community. It must be obvious to them that there was a lot going on and this was project splitting. They needed to ask for an overall assessment. They could only conclude that this was not done so either because of incompetence or there was acquiescence to allow this to happen. Mr. O’Flanagan (Counsel for the Planning Authority) stated that as a matter of Law he deemed the EIS to be adequate. Under EIA there was a fundamental obligation that public consultation is carried out prior to decision making. The overriding issue was the public consultation, identification of main environmental effects and mitigation measures before the decision maker makes the decision. All the case law in relation to avoidance primarily concentrated on lack of public discussion prior to such a decision. Turning to domestic law he argued that while Mr. Hayden had eloquently expressed his concerns regarding capacity before the Board. His (Mr. Flanagan) assessment of the adequacy of the EIS was predicated on the ‘up to 35 million’ figure identified in the application before the Board and put forward by the developer. In making their decision and imposing conditions (which were in effect mitigation measures either proposed by the developer and refined by them or imposed by them) their concern was that the significant adverse effects on the environment of a throughput of 35 million people have been adequately assessed. Their main focus was what would happen if you put 35 million people in the eastern campus. With regard to individual piers etc which may happen two years down the line, the case law was that you did not look at each and very effect but to the significant effects (wood for the trees). He continued: “as a matter of Irish Law, lets not loose the plot regarding cumulative effects”. The obligation to provide an EIS and the mandatory information to be contained in the EIS was provided under article 94 of the Regs and not under


Schedule 6. The paragraph 1 of schedule 6 referred to mandatory information while paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 required in to be provided on a qualified basis having regard to current knowledge and methods of assessment. In this regard information regarding cumulative impacts came under paragraph 2 where amplification by way of qualification and clarification of mandatory information was required. They took the view that the mandatory information was adequately set out in the EIS and there was adequate amplification. The developer had looked at cumulative impacts of putting through 35 million passengers. In his view physical aspects were not the test of cumulative impacts. The fundamental objective for the planning authority and for An Board Pleánala was to identify significant environmental impacts and more importantly for the consenting authority what it considers to be mitigation measures appropriate for the development before it. These were now all ventilated before the hearing and he leave it up to Board to ventilate and seek the information so that if they are satisfied with the proposal appropriate conditions are imposed. He differed from the others in that he considered EIS to be an appropriate start of the process, not the start and end of it. They had not sought further information partly because the LAP had identified environmental issues at macro level. In relation to water issues they had asked further information in the case of the runway appeal. Same mitigation measures applied in this case. Physicality of the development itself was not the sole function of the EIS or decision making. They had a full understanding of the area as there were significant amount of development. He drew attention to Article 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 which required the Board to consider the adequacy of the EIS and seek further information if necessary. The Board was not precluded from seeking further information afterwards or during hearing. The fundamental issue was that they were ventilated in advance of the decision making, and that the inspector and ultimately the Board was satisfied with the adequacy of the information. They were happy that all the issues were being ventilated at this hearing. In his view adequacy of the EIS was not a guillotine. The views of the third parties needed to be heard. The case law had established that EIS must form an appropriate basis for the process. At this junction EIS was a template for discussion, thorough ventilation of issues. Mr O’Donnel (Counsel for the DAA) started by stating that he did not understand Mr. Hayden’s submission as there was no reference to the Directive, to Irish Law or to the EIS. The concept of project splitting clearly outlined in Yvonne Scannell’s book referred to avoidance of obligation to prepare an EIS, which could not be the primary concern in this case.


In this case the primary concern was that there were two separate applications for the runway and the terminal, but both were accompanied by an EIS. Therefore the issue of project splitting did not arise either as matter of fact or law. Secondly Mr. Flanagan was quite correct to distinguish obligations under Irish Law. The Irish legislative scheme required EIS to be prepared to comply with Schedule 6 of the 2001 Regs. There was no equivalent under the Directive to prepare a statement. Therefore the adequacy of the EIS must be judged under Irish Law. He had to agree with Mr. Flanagan that it was a starting point for the process. The critical issues was that EIA proceeds from that point. In this case the assessment was carried out first by the planning authority then by the An Board Pleánala. In the case of Arklow Holidays v An Board Pleánala Mr. Justice Clark had ruled that EIA was a process. What was relevant was that. In that case the EIS had not addressed a number of critical issues, but the defects were cured by being raised indirectly at the hearing, and considered and assessed during the process. So Mr. Flanagan was correct in stating that the process was critical. Yvonne Scannell in her book (2006) referred to a number of cases and eligibility for EIS and fragmentation. In a German case where the road was split into parts the European court had ruled that it was perfectly acceptable to provided assessment of different segments of the road project. The Board had adopted a similar approach in previous cases. Therefore there was precedence at both levels. In this case T2, associated site development, direct and indirect effects were identified in the EIS, and cumulative impacts have been clearly considered. The entirety of the project was predicated on the basis of 35 million throughput. The EIS had identified all relevant issues such as traffic, surface water, air emissions etc which would be discussed in detail later in the process. The applicant had embraced the process as an opportunity to provide information, which has already been discussed in detail, criticised and praised. Nobody was unaware of the context in which the application was being considered. This was a process for testing it. An Board Pleánala had the final word in determining the adequacy of the process. In their view both requirements of both the Irish legislation and the Directive have been complied with.


Transport and traffic This module was conducted on three separate days 23 /04/07, 25/04/07 and 03/05/07 to facilitate absence of Mr. Flanagan (for the planning authority) on 24/04/07 (The proceedings of the first two days are as narrated by Jerry Barnes) First party submissions Mr. Paul Coughlan is a civil engineer and a Director of Arups. He submitted a written text (Submission A) and a number of figures which were extracts from the EIS (Submissions B – F). He read from his evidence. Mr. Coughlan outlined his qualifications and background. He summarised the key findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment. Proposed Development The main transport features of the proposed development are: �� All Terminal 2 kerbs are at ground level and segregated from Terminal 1 kerbs.

There will be a cross over link for buses between the two terminals. Traffic will be directed to one or other of the terminals upon entering the campus. Kerbside activity is dependent upon flight schedules which result in peak hour demands at Arrivals and Departures kerbs.

�� The Ground Transportation Centre (GTC) will provide interchange with Metro North, bus and coach operations. Pedestrians will be accommodated along desire lines.

�� Metro North is scheduled for completion by 2012 and will reduce car dependency for both employees and passengers.

�� The forecourt is laid out with three parallel roads. The Departures kerbs are nearest the building. The Inner Departure kerb will accommodate premium and regional coaches, car park, car hire and courtesy shuttles services. Set down by private car and taxi is at the Outer Departure kerb. Passengers from this kerb cross at grade crossings to the terminal building. The Arrivals kerb is planned to provide for taxis, premium coach, car hire and shuttle pick ups only. There would be no pick up by private car at the Arrivals kerb and these cars would use the MSCP at Terminals 1 and 2.

�� Additional parking as outlined in the MMP would be required. As a general strategy it is not intended to increase the travel mode share of private cars, and consequently there is a guarded approach to the provision of additional short term parking.

�� The principle of the one way road system would be retained. Lane provision is provided on the basis of wayfinding and not capacity. The internal road network has been designed for freeflow and will have four signalised junctions which will have pedestrian and cycle crossings.

Traffic Generation


Mr. Coughlan outlined the basis for the traffic generation forecasts. This was based upon estimating the daily passenger numbers which arose from likely aircraft scheduling patterns and converted to numbers of passengers at the Arrivals and Departures gates. The phased development of Terminal 2 was based upon the maximum number of departing passengers that can be handled by the terminal per hour. The Terminal 1 Phase 1 peak was 4,200 departing passengers per hour and Phase 2 was 5,500. Based on the DAA’s Centre Growth Forecast, Phase 1 capacity would be reached by 2015-16 and Phase 2 would be fully utilised by 2021. Employee forecasts are extracted from the Strategic Environment Assessment for the LAP. Table 1 in Mr. Coughlan’s evidence is Table 6.11 of the EIS. Modal choice forecasts were developed and included all public and private bus services and Metro North services to the Airport by 2024. Table 2 of his evidence is extracted from Table 6.12 of the EIS. Based on this, a two way traffic generation (veh/hr) for each impact assessment scenario was calculated. Table 3 of the submitted evidence correlates with Table 6.15c of the EIS. In particular, Mr. Coughlan notes that the increase in car trips for air passengers between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenario is not pronounced in the AM peak because air travel is expected to be concentrated in the early morning for European departures and the middle of the day for European arrivals and trans-Atlantic departures. Thus, Terminal 2’s impact upon the road traffic is mitigated during the peak commuter periods. The decrease in trips in the 2024, in comparison with the 2012, is due to the influence of Metro. Strategic Transport Assessment The assessment has been undertaken for the years 2012 and 2024. The opening year would be 2009. An assessment for 2012 was undertaken as the worst case scenario prior to the opening of Metro. A Do Minimum and Do Something scenario was assessed. Table 4 of his submission is taken from Table 6.16 of the EIS. The text of his submission in relation to the strategic transport assessment is taken directly from the sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of the EIS. Junction Capacity Assessment A detailed capacity assessment of critical junctions was undertaken for the existing situation (2006) and the 2012 and 2024 forecast years. Table 5 of the submission correlates with Table 6.20 of the EIS, which shows forecast SATURN traffic flows in the AM Peak period (8.00 am to 9.00 am). It shows that the majority of junctions would only be impacted slightly by the additional trips to and from Terminal 2, as most of the increases are below 5%. There will however be significant increases at the following junctions:

• Site B, Airport Roundabout • Site C, Swords Road (R132)/Corballis Road South • Site D, Collinstown Cross (Collinstown Lane/R132) • Site G, Harristown Junction (R108) • Site H, R122.R108 South Junction • Site R, M1/Airport Interchange


AM peak junction capacity assessments have also been undertaken for the following critical junctions - Sites A (M50/M1 interchange) and Q (M50/Ballymun Road interchange). Midday and PM peak assessments were also undertaken. The midday period is the highest Airport traffic generating period. The assessment shows that the junctions generally operate within capacity for the midday and PM peaks. Mitigating Measures Proposed mitigating measures, as outlined in the EIS, include:

• Upgrade the R132 from Collinstown Cross to the Airport Roundabout to dual 3+3 lane carriageway.

• Collinstown Cross junction upgrade. • Harristown junction upgrade.

Combined with the planned East West Distributor Route and the M50/Ballymun Interchange upgrade, these improvements will provide significant access improvements to this route. Provision for the integration of Metro into the Airport development has also been provided for. Mitigating measures for construction traffic will include:

• Off site staff parking and materials compound. • Access to construction sites to be supervised. • Work times will not coincide with peak traffic periods. • Delivery of materials scheduled to avoid peak traffic periods.

The MMP encourages non-car based modes of travel. First Party Appeal Mr. Coughlan outlined the applicant’s appeal against condition No.6. In the first instance, he emphasised that the condition will lead to congestion at Dublin Airport. The number of passengers has grown by an average of 6% in the period 200-2005. It is anticipated that the passenger numbers will have grown from 18 million in 2005 to 30 million in 2015-2016. Passenger numbers are expected to grow, irrespective of Terminal 2, and it is anticipated that they would grow to 24 million by 2009. Growth will not abate due to non-completion of the M50, but the travelling experience of the travelling public will continue to decline. Airport traffic would only contribute 2% of traffic flows on the M50 between the M1 and Ballymun and therefore the impact is only marginal. Issues Raised by Third Parties Mr. Coughlan outlined the principal third party grounds of appeal. He addressed each of the grounds of appeal in turn.


Terminal should be to the North of Terminal 1 This arrangement would not facilitate better access, as traffic accessing the northern location would have to share the T1 access road which is already constrained. It is not feasible to provide a separate access route. Terminal 2 should be constructed on the western campus to spread ground access In response, Mr. Coughlan highlighted that Airport Master Plan envisaged that a third terminal would be accommodated on the western campus. It is better to maximise the use of the eastern campus to fully utilise infrastructure. Development of Terminal 2 on the western campus would require significant road infrastructure and would be remote from the Metro. The traffic impact assessment indicates that, subject to the proposed road improvements, the eastern campus can accommodate Terminal 2. Deficiency of car parking In response to the suggestion that permission for the new multi-storey car park was not requested by the applicant, Mr. Coughlan highlighted that there is a condition attached to the permission requiring that 1,750 space multi-storey car park be provided prior to the occupation of building. Contrary to the Ryanair suggestion that there is no adequate connection between the proposed terminal and existing parking, the submitted plans indicate a high level pedestrian link, which also connects with the Ground Transportation Centre. A comprehensive road signage and wayfinding system would also be put in place. Road layout to cause confusion Wayfinding and signage system will ensure that those accessing the facilities would be directed to the correct Terminal. The road system allows for cars to recirculate if necessary. Connection to the northern perimeter road An alternative access to the north would be remote from a terminal provided on the southern side of the Northern Runway. Capacity for pickup/set down Contrary to the assertion that there is inadequate capacity for pick up/set down, it has been calculated that the combined kerb lengths will be adequate to serve the development, even without Metro. Departing passenger kerb side length is twice that of Terminal 1. The combined length of the arrivals kerb is 350m, or over 40% longer than that for Terminal 1. Kerbside of Terminal 2 not integrated with Terminal 1


There is a bus link between Terminal 2 departures kerb and the existing Terminal 1 arrivals kerb. Increased congestion on the M50 The results of the strategic modelling exercise indicate that the impact of Terminal 2 is relatively modest. Specifically on the M50 and M1 motorways, it was predicted that the traffic flows would only increase by less than 3% during the weekday AM peak hour in comparison to a situation without Terminal 2. The upgrade of the M50 is anticipated to increase capacity on the M50 by at least 50%, which is significantly greater than the impact of Terminal 2. The opening of Terminal 2 would not be expected to instantly increase the traffic on the M50. Inadequate Mobility Management Strategy Mr. Coughlan responded to the An Taisce contention that the mode split targets of 30% and 40% in favour of public transport in 2012 and 2024 was not ambitious enough. He contended that the targets were aggressive relative to other continental airports. Accentuate existing unsustainable travel patterns In reply to the UPROAR appeal contention that the development would perpetuate unsustainable travel patterns, even with Metro, Mr. Coughlan emphasised:

• The car parking strategy aimed at managing short-term and employee parking. • The development of a comprehensive Mobility Management Framework Plan

for the Airport. • Provision for links to the new Metro station • The development of the Ground Transportation Centre. • Bus and coach stops are located at prime positions in relation to car based

travel.

Dublin Airport already demonstrates a high level of public transport share compared to other airports, which are served by rail links. Metro will have a particular impact on the mode share of employees and airport business related trips. Amalgamation of Conditions 13 and 36 It is suggested that two conditions relating to Metro North alignment be amalgamated to read as follows: “The applicant shall liaise with the Railway Procurement Agency on an ongoing basis, and shall ensure that nothing in this development shall interfere with the timely implementation of Metro North. With regard to technical construction requirements relating to the planned provision of Metro through the site, the underground Metro shall be safeguarded and made available either pre or post construction. Prior to construction the applicant shall inform the Planning Authority in writing of all correspondence to/from the RPA so as to demonstrate the full knowledge of the RPA’s requirements. The applicant shall, on foot of same, submit for written


agreement and receive said written agreement regarding any proposed substantial modifications to construction that may occur in future. Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and development of the area.” Mr. Christy O’Sullivan is a civil engineer and managing director ILTP Consulting , which specialises in transportation. He made a presentation on behalf of the planning authority (submission J). He outlined the role which ILTP Consulting had in assessing the transportation impacts and its input into the LAP. His evidence provided a broad overview of the process and ILTP Consulting were not involved in the detailed assessment of the application. He noted that the subject proposal was separate and distinct from the Northern Parallel Runway application. The application for the second terminal requires an upgrading of the current road network and additional parking, as required by condition, are required to comply with the LAP. He provided an overview of the Airport Local Area Plan, from a transportation perspective. External Access The M1 and M50 are sensitive to congestion. Infrastructure in the form of the ‘Airport Box’ was developed to facilitate surface access to the Airport. Infrastructure to serve the Airport must be phased in accordance with the provisions of the LAP. Future Year Forecasts Mr. O’Sullivan outlined how the LAP took into account future commercial development in the area and accounted for the full roll out of Transport 21. External Road Proposals These included the ‘Airport Box’, the Blanchardstown to Baldoyle Airport Road (East West Distributor Road), Link Road to the N2, upgrade of the R108 South, improved additional access from the Forest Little Road and to serve the terminal facilities on the western campus, upgrading of the M50 and a possible Swords Western Bypass. Public Transport These services and infrastructure would include QBC on all upgrades as part of the ‘Airport Box’, reservation for Metro North and West, multi-modal interchange, bus links to DART, bus links for commercial areas, incentivise public transport for staff and passengers. Parking Mr. O’Sullivan highlighted that the LAP acknowledged that an increase in car parking would be required to serve the Airport. He referred to Objective CP9 of the LAP which seeks to control the supply of parking to maximise public transport use and Objective CP10 which seeks to limit the growth of employee parking. Short and long


term passenger parking should be phased in accordance with Airport growth. Pier D will result in the removal of 3,800 employee parking spaces and 1,500 will be maintained to the west of the R132. Mobility Management Objective CD6 of the LAP requires the provision of a Mobility Management Plan. Proposed Application The subject application was assessed against the terms of the Airport LAP. A number of conditions have been attached to ensure that the proposal broadly conforms to the LAP. In particular condition 7 i) requires the upgrading of the R132 Swords Road to a dual carriageway between Collinstown Cross and the Airport Roundabout, which would include a dedicated bus lane. This accords with the LAP. Condition 12, requiring the provision of 1,750 short term parking spaces to be provided in a multi-storey car park and additional long term parking to be provided prior to the occupation of Phase 2, accords with Objective CP3 of the LAP. The reservation for the Metro alignment accords with policies of the LAP and an MMP would be provided in accordance with Objective CD6. Mr. Sean McGrath, senior executive engineer with the planning authority, made his presentation to the hearing (submission I). Mr. McGrath outlined his experience in transportation planning and development control. He outlined the policy background in terms of Transport 21, the Platform for Change, Fingal County Council Development Plan and Dublin Airport LAP. The applicant engaged in preapplication discussions with the Transport Department, the National Roads Authority and the Dublin Transportation Office. These discussion covered:

• Procedures for analysing transportation impacts. • Selection of forecast years. • Land use assumptions • Highway and public transport network assumptions • Trip attraction and generation • Detailed junction impacts.

Additional trips are a function of terminal capacity as opposed to runway capacity. The Transport Department has always considered that the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) should consider all the trips generated by the proposed Terminal 2, over and above that generated by Terminal 1 and unconstrained by runway capacity. Mr. McGrath indicated that revised land use forecasts were provided by Fingal County Council and took into account additional development facilitated by the Metro. The assumptions were put into the DTO’s Strategic Model and a Local Area Model was cordoned and found to be well calibrated. The LAM provided traffic flows for the analysis of individual links and junctions. 2012 and 2024 were selected as forecast years. The 2012 forecast year represents the worst-case scenario. Mr.


McGrath referred to the trip generation and attraction assumptions detailed in the EIS. The Transport Department is satisfied with the methodology adopted. The junction impact assessment shows that major improvements are required at the South Corballis Road/R132 junction, the Collinstown Cross junction and the Harristown Cross junction. Short term parking is required to serve the development and this is in line with Objective CP8 of the LAP. This would be the subject of a separate application. There is a current application for continued use of 3,600 spaces and an extension to the 3,000 spaces at the South Parallel Road. It is considered that a condition should be imposed requiring that long term parking be agreed with the Council. The application does not include any additional employee parking and this is consistent with the LAP Objective CP10. At the kerbside there is a clear segregation between private cars, taxis, buses, shuttle buses, courtesy buses and car hire buses. The layout at the kerbside is acceptable. The two internal junctions at South Corballis Road/East Link Road and North Corballis Road/West Link Road would be altered and the modelling illustrates that these would operate effectively. Condition 6 requiring the upgrading the M50/Ballymun Interchange corresponds with the TIA assumptions and there is no evidence in the application that that the said junction would operate satisfactorily in the absence of these works.

Condition 7 requires various roads to be upgraded and this is consistent with Section 6.6. of the EIS. Condition 8 requires that nothing should interfere with the timely provision of roads. Condition 9 requires the detailed design of cycle paths, footpaths and internal roads. Condition 10 requires Road Safety Audits. Condition 11 relates to a Mobility Management Plan. Condition 12 covers parking supply and management. Condition 13 seeks to preserve the Metro North alignment. Condition 14 requires the implementation of Intelligent Traffic Management measures. Condition 15 requires the developer to produce an Emergency Incident Traffic Management Plan. Condition 16 relates to a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Car trips will be minimised through the provision of Metro and additional road capacity must be in place prior to the opening of the development. Mr. Matt Harley (Portmarnock Community Association) circulated a submission (K) relating to employment assumptions underpinning the Traffic Impact Assessment. Table 6.10 of the EIS shows a difference of 3,700 employees by 2025 due to expansion. The total of 12,500 employees in the constrained scenario becomes 13,700 in the unconstrained scenario. Traffic and parking effects do not appear to have been taken into account. Impacts of induced and indirect jobs are not taken into account.


The difference in jobs between constrained and unconstrained by 2025 is: Dublin Airport 3,700, Fingal 3,900, Dublin 5,700, Greater Dublin Area 7,200 and Ireland 11,900. The DAA indicate a total of 7,200 additional jobs in the Greater Dublin Area, yet only assess the traffic impact of 1,800. The traffic impacts are being grossly understated. In his oral submission, Mr. Harley contends that the jobs are not additional to those that would be created in any event. He also makes a number of points in relation to labour productivity. He highlights that the additional runway would have to be place to realise the overall capacity of the development and the cumulative impacts of the two have not been taken into account. Portmarnock Community Association also presented a written submission (L), which considered the impacts upon the Road Network. The following points are highlighted: �� The NRA’s submission on the IKEA appeal highlighted that the investment in

the M50 should not be undermined. �� Additional loads on a finely balanced road system can lead to system failure. �� IKEA will generate 11,000 car movements on Sundays, 7,000 on Fridays and

8,500 on Saturdays. �� The methodology of a Do Something and Do Nothing disguises the impacts. �� It is estimated that there will be 35,000 car movements per day in 2025 due to

the proposed expansion of the Airport. Expansion of Dublin Airport up to 60 mppa would result in 70,000 cars using the Airport per day.

�� It is noted that the NRA did not object to the new parallel runway. �� Demand management measures would be required, even after the upgrading of

the M50. The Board required that demand management measures be put in place within 3 years of the completion of the upgrade. Tolling could ease traffic congestion on the M50.

�� The DTO model and the traffic assessment undertaken for the M50 did not take into account IKEA.

�� Tolling is not Government policy and unplanned loading on the M50 will overload the motorway.

�� Reference is made to the NRA’s closing submission for the IKEA hearing. �� Consideration should be given to limiting passenger throughput that could be

managed within existing runway system and an expanded T1. Mr. Robert Kelly (Ryanair) presented a number of submissions (O, Q, R and S). His hypothesis is that the EIS underestimates the network impacts. His evidence can be summarised as follows: �� The proposed T2 has significant potential to exceed the cap of 30 mppa

detailed in the LAP. It could cater for in excess of 40 mppa. �� It would place a severe strain on the access roads to the Airport and the

eastern campus and in particular the M50, M1 and two principal access junctions at the Airport Roundabout and the Corballis Road/R132 junctions.

�� It will result in serious congestion and disruption to the Airport in the event of an incident on the M50 and M1 in the absence of a western access to the N2.


�� It will severely impact upon the ability to provide a high quality bus/taxi based public transport.

�� The development will place an over-reliance on the M50 upgrade to secure access to the Airport.

�� In combination with other major developments, such as IKEA, it will place a severe strain on the M50, particularly at the Ballymun Interchange.

�� The T2 proposal will constrain higher density mixed use development on the eastern campus and on the Metro alignment.

�� It offers no improvements to short term parking and pick up set down at T1 kerbs.

�� It would result in poor connections with long and short stay parking. �� There is no provision for long stay car parks. �� A decision on the subject application is premature pending decisions on

IKEA and the Northern Parallel Runway. �� Access to the two terminals would be confusing and would require an

excessive amount of recirculation.

Mr. Kelly outlines an alternative location for a low cost terminal to the east of the existing OCTB, which would be well located relative to the Metro station and a new access could be brought in from the Northern Parallel Road. He detailed a series of conflicts between the South Fingal Road Network Assessment Report, the M50 Upgrade EIS, the T2 EIS, the IKEA EIS, the Northern Parallel Runway EIS and the Dublin Airport Transport Masterplan. These conflicts are detailed on pages 5-9 of his presentation. He acknowledges that results and model runs vary depending on inputs and assumptions, but contends that the EIS is fundamentally flawed. Mr. Kelly focused on the strategic link on the R108 to the north of the Ballymun M50 interchange. The T2 EIS showed that this link was carrying 1,602 in the AM peak in 2012 and 2,394 in 2024. The ILTP Masterplan indicated that the link would carry 3,838/4,808 in the AM peak in 2015. The mode share for public transport is unlikely to be taken up without significant demand management on car parking and improved bus priority and the provision of Metro. Inadequate priority has been given to buses on the external and internal road network. He estimates that traffic generation levels would be 3,416 veh/hr in 2012, or 70% higher than that indicated in the EIS, and 4090 veh/hr in 2024. The traffic growth appears to be capped in the EIS. Passenger capacity is planned to increase from 21 mppa in 2006 to 42 mppa in 2024, yet traffic growth in only projected to grow by 17-19%. The current two-way trip profile for 2006 produces a peak in 08.30-09.30 and 16.30-17.30 peak periods. However, the forecast peak moves to 13.00-14.00 period. The conditions requiring the upgrading of certain roads in the vicinity of the ‘Airport Box’ fall far short of providing the minimum road infrastructure to service the development. No financial commitment or work programme is proposed for the Do Something or Do Minimum scenarios.


The development constitutes project splitting, as �� It does not take into account of other proposed development in the Ballymun

LAP lands or in the Airport environs. �� Parking is not proposed as part of the T2 application. �� High quality bus priority measures are not proposed as part of the development. �� The strategic traffic modelling does not assess the midday and PM peak periods. �� Traffic analysis has been capped in 2024. Mr. Peter Sweetman (Teresa Kavanagh) made an oral submission. He noted that the applicant had appealed condition 6 relating to the M50 upgrade. His principal concern related to the cumulative construction impacts. There is no information on construction compounds and source of materials. The cumulative impacts of the new prison in the area, the incinerator which will be accessed by the Port Tunnel, IKEA and the Parallel Runway need to be taken into account. Mr. Sweetman considered that traffic will relate to availability of car parking. He did not see how the Metro would have any effect, owing to the dispersed nature of development around Dublin. Metro would only benefit those on the Metro line. The impact of the car parks has not been assessed. Mr. Brian Byrne (Bridget Byrne) made an oral submission. Over 60% of those accessing the Airport did so from outside Dublin and therefore most would have to use their cars. The eastern campus can only accommodate 20 million passengers per annum. He raised concerns regarding problems on the M50, particularly in the event of an incident. Congestion also has a severe impact upon business competitiveness. Metro would principally benefit staff. The state will be funding road improvements for this commercial body. There is an absence of car parking and so a full assessment cannot be made. There should be a full assessment of alternative locations for the Airport. Mr. Owen Shinkwin (Dublin Transportation Office - DTO) said that he did not have any additional comments to make those points raised in their letter to the planning authority, dated 4th October 2006. He read the contents of the letter into the record. Mr. Rory O’Connor (Railway Procurement Agency - RPA) had no submission to make, but he was available to answer any questions. Mr. Hugh Cregan (National Roads Authority - NRA) confirmed to the hearing that the NRA supported the decision made by the planning authority. Mr. Derry O’Leary (Dublin Bus) had no specific observation to make, but was available to answer questions. Mr. Lamond and Mr. Coughlan (applicants) made a presentation relating to the building design and surface access arrangements. �� There are two main access routes from the Airport Roundabout and the South

Corballis Road.


�� The access road splits into two, one serving T1 and one serving T2. There are two separate circular loops.

�� The arrangements for T1 are very similar to the existing. T2 access is split between two departures kerbs, with one for public transport and one for private cars and taxis. There is a connecting link for buses between T2 and T1.

�� Access is maintained to the Aer Lingus campus and there is a recirculation link for buses between the church and the multi-storey car park.

�� The GTC sits in the centre of the campus and the road layout and access systems have been centred on it.

�� The Metro box would be provided in the centre and would be well related to both terminals.

�� There is a hierarchy of uses for the kerbs: - The inner departure kerb is reserved for coaches and buses (i.e. high

level uses) - The outer departure kerb is reserved for taxis and kerbs (i.e. lower

level of use). There is a taxi holding area at the eastern end. - The outside kerb is for arrivals for taxis, buses and coaches. Private

cars are not allowed on this kerb.

�� Mr. Lamont also explained the pedestrian circulation arrangements. The centre point for pedestrians is just above Metro box and this is a similar distance between the T1 and T2. Pedestrian traffic is segregated from vehicular traffic.

�� 75% of arriving passengers will cross to the GTC and multi-storey car park. �� 75% of departing passengers will arrive at the arrivals kerb. �� Mr. Coughlan explained how traffic would be managed on the approaches to

both terminals. �� The GTC would be 180m from T1 and 240m from T2. Questions and Clarifications The Inspector asked if the high level walkway would pass through the car park. Mr. Lamont (applicant) confirmed that details of this high level walkway required further design. Mr. O’Donnell (applicant) confirmed that it was the intention to provide a multi-storey car park to the north of the terminal. The Inspector asked for a copy of the traffic impact assessment for the LAP. This was provided. She asked if the planning authority made any independent assessment of the throughput of 30 MPPA by 2015. Ms. Kenny confirmed that no separate assessment was undertaken and Mr. O’Faircheallaigh (planning authority) confirmed that Pascal + Watson Piers Study was accepted by the planning authority. The planning authority’s aviation expert did review the Piers Study for the LAP. Mr. Harley (Portmarnock Community Association) asked how the parallel runway and the Terminal 2 projects can operate independently. Ms. Kenny (planning authority) responded that both could be seen as discrete projects, as they had different objectives and timeframes, although they were complementary. The planning authority never considered both projects to be wholly independent, as both were seen as facilitating airport expansion in the context of the Airport LAP.


Mr. Flanagan (planning authority) in response to a query from Mr. Hayden (Ryanair) confirmed that the planning authority did have Annex 2 to the Pascal and Watson 2005 Report at the time of the preparation of the LAP, but this was subsequently returned to the DDA, as they said it was confidential. Mr. Hayden also asked how the bus gets from T1 to T2. Mr.Coughlan (applicant) confirmed that buses bus would have to go around the gyratory. Mr. Kelly (Ryanair) asked if the vertical difference for Metro was taken into account of Metro in calculating pedestrian walk distances. Mr. Lamont confirmed that the vertical journey from Metro had not been taken into account. Mr. Marie O’Brien (third party appellant) had a query in relation to an access off Corballis Road North and which was mentioned in the ILTP report. Mr. Coughlan (applicants) presented a number of submissions to the hearing (exhibits AA, AB, AC, AD1, AD2 and AF 25/04/2007). These submissions addressed issues raised by the third parties. Submission AA responded to issues raised by the DTO in its letter of the 4th October. He read this submission into the record. A number of remedial measures to protect buses from congestion in the vicinity of the Airport were proposed. These included the widening of the R132 to two lanes plus one bus lane in each direction. Inside the Airport, the bus lane on Corballis Road South between the R132 and Corballis Way is retained, as is the bus lane on the approach to the Airport Roundabout. As the road system within the campus is designed for freeflow, dedicated bus lanes are not required on all links. Phase1 of works to the coach park, which will ultimately form part of the GTC, have already been completed. The Mobility Management Plan will actively promote new services and this will involve sharing employee travel patterns with operators, thus supporting the business case for operators. The DAA is prepared to consider financial mechanisms for the support of such services in consultation with the service providers, where such services can be demonstrated to deliver an appropriate shift in mode share. Condition 11 allows for corrective measures to be taken if there is congestion, which can include availability or cost of parking, improved cycle facilities etc. Mr. Coughlan clarified the arrangements for taxis and buses for arriving passengers. �� Arriving passengers will cross the two departure kerbs on the elevated walkway

before dropping down onto the departures kerb to access taxis at the eastern end of the kerb.

�� Some coach and buses would be located at the western end of the arrivals kerb. These would be premium bus/coach services, car hire shuttle and hotel courtesy buses (premium).

�� Other bus/coach services for arriving passengers will be located at the coach park. These would include regional buses, chartered coaches, scheduled buses, long term car park shuttle, hotel courtesy buses (standard).


There is no proposal to change the premium bus service arrangements for T1 as part of the T2 application. The detailed design of exit routes will allow for greater priority to be given to buses exiting the coach and bus park. In addition, adequate resources will be made available to ensure that the coach park is managed and supervised. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that taxi arrangements for T1 are basically unchanged. A covered walkway between both terminal buildings and the GTC will be provided, in addition to bus shelters and covered walkways within the GTC. In relation to the Mobility Management Plan, which was prepared in August 2006 and submitted as part of the application, a Mobility Manager has now been appointed to work with key stakeholders. The DTO suggest that a higher mode share target for bus should be set, particularly in advance of Metro. The applicant undertakes to review this in the context of the MMP. However, Mr. Coughlan highlighted a number of points: �� Current public transport mode share of 16% for employees compares favourably

with other airports. �� 25% of Dublin Airport employees do not use their car to travel to work,

compared to 30% for Heathrow and Frankfurt, which have both rail and metro links.

�� No other UK airport performs significantly better than Dublin. �� Passenger mode share of 24% compares favourably with other airports. �� All European and UK airports with a higher mode share than Dublin have rail

links. The reduction in the taxi mode from 26% in 2005 to 14.4% in 2020 is a result of a switch by passengers to public transport modes, particularly Metro and bus. This target will be reviewed. The DTO suggest the following mode share post metro. �� Bus and metro increase from 24% to 40% �� Private car reduced from 43.8% to 34.6% �� Car hire reduced from 5.2% to 4.1% �� Taxi reduced from 26% to 20.5% �� Other reduced from 15 to 0.8% Mr. Coughlan highlighted that the DAA’s target of 40% corresponded with the DTO’s objective. The DAA projected car-hire to grow to 7% to cater for demand by tourism and leisure. It is anticipated that the mode share for taxi would be 14% as opposed to the DTO’s target of 20%. This is because it is anticipated that there will a significant shift from taxi to metro. The DAA projects that private car use would be reduced by 5.6% as opposed to 9.2% suggested as a target by the DTO. The DTO suggest that in the post metro scenario the number of long term spaces should be restricted to 26,381 long term and 3,997 short term spaces, based upon a mode share of 34.6% for private car use. Mr. Coughlan highlighted that in general the DAA supported the minimisation of parking, but that each planning application for car parking would be considered on its merits having regard to the ongoing


implementation of the MMP. The capping of car parking is complicated by the interim needs prior to metro, the existence of competitive car parking and the policy of granting temporary permissions only. Covered walkways will form part of the application for the short term car park. Submission AB was a sensitivity test undertaken by Conor McGrath and John Lucas of Arup Consulting. This sensitivity test was undertaken in response to the DTO’s request to consider the traffic impacts of the existing aircraft scheduling patterns, which demonstrate a morning peak. The sensitivity test showed �� An increase two way veh/hr flow for the 2012 AM from 4,641 to 5,264 �� An increase two way veh/hr flow for the 2024 AM from 3,812 to 4,788 TRANSYT analysis was undertaken of the following junctions: �� Airport Roundabout �� Swords Road/South Corballis Road �� Collinstown Cross �� M1/Airport Roundabout The highest RFC was at the Airport-M1 link with an 81% value. All junctions would therefore operate within capacity. Mr. Coughlan presented submission AC, which related to car parking targets and strategy detailed in the Mobility Management Plan. He read from section 6.1 of the Mobility Management plan. The strategy would deliver long and short term parking in line with the growth in passenger numbers, but having regard to the mode share target established. The dispersed nature of the parking would dissipate the impacts somewhat. Table 6.1 of the MMP details numbers of long and short stay spaces projected for the Airport with 40% public transport mode share in 2020. Long Term Car Parking The strategy in relation to long term car parking was to disperse it around the Airport lands with good access to the road network and would be linked to the terminal by shuttle bus. Short Term Car Parking Short term parking would be provided in the centre of the campus in close proximity to the terminal buildings. Car Hire Approximately 500 spaces would be maintained in the terminal areas. The main car hire facilities and spaces would be relocated to the Eastlands away from terminal areas. Employee It is the objective of the DAA to reduce reliance by employees on private car access and a significant number of spaces will be lost as a result of the Pier D development. It is estimated that there would be a requirement for a further 90 parking spaces in


2024. Employee mode share in 2020 would be 71% by private car, 25% by bus and metro, 1.5% by taxi and 2.1% by bicycle or motorbike. Mr. Coughlan made a presentation in relation to traffic generation and public transport proposals (submissions AD1 and AD2). Assumptions for Traffic Generation Calculations The presentation explained how traffic generation was calculated based upon airline scheduling. �� There was generally a 1 ½ hour lag time between arrival at the kerb and arrival

at the departure gate. �� The departures peak occurs in the early morning and this is based on the 4,200

busy hour through T2. �� The two-way arrival and departure peak at the kerb is in the middle of the day.

The passenger vehicle trips are then calculated. �� This is combined with the employee traffic generation figures. Occupancy

rates are then applied. �� This yields the Do Minimum 2012 scenario, with a lunchtime peak of 4,526

and an AM peak of 4,046 and a PM peak of 4,106. �� Passenger related vehicular traffic grows relatively more quickly than

employee related traffic and this explains the shift to the midday peak. The figures presented were a graphical presentation of Table 6.15a into graphical format. Bus Proposals The number of bus bays would increase from the current 32 to 42, but this would exclude T2 kerb provision. This is an interim measure, until metro is put in place in 2012. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that there were discussions ongoing with Dublin Bus to use the kerbs beyond the existing multi storey car parks. The temporary departure kerb for Area 14 drop-off zone would be replaced after 2009. It is anticipated that scheduled bus services would be accommodated on the inner kerb and long term shuttle bus services would be accommodated on the outer kerb. The circulation for buses include the following options: Kerbside Services - Buses arriving at the Departures Kerb of T2 would have to go via T1 to drop off and pick up, before looping around the campus to return to T2 for collection of passengers at the arrivals kerb. It is calculated that the additional loop journey to return to T2 from T1 would take approximately 3 minutes. Given the layout of the kerbs at T2, and indeed the fundamental layout of the building itself, this would appear to be unavoidable. GTC Only - Buses accessing the GTC only would bypass the kerbsides of both T1 and T2.


Kerbside Set Down/GTC Pick up – This allows for buses to set down at T1 and T2 and to pick up at the GTC. This involves the use of bus only link between the multi-storey car park and the church. Mr. Coughlan also presented a rebuttal of the Ryanair submission (AF). This evidence can summarised as follows: �� The EIS does not assess the Airport Master Plan. �� It is confirmed that T2 application is to allow for an overall throughput of 35

mppa on the eastern campus. �� Demand management was agreed with the planning authority as an underlying

assumption for 2024. �� Condition 15 addresses any concerns regarding serious traffic congestion in the

event of an incident on the M50 or M1. �� Airport development should take precedent over commercial development. �� No evidence is presented to indicate that bus trips from the car parks would

take longer, or that the surrounding road network would become less predictable.

�� It is irrelevant whether details of the LAP or Metro were available when the option assessments were undertaken in 2003.

�� 35mppa can be accommodated on the eastern campus with only modest impacts upon the road network.

�� The TIA was completed before the city centre HGV ban came into effect, but background land use assumptions take this into account.

�� Discrepancies between various transportation studies are due to a combination of different network assumptions, traffic demand analysis assumptions and comparison of AM with PM peak flows.

�� The low percentage increase in trips between 2006 and 2024 is not necessarily accepted as there is a 45-47% increase in trips between 2006 and 2012. The smaller increases from 2006 to 2024 are explained by lower percentage increase in employee trips and the impact of metro.

�� The impact of T3 has not been considered in the assessment. �� It is unclear how traffic generation is calculated in the Ryanair submission. �� Other points made in the Ryanair submission are covered by responses to the

DTO submission and other presentations made by the first party. Mr. Coughlan also outlined the review and planning process since the adoption of the Government’s Aviation Action Plan of May 2005. The inclusion of the multi-storey car park in the planning application would have significantly delayed the subject application. Questions and Clarifications The Inspector asked if the planning authority had any comments to make in relation to the evidence submitted. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) confirmed that the peak hour flows were satisfactorily addressed. The level of bus priority in the Airport campus was dealt with adequately. With regard to the public transport priority outside the campus, this can be catered for in a number of different ways (bus lanes, signalised priority, bus gates). It is anticipated that bus lanes would be provided as


part of the ‘Airport Box’. He stated that bus priority on Collinstown Lane was the subject of detailed design of the Blanchardstown to Baldoyle distributor road. There is nothing to show that this link is required to serve the development, although junction upgrades at either end of this link are required by way of condition. The planning authority was also satisfied with the approach taken in relation to car parking. Employee parking should be restricted and it is appropriate that there should be no increase in employee parking. With regard to short and long stay parking, it is necessary to provide certainty in relation parking supply, because passengers cannot arrive at the Airport only to find that there is no parking available, as they would miss their flight. He did confirm that unlimited cheap parking could affect the mode split targets. Parking charges is a factor in affecting people’s mode choice. Parking charges can be modelled in the DTO strategic model. Mr. McGrath confirmed that 1,750 spaces permitted under the permission allows for flexibility in the context of the MMP. The DTO’s submission has been addressed in the context of the MMP and by the applicants. It is not necessary to provide public transport services, because there are already operators providing these services. His understanding was that the three bus circulation options outlined by Mr. Coughlan could be operated in tandem. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that the system was flexible depending on the needs of the operators.

The Inspector asked if the planning authority was satisfied with the assumptions underpinning the modelling exercise which resulted in a shift from the AM peak to a lunchtime peak. Mr. Christy O’Sullivan (planning authority) emphasised that it was the objective of the LAP to dampen down the employee traffic generation in the peak period.

The Inspector asked if the DTO had any comments to make on the submissions. Mr. Owen Shinkwin (DTO) said that they had considered the documents submitted by the applicant. The Inspector asked if evidence submitted satisfied the DTO’s requirements. Mr. Jeremy Ryan (DTO) considered that it remains unclear as to what will be required for bus priority and additional bus services upon opening of T2. A sensitivity test was supplied reflecting the current scheduling pattern, but the would like to have seen an Absolute Do Minimum scenario, as some roads assumed in the assessment are not included in the DTO’s strategy and there may not be a funding stream available. A sensitivity test for 2024 should also be undertaken, as there would be general growth by this date. The commitment to provide a covered walkway between the terminal and the GTC is noted. They consider that mandatory targets should be established for employee and passenger parking. The overall public mode share for 2020 is appropriate, but they are concerned about the public mode share prior to that. Parking charges and controls can affect the mode share. Public transport mode share targets for 2012 are not ambitious enough. He did not however provide a figure for mode share prior to the introduction of metro. Mr. Ryan considered that the ultimate number of long term and short term spaces were too high (4,433 and 29,269 respectively). However, Mr. Coughlan (applicant) indicated that the car parking figures in Table 6.1 of the MMP did not increase on a pro rata basis relative to the increase in passenger numbers. Mr. Ryan referred to the figures on page 6 of the DTO’s submission. He considered that the current parking provision for employees should not be increased. Consideration should be given to a public transport information help desk. He notes the cycle facilities proposed in the MMP and


conditioned by Fingal County Council, but he was unclear about cycle facilities between residential areas and the Airport. He welcomed the appointment of a mobility manager and considered that the MMP should be reviewed on a regular basis. Mode share targets should be mandatory and established by the DAA in the MMP. He considered that the targets established in the submitted MMP are not ambitious enough. The Inspector asked if the arrangements satisfied Dublin Bus’s requirements. Mr. O’Leary (Dublin Bus) considered that access to the terminal kerbs should be based upon the principal that those services carrying the most passengers should be closest to the kerbs, rather than on other considerations such as price paid by premium services. He has concerns that scheduled bus services would be located further away from the terminal facilities thus reducing the attractiveness of public transport. The short term car parks users are closer to the terminal than public transport users. Mr. O’Leary would also like to see continuous bus lanes within the campus. Availability and cost of parking is critical to mode share. He would welcome parking charges which could be invested in public transport. Mr. O’Leary also raised a number of queries in relation to the tendering process adopted by the DAA in relation to access for public transport operators.

The Inspector asked whether the RPA were satisfied with the evidence submitted. Mr. Rory O’Connor (RPA) highlighted that he wished to ensure that walk distances between the metro station and the terminal were as short as possible. There should also be as much segregation between metro users and other users. Other matters were design details that could be resolved with the DAA. Mr. O’Connor confirmed that the RPA was happy with the indicated location of the metro station. The Inspector asked if the NRA was satisfied with the evidence presented. Mr. Cregan (NRA) responded that they were satisfied with the application and the planning authority’s decision. The Inspector also asked whether impact on climate change was considered as part of the M50 upgrade EIS. Mr. Cregan thought that there had been section on climate change.

Mr. Barnes asked the first party where GTC would be accommodated during construction of the metro. Mr. Coughlan (applicant) indicated that the precise location of the metro box had yet to be determined, but that there was potential to use the Church lands and the car hire area. He also highlighted that slide 2 on page 11 of his presentation indicated the possible arrangements of car parks, metro station and GTC. He confirmed that the car park to the north of the proposed multi-storey car park was only indicative and it was not intended to proceed with that at this time. Mr. Barnes also asked a number of questions in relation to the capacity of the GTC and if these related to the number of buses projected to serve the Airport. Mr. Lucas (applicant) replied that the arrangement was based upon operators’ current needs and not necessarily related to additional bus movements associated with the traffic impact assessment. The kerb length in front of T2 did take into account projected bus movements. There is spare capacity in the existing coach park and layover may to be relocated to free up capacity, if necessary. Mr. Lucas confirmed that the DTO’s


strategic model was used primarily as a traffic impact assessment tool, as opposed to assessing other strategic matters. No strategic traffic impact assessment for the midday and PM peak periods were undertaken, although AM junction flows were reversed to give PM peak assessment. There were no restraints placed on parking built into the model. Traffic generated by T1 was included in the assessment. Mr. Barnes asked whether a retailing development at Ballymun was taken into account. Mr. Lucas said that higher employment uses were adopted for the Ballymun LAP lands. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) said that it wasn’t included in the AM peak because retailers wouldn’t generate traffic other than employment in that period. Mr. Lucas confirmed that there was only one zone in the strategic modelling exercise. The TIA has probably overestimated the impact upon the R132 as trips would be distributed to long term car parks around the campus. In response to a query from Mr. Barnes, Mr. O’Sullivan (planning authority) considered that long term car parking was a necessity, but this could be provided by a number of different providers. He stated that parking should be provided in line with passenger growth, but would have regard to public transport roll out. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Cregan (NRA) if it was the NRA’s policy to upgrade the M1 to the north of the Airport junction and whether they considered it necessary to defer occupation of the development pending the upgrade of the M50. He confirmed that the M1 was a Transport 21 route and they would be considering whether to upgrade it in the coming months. It was a matter for An Bord Pleanála to determine whether occupation of T2 should be deferred pending the upgrade of the M50, but he stated that the NRA was in the final stages of the PPP competition for its upgrade. The section between the M1 and the N2 should be completed in early 2009. Mr. Barnes posed a number of questions to the DTO. Mr. Ryan confirmed that work was due to commence on the review of the DTO’s strategy. It was unlikely that there would be a LUAS and Metro on the same corridor. A review of the bus network had recently been carried out for Dublin Bus. A series of quality bus priority measures had been promoted in the Greater Dublin Area. There were no other bus priority measures proposed, other than those on the R132. In response to a question in relation to whether it was reasonable to expect the applicant to provide a bus service, Mr. Ryan considered that a review of bus services would be required. The DTO had not undertaken such a review. Mr. Barnes posed a number of questions relating to bus services to Dublin Bus. Mr. O’Leary (Dublin Bus) confirmed that the current bus fleet was approximately 1,200. A strategic review for the whole of the Dublin Region was undertaken two years ago indicated that there would be a requirement for an additional 400 or 500 buses. A local network review would be required. Mr. O’Connor (RPA), in response to questions from Mr. Barnes, confirmed that metro would have adequate capacity to serve the development and that the Airport only accounted for 20% of Metro North’s patronage. There are two proposed orbital alignments for Metro West to join with Metro North to the south of the Airport. This would not directly serve the western campus, although initial options did consider how metro could serve that part of the airport complex. Metro West services would connect at Metro Park to the south of the Airport and could travel through to the


GTC. Detailed consideration has been given to the nature of construction and it is likely that tunnels would be bored through rock 20m below ground. Mr. Coughlan (applicants) confirmed that the proposed foundations would be pad foundations, as opposed to piled foundations.

Mr. Sweetman (Teresa Kavanagh - appellant) asked if a land take would be required to widen the R132 and was this all within the control of the applicant. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) said that the applicant could submit a preliminary design indicating that all of the land required is owned by either the Council or the applicant. The Inspector asked if this road widening required an EIS. Mr. Flanagan (planning authority) responded by suggesting that applicants must demonstrate that they had sufficiency of interest to carry out the development. The road widening is a mitigating measure in the EIS. He referred to Keane V An Bord Pleanála in relation to sufficiency of interest. An applicant is not entitled to carry out development by merely relying on the planning permission, which only considers that the planning merits of the development and not land ownership issues. He referred to S.34 (13) of the 2000 Act which highlights that the applicant is not entitled by the permission itself to carryout the development. He referred to a Treasury Holdings development at Balgaddy and the question of sufficiency of interest was beyond planning consideration of this issue. Mr. Sweetman asked whether the road widening of the R132 was covered by the public notice. He also asked the NRA if they had taken into account the construction impacts. Mr. Cregan (NRA) confirmed that they had taken into account the construction impacts. Mr. Kelly (Ryanair - appellant) posed a series of questions in relation to sensitivity tests undertaken for the DTO and other matters. He agreed to present this in written form. (A written response was received from the applicant – submission BK, 2nd May). He also asked if the planning authority could appoint the mobility manager. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) responded that it would be inappropriate for the planning authority to make this appointment. Mr. Kelly asked if taxis could use the bus priority measures. Mr. Coughlan (applicant) replied that taxis picking up would use the eastern end of the arrivals kerb. Taxis would use the same departures kerb as cars. Mr. Kelly posed a series of questions in relation to the existing number of buses using the GTC and the number of buses projected to the use the kerbs after T2 is in place. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that walking time to the northern terminal proposed by Ryanair was not taken into account, as this did not form part of the application. Mr. Lucas (applicant) confirmed that a walk time of 1 metre per second was conservative. Mr. Kelly referred to slide 41 of his powerpoint presentation that referred to a 2003 Aer Rianta report on car parking, which identified a higher level of parking thatn that detailed in Table 6.1 of the MMP. Mr. Kelly also asked if the NRA had undertaken its own independent assessment. Mr. Hugh Cregan (NRA) confirmed that they did not undertake their own study, but they did assess the study prepared and were consulted by the DAA. Mr. Jim Callaghan (Ryanair - appellant) asked whether the first party would provide the scheduling information which underpinned the assumptions relating the midday peak. Mr. Kelly said that there were no other airports where there was a lunchtime peak. Mr. Kelly emphasised that the only way that there could be a significant shift to


a midday peak was if there was a significant increase in long haul operations by Aer Lingus, although their plans are only to increase their long haul traffic from 1 million to 2 million passengers per annum. This in now way accounts the midday peak. The scheduling information was required to consider if the assumptions were reasonable. Mr. Kelly stated that the data inputs for the sensitivity tests were also needed. The Inspector highlighted that applicant had classified this information as commercially confidential and would not release it. . Mr. Foley confirmed that the scheduling information was confidential. Mr. Coughlan (applicant) emphasised that the sensitivity test undertaken for the DTO projects the existing scheduling profile forward for the forecast years and indicates that there is no significant impact upon the road network. Mr. Coughlan emphasised that passenger vehicle trips became increasingly more important relative to employee traffic generation and this accounted for the shift to the midday peak. Mr. Coughlan cannot answer the scheduling question, as it is not his area of expertise. Mr. Kelly asked whether there was a similar lunchtime peak in any other airport. Mr. O’Donnell highlighted that Ms. Weston’s evidence (applicant) indicated that Dublin Airport was unique. Ms. Angela Lawton (appellant) asked whether the GTC required planning permission. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that it was included in this application and a number of alterations are proposed to existing arrangements. Did the long term car park users count as public transport users? Mr. Coughlan confirmed that they counted as car passengers. Ms. Lawton asked the planning authority whether free parking for the first 15 minutes was in line with Kyoto protocol. There was no specific response to this question. Ms. Maire O’Brien (appellant) highlighted that staff could not access the Airport by public transport in the early morning, as there were no services available. She posed a number of questions to the first party in relation to the Area D car park adjacent to T2, employee parking, surface water drainage and the nature of short term parking. She acknowledged that car use was necessary to serve the Airport, particularly after hours. She also asked where the GTC would be relocated to during the construction of metro. Mr. O’Donnell (applicant) deferred answering these questions. Mr. Ryan (DTO) considered that if there were gaps in public transport provision, particularly in the early morning, these should be filled by the applicant. She also asked the RPA whether there were any implications for safety zone. Mr. O’Connor (RPA) responded that there were not any implications. Mr. O’Leary (Dublin Bus) asked if the applicant were affecting mode share for public transport use. Mr. Foley confirmed that they were influencing mode share with 22% of passengers and 16% of staff using public transport. Long stay car parking is now subject to competitive provision. In response to queries from Mr. O’Leary, Mr. Coughlan (applicant) confirmed that it anticipated that all scheduled bus services would be accommodated in the GTC, but this would be the subject of agreement with Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann.

The inspector (03/05/07) requested two documents- transport study for south Fingal, Aer Rianta planning study for the runway 2002 to be made available.


Neil Steen for the Railway Procurement Agency, asked that he be allowed to speak in relation to supplementary contribution condition. Starting his questions, Mr. Hayden (Counsel for Ryanair ) referred to a number of documents provided earlier in the hearing. He reiterated he still did not get the information he required in relation to forecasting and if he did not he would refer to them again in the end. In response to question from Mr. Hayden, that the assessment assumed the designated road improvements were in place (s.4.2 of the master plan) Mr. Coughlin said yes in part, dualing of the east- west distributor road. The whole thing had to be looked at as a package. In 2012, ‘do minimum’ would be the road improvements set out in figure 6.17, and significant land use assumptions regarding population growth and development in the area. They had set out a baseline for the 2012, population and network improvements when the T2 is in operation, it was not dependent on them being finished. Other land use assumptions were incorporated in consultation with FCC and DTO in relation to what is happening in the area. In response to question about different results for the Ballymun link road and interchange, he stated that they looked at it as ballymun LAP lands development, and they agreed on trip generations in and out of b lands with the planning authority. Mr. Hayden wanted to question him on rebuttal paper, Slide 12., and why the figures were different. What was the basis for choosing a different network analysis, from what had been done in the south fingal network study. Two were different exercises. His understanding was that the South Fingal Study was a stress test, assessment of the road network. They went through the network and reach agreement with Fingal County Council on what would be the most likely improvements to the network in 2012. He was not involved in the study carried out by Fingal County Council. The two could not be compared. They had extensive discussions with County Council in relation to the methodology in how they were going to carry out the study, but there was no formal scooping exercise. In response to question by Mr. Hayden that the airport box included internal and external roads and there had to be a continuous QBC, (s.3.1.4), Mr. Flanagan (FCC ) clarified that the study referred to was not LAP but South Fingal Study . Mr. Coughlan stated that the first section of the EIS set out 35mppa. He provided the list of assumptions they input (network assumption, land use assumptions for 2012 and trip generations) . He also provided a copy of the traffic modelling certificate from the DTO. Hayden referred to DTO website which sets out the parameters for use of their model.


In relation to peak traffic at lunch time, (new departure at 3pm with new arrival at noon) that would be unique, Mr. Coughlan did not agree with the conclusion drawn by Mr. Hayden. In relation to question on kerb side traffic in mid-day (that it does not happen today) he stated that they introduced sensitivity tests to remove the effects of scheduling. Assumptions on demand management were agreed with various agencies, and included in 2024 scenario. There was no agreement that there would be no demand management before 2024. The NRA had not yet made their mind in relation to demand management and when it would be introduced. Their own assumptions were that no demand management in 2012 and demand management in place in 2024. In response to question if they asked any of the agencies when the demand management would be in place, he responded that the agencies were happy with the methodology and assumptions. The inspector did not accept references to NRA submissions in the IKEA hearing, as NRA was not present in today’s hearing to confirm. In relation to bus services to the airport, and whether it was necessary to provide QBCs, he referred to Swords QBC ran through the airport, they had provided bus priority measures within the campus, and LAP showed the intentions to provide QBC around the airport box by FCC. While using Saturn modelling bus lanes were not modelled separately from the traffic, but was included in the junctions. Three lanes would be constructed, but two lanes would be used in the model. It took into account of other developments in the area, and all the land use assumptions in Ballymun were taken into consideration. He repeated that T2 EIA set out to assess the impact of T2. The South Fingal Network Study set out to stress test the road network, an as such had different objectives. In response to the question whether he considered the EIS had taken into consideration of the cumulative impacts the traffic that would be generated from planned and permitted development he said yes. Mr. Flanagan (FCC) referred to a number of studies and stated that the measures referred to in these studies prepared in advance of the LAP they should not be confused with the objectives of the LAP (such as transport master plan accessibility study) Mr. O Sullivan for ILTP (consultants for FCC) stated that there seems to be confusion between bus priority and bus lanes or QBC. There was no objective in the LAP to provide bus lanes. They could take a variety of forms (intelligent form giving priority, or dedicated lanes) at the M50 public inquiry there was no bus lane priority on any of the approaches because there was no need. Bus lanes would be introduced at the detailed design stage not at the strategic modelling stage. The decision of the Board in M50 required a demand management


study in 2015 not that it should be introduced in 2015. Tolling on the tunnel was a demand management measure. Strategic modelling looked at what happened in a large conurbation over a time line, in a broad manner, as it grew couple of hundred thousand. It did not look at specific locations. Planning applications looked at specific impact of development, and had more precise information. Strategic modelling could not do this. Mr. McGrath (FCC) agreed. In relation to the question of exactly when the demand management on the M50 would come into play was irrelevant. Platform for change had included demand management around 2016. The question of when exactly it would happen between 2012 and 2024 was irrelevant. Condition number 7 of the decision of the board in relation to M50 was related to demand management and was be provided. ( it referred to publication and did not give a specific date for implementation) In response to statement by Mr. Hayden to Mr. McGrath that what was agreed in the meetings constituted scoping, Mr. Flanagan stated that it was not. Again referring to different results in relation to Ballymun junction, Mr. Hayden asked whether the authority agreed with the DAA that they could use a different methodology. Mr. McGrath said there are different assumptions based on time of study and objectives of the study. what strategic study wanted to find out was different from Saturn. On the Ballymun interchange there were on-going discussions between the roads authority and DTO and themselves. There were a number of options. Two general traffic lanes of a bus lane and a traffic lane. What happened on that link had implications on the junctions. There were concerns by the roads authority that additional traffic would put pressure on the Ballymun junction. They did not want queues on the Ballymun interchange stoping traffic getting through in the vicinity of the airport. In response to the question by Mr. Barnes the issue was whether the link should be two plus one or one plus one. The M50 upgrade had allowed for it (condition number 1 of the M50 upgrade, required facilitating of QBC on Naul Road) In relation to timing of the infrastructure, he stated it was still under discussion. O’Sullivan said that in their ILTP study underpinning LAP, they had given prediction that in 2200 the two-way traffic flow on the Ballymun road, with the airport doubled its capacity. On the M50 public inquiry at the opening of completion of M50 it was 2400 (very similar figures). FCC were doing studies on the airport box. Major commercial developments in and around airport including Metro Park lands, which would have its own LAP, and liked to provision of Metro, than the road connecting Baldoyle to Cherry hound would have its own LAP. The 30-35mppa in the LAP was exactly what the M50 upgrade had assumed it would be.


In response to the question by Mr. Barnes he said there was already an airport box. The concept they were referring to was upgrading of the airport box. There were discussions regarding which parts of the roads were being discussed. In response to question by Mr. Hayden that there was an assumption of dualling the road, and that three different studies provided different numbers for the same road, he stated the decision on dualling of a road depended on various numbers of factors, including level of service, and quality of driving experience. In M50 the problem arose because of troubles at interchanges. The studies were not saying you have to put them into dual carriageway standard. The most important section was required by the planning condition. In response to question by Mr. Barnes (Figure 6.19 V3 of the EIS), in relation to east west distributor, and the conditions imposed, Mr. McGrath stated that decision on what should be required from the applicant was based on the margin of impact from T2 on the background network. The link between Cherryhound and Baldoyle was being currently studied but they did not feel T2 would have impact on the same so there was no condition imposed. In relation to the time frame in the east west distributor, the consultants have carried out quite a bit, main constraints, topography etc but there was still consultations, route selection, EIS for the CPO needed to be prepared. They envisaged completion of non statutory period by the end of the year followed by another year for the completion of study and autumn 2008, then the construction would be another 18-24 months. Mr. Hayden repeated why there was no condition to require dualling of the other road, and why they had agreed to parameters which resulted a lower number. Mr. McGrath stated that what was agreed was the input into the model, not output. Mr.O’Sullivan referred to p18 (4.2.1) of the ILTP report included three elements, they could not be identical. What was changing the assumptions were the DTO forecast. It was based on assessment by DTO and seven local authority based on zonings and development plans. Land use plans provided employment figures. Then these were compared with Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006). When it came to T2, County Council looked at the work done by RPA in relation to Metro which had looked at putting as much traffic into the road network in the vicinity of the airport to see the worst case scenario. This provided higher figures than the DTO model. The position of the planning authority was that runway could have huge throughput, but the constraining impact was the terminal. Mr.OSullivan referred to a new link route, and explained that the figures had to be different. It was in the EIS. Mr. Kelly (transport consultant for Ryanair) referred back to DAA master plan accessibility study, S.4.4.6, with or without additional commercial development which gave a commitment that no more commercial development should take place, he questioned why there was no such conditions to that effect.


Mr. McGrath (FCC) said one could not condition other developments in a decision on this application. The idea that no further commercial development should occur in the immediate vicinity of T2 could be considered. But each application had to be considered in its own merits, and commercial developments would have their own traffic impact assessment. In relation to parking Mr. Kelly asked how the planning authority could reconcile lack of long term parking with the capacity being provided, and whether there should not be proportional increase in long term parking. O’ Sullivan referred to LAP objective CP3 and that it would no pro-rata increase. Information in relation to car parking has been provided in response to request by the inspector. They considered there was large quantum of parking in the airport and environs. There was also a market for those who live outside the DAA lands to provide long term parking. They considered there was sufficient long term car parking provision for phase I. He referred to LAP policies of CP 9 and CP10. On going supply of public transport infrastructure and services, and subject to mmp. The planning authority had quite a good degree of control on long term car parking because a lot of the parking areas had temporary permissions and they could be discontinued if necessary. He (?) repeated whether there should be a condition for provision of extra capacity in the southern parallel road. Mr. McGrath referred to increase of population that would take place in the Baldoyle and south Fingal in general, and the result of the traffic impact assessment had indicated it was not necessary in the context of T2 alone. Mr. O’Leary (of Dublin Bus), was happy that as the time went on there would be improvement of public transport facilities leading to a more positive market share for public transport. He saw the figures provided as baseline and expected public transport would be in excess of 50% plus. There were some issues but they were satisfied that they could sort these out with the developers. Ms Lawton wanted to ask about the public safety zones, no figures were made available in relation to increased risk to those in traffic. She stated that the risk was not quantified in the EIS and the junctions should be improved to reduce risk. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the relevant authority in charge of public safety zones was aware of the proposed development. Mr. McGrath stated that queuing in traffic on roads in public safety zones would be taken into consideration in the design process. (example was Cherry hound to Malahide Road).


Ms. O’Brien asked whether they were talking about the proposed public safety zones. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed, they were not yet adopted. There were questions regarding details of some of the junctions, including Collinstown Cross. In some cases the details were still being worked on. Signalised junctions were modelled. Following explanation by Mr. Lucas for ARUP, ms. O’Brien did not think it would address the problem. Mr. McGrath explained that the buses would be given priority which would free the junction. Mr. Harley wanted to concentrate on the employee impact on the traffic, and submitted that this was underestimated at least by a factor of three and possibly by a factor of six. Three scenarios were being presented, (runway, with or without terminal and do nothing). He referred to the work done by York Aviation 2003 for the runway and the identical numbers in the T2 EIS in relation to employee figures. He said it was impossible to have identical numbers. Mr.Coughlan responded that they had looked at the T2, and not to R2. Mr Harley stated that York Aviation had stated without a new runway capacity would be 28.4mppa by 2025. T1 limited to 3700 passengers per hour was identical to 28.4mppa. This meant at 5500 pph would equate to 50mppa. Mr. Harley was asking the basis for their assumptions. He repeated that the employee figures was predicted to be half of what it would be. Looking at table 6.10 he stated that traffic analysis the employee numbers became 1800 half of 3700. How had this happen? He asked for the traffic impact of the employees. He also asked about the impact of indirect employment. In his view when it came to traffic impact all the extra jobs had disappeared. In particular the impact of employees on the peak did not seem to be included. He maintained the lunch time peak would not happen the way it was presented. Mr. Coughlan responded that they took all of the additional jobs to be created in the airport, they lumped it into T2 and were being conservative. York aviation was not just looking at T2. Mr. Byrne agreed with Mr. Coughlan that the airport was not just a runway, it was also a terminal. With growth in car use, and population he asked why another airport was not provided in the GDA to resolve the traffic problem in the vicinity of the airport. He asked of they considered in terms of solving traffic problems. Mr. McGrath said this was considered during his time in the DTO and discussed regularly during the production of Platform For Change of which he was the project manager. There were all sorts of reasons against it. There were problems associated with duplication of resources for example extremely expensive Metro, duplication of resources in provision of surface access, duplication of resources in terms of provision of runways, loss of efficiency in terms of duplication of airports and problems


associated with hub and connections, passengers coming from far away, but wishing to make connections to other European directions Mr. Sweetman said pre planning file was part of the EIA process. He insisted that these needed to be sent to the inspector. Mr. Flanagan said there were some documents in relation to the application. Rachel Kenny sated that they were available to the public. Mr. Sweetman asked in relation to condition no 7, and how they envisaged a planning process for that road. Mr. Flanagan stated that the planning authority was the road authority and the applicant would carry out the works on behalf of the planning authority. Mr. Sweetman asked were the roads referred to in the public notice. Mr. O’Donnell stated that they were included in the EIS. One could not anticipate the condition of a planning authority and include in the public notice. Mr. Flanagan stated that Mr. Cregihan’s evidence was very helpful as it stated the contract for the M50 had been signed and provided certainty about its deliverability, regarding Condition number 6 Mr. McGrath explained that at the time of the decision there was uncertainty regarding M50 upgrade. They would be content with a revised condition. Mr. Sweetman asked for the impact on the M50 one month before and one month after the opening of T2. Mr. McGrath said analysis was not done on a monthly basis but the model overcome that. Mr. O’Donnell had a suggestion for condition number 6. They still wanted the condition deleted, and maintained their position, and wanted assurance. Mr. Coughlan said delays in signing the contact would effect their program. Mr. Sweetman stated that there was no assessment of construction impacts. The real problem with the T2 was the construction traffic for the M50 and for T2. Mr. Coughlan referred to mitigation measures to stagger starting points etc. Mr. Sweetman insisted peak time had to be stipulated, and clarified. In response to the question by the inspector whether use of special contribution condition for condition number 7 (requiring road works) was considered, rather than asking the applicants to carry out the works, Mr. McGrath said they felt it was considered to be a better option in terms of practicalities. Sheila Morris (for St. Margaret’s) stated that the western access should not be included in this case. In response to questions by Mr.Barnes, whether phase I could operate without the requirement to upgrade M1 to the north of the roundabout, Mr. Coughlan responded


that he was not sure it could be done. (It was not required for T2 on its own.) NRA was comfortable with it as a baseline assumption. Mr. O’Sullivan responded to the question in relation to reservation for a new access coming into the complex from Forest Little road. There was already an access, it was enhancement of the existing access. Yes, provision of an enhanced access was in the LAP. The major traffic generators in the area was not related to the proposed development. Yes, the reason for the western access was to provide access to the eastern campus from the west. In relation to an event or major accident in the M50, and whether the same consideration and conditions as the runway would apply, condition numbers 14 and 15 would be consistent with the runway application. In response to question by the inspector he agreed that prior to occupation of the development would be appropriate. In response to the question where the outer ring intersected with swords road, Rachel Kenny stated the outer ring was a separate road. Mr.O’Sullivan stated there were two sections concerning St. Margaret’s. Western access would only be considered if and when T3 is planned. There was a small section already constructed. It would be a continuation. In response to question regarding capacity, Mr Foley had prepared a one page summary of the NATS report prepared by experts in 2002, about ultimate capacity of the twin runway system. He stated the capacity of the parallel runway system would be between 74-87 peak hour movements, depending on the mode of operation. Translating these peak hour movements to passenger numbers depended on a number of factors, such as runway peak hour capacity, sustainable peak hourly capacity, air traffic control procedures, aircraft mix (small aircraft would deliver less passengers), and on whether the planes were full The ultimate potential of the parallel runway system would depend on many variables but their best estimate would suggest 350,000-400,000 movements which would translate to 45-50mppa. In response to question if a lower estimate is provided would there be a cut off point from the point of viability of the western campus, Mark Foley stated that one would need a reasonable head room. He repeated that the figure could be 50-55mppa depending on the variables. One needed to be very careful. In response to question regarding accessibility study (page 111) based on 40mppa capacity of Dublin Airport, Mr. O’Sullivan stated that they had looked various scenarios for the eastern campus doubling existing to 30-35mppa in the eastern campus. They replicated T3 to be a mirror image of the eastern campus. They had taken the worst case scenario. They were asked to look at least 40mppa.


In response to question by Mr. Barnes drawing attention to a previous statement by Sean O' Faircheallaigh of 60mppa as possible ultimate capacity of the both runways, Mr Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that anything over 30mppa would involve excursion to the western side, it would also from transportation point of view allow getting access from the west into the campus, and allow people with land to have opportunity to develop that side. They would have gone for an approximately figure of 30mmpa to provide a balanced development, but in the light of the unprecedented growth experienced at the airport and having regard to the problems associated with providing new infrastructure at the western campus, in the immediate future they were faced with a problem an emergency situation in the eastern campus that’s why they were prepared to consider up to 35mppa. A figure of 45-50mppa would still make western campus viable. The figure of 40mppa given to the transport people came from the aviation consultant. There was reasonable certainty of going to that level. Afterwards it was not. Mr. Harley said CEO of DAA had given a capacity of 60mppa (on a radio show), another senior executive program manager had said 55mppa. Mr Foley stressed that increase in aircraft size could swing it by 10mppa. It was very important not to lock into numbers. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that the advice of their expert was the same. S. 49 Contribution condition:

Neil Stein (BL) for RPA read from a written document. Referring to Metro North which the RPA was in the process of bringing about, he stated that it was a public infrastructure project within the meaning of s 49 (7) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The planning authority had published a draft supplementary development contribution scheme on Nov, 2006 in relation to Metro North.

Reading from various sections of the Act, referring to a number of court decisions, and examining what would happen if a contribution was not required, he argued that as the proposed development was subject of an appeal there was no planning permission in existence for the proposed development as a result of the decision of the planning authority. The only permission would be that granted by the Board. He asked that the Board impose a contribution condition in accordance with the scheme.

Mr. Flanagan agreed that the analysis was correct. Referring to Mc Kone case, he submitted that a decision confirmed the rights, not an application.

Mr. O’Donnell stated that DAA did not have a difficulty with accepting a condition s.49, in principle but they would prefer a degree of flexibility to be confirmed on the planning authority regarding implementation of the scheme. They were aware that the application was predicated on the Metro.

Mr. Harley stated that earlier it was stated that 20% of the passengers for metro would be for airport. He asked that the condition be designed to reflect this.


In response to question by Jerry Barnes to clarify whether certain sections of a number of roads were included in development contribution schemes, the planning authority provided clarification. Condition number 28 Mr. Flanagan referred to a discussion document the planning authority had prepared, and read the Condition number 28 as revised.

(a) Combined passenger throughput at T1 and T2 shall not exceed 35mppa (b) At or before combined passenger throughput at T1 and T2 reaches 28mppa

the applicant shall submit to the planning authority detailed proposals regarding the planning, design and delivery of T3, and associated structure in consultation with third parties if necessary

The council did not wish to proceed with this paragraph as it would be difficult to interpret (it would stray into non-planning considerations)

They would also propose an additional condition in relation to passenger experience T1

No later than 12 months after commencement of operation of T2, works to improve passenger experience and to re-balance passenger throughput within T1 shall commence and be completed within 36 months details of these works shall be submitted to the planning authority ....in the context of combined passenger throughput of T1 and T2 not exceeding 35mppa … (exhibit ..03/05/07)

He referred to the application letter from Tiros (31/08/2006) which had estimated annual passenger traffic to be 30mppa. It had also identified that T2 and pier would take the operating capacity to 35mppa when completed.

The EIS had indicated in a number of occasions (prg 2.2.1, ) that the capacity would be 35mppa

Under the planning acts the planning authority would had duty to secure the objectives of the development plan. They did not accept in any way that the LAP was prescriptive in relation to a cap of 30mppa.

Secondly their assessment of the adequacy of the EIS was based on the proposal put before the planning authority, where it was put that the combined passenger throughput would be up to 35mppa. To be consistent with policy documents, adjudication on the application put before them and adjudication on the EIS put before them were the main considerations.


Rachel Kenny, confirmed the comments by Mr. Flanagan. The application was assessed on the basis of 35mppa as put before them, and in the context of County Development Plan and LAP. They would have particular regard to terminal and piers objectives which required improvement and augmentation of facilities in T1 and T2 but also advancement of T3. They did not consider 35mppa to as a figure prejudicing advancement of T3 in due course.

Ms. O’Brien asked if the western campus would be the balance i.e 25mppa, with eastern campus at 35mppa. The planning authority responded that they did not know what would happen beyond certain levels. Economics, aviation taxation etc could easily effect the passenger figures. They did not know if it would get anywhere near 60mppa.

Mr. Foley was not saying 50mppa was their absolute upper limit changes in aircraft size would bring it higher. No body could predict future.

Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that there were two principles behind the LAP one was flexibility the other was protection of what need to be protected so that the airport could reach its full potential.

Ms. O Brien said if the planning authority put as much effort to protect the people it would be a far better place to live.

Mr. Byrne restated that talking about campuses, and terminals was premature in the absence of examination of national aviation strategy for provision / location of airport infrastucture in the country as a whole.

Mr. Harley agreed with Mr. Foley that it was not possible to have certainty regarding capacity. The high growth scenario had indicated 53mppa which he thought was reasonable. He referred to an article where ESRI had stated ( in relation to transport) that there was no comprehensive analysis of alternatives, consideration of do nothing was not enough. Same thing applied here.

Mr. Manahan agreed with the trust of the plan to provide a balance both in terms of campuses and in terms of roads access, and two spread the traffic both air and surface between two runways, two campuses, different access. They were concerned that the proposed development would affect this balancing act and the western campus may never happen.

Simone Kenny for Ryanair supported the condition number 28, but drew attention to LAP which stated 30mppa as the capacity. She suggested revisions to condition number 28 so that passenger throughput of T2 does not exceed 10mppa and T2 when added to T1 does not exceed 30mppa. They agreed with omission of part c. This avoid destruction of Corballis House and improve the traffic situation.

Mr.Sweetman said the original condition no 28 was a proof of project splitting by condition. It was quite clear the planning authority was not happy with the proposed development, and was using a condition to encourage project splitting. The amended condition and suggestion by Ryanair were both illegal. They were both requiring submission before planning.


Ms. Sheila Morris referred to earlier reference to protect what needs to be protected, and the correspondence they had received from the planning authority and DAA. Presenting a map, showing how the roads indicated on the same would take out a number of their houses. The OS maps they received from DAA had blank sections (such as emergency access which went right through their homes. (Alternative routes, Scott Wilson report, emergency roads) these were not shown on the terminal application.

She referred to a number of letters they received (including that in April 2006), references to special policy area for St. Margaret’s area without any follow up, e-mail received following a meeting indicating that it was only a ‘conversation’, she stated that they were being treated as ‘nothing’ by DAA but also by Fingal County Council.

Mr. O’Donnell stated they had no problem with condition number 28 as revised by the planning authority. He agreed that sub paragraph (c) would not be appropriate.

They had made an application for 35mppa, and were bound by what they had submitted.

He was surprised by Ryanair suggestion in relation to limits. What was suggested was impossible to operate having regard to the fact that there were two major airlines operating. Balancing of two terminals was appropriate.

His concern was related to the language of (a) providing an absolute figure. he said development of western campus could be provided through other conditions. He suggested the condition should be more aspirational rather than prescriptive.

Mr. Sweetman stated that they opposed to further development of the airport as a whole. They opposed to another runway and to another terminal. In response to question by Mr. Harley in relation to use of the DTO model, J. Ryan stated that they were certifying the use of the model and methodology.

Air Quality (24/04/07, This module was conducted in two separate days to facilitate absence of Mr. Flanagan, Counsel for Fingal County Council. In the first day the planning authority was represented only one person, solicitor (Mary …) who would take note of the proceedings to report back. The first party brief of evidence (exhibit V-24/04/07) was presented by Michael Bailey, environmental consultant. In response to question by Ms. O’Brien (referring to first page of document distributed entitled ‘Ambient airside quality Report, document control sheet, X-


24/04/07) , Mr. O’Donnell stated that there was no additional or specific requirement on Dublin Airport as a distinct authority, and the same ‘law’ as everyone else applied. Reading from a written evidence Mr. Bailey stated that he had prepared the impact assessment reports on air quality and climate change both for the runway and terminal cases. The assessment undertaken of the likely impact on local air quality arising from atmospheric emissions was examined in two stages, namely construction and operation of T2. The former included clearance of the ground, and haulage of materials. The impacts during operational phase were associated with road traffic and aircraft movements. A number of measures were planned to reduce dust and particulate PM10emissions. There was an existing air quality monitoring programme independently carried out for the DAA at 11 locations, to survey Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, benzene, carbon monoxide, particulates PM10 since 2002. The monitoring network included a number of locations in the locality of the airport such as Forest Little and St.Margaret’s as well as further a field at Kinsealy, Swords and Portmarnock. The survey was extended to 13 locations in 2006, and was also extended to include ozone measurements and PM25 at certain locations near the airport. The results for 2005 and 2006 showed that they did not exceed the levels set in NAQS (National Air Quality Standards) (statutory instrument 271 of 2002) The construction of T2 and Pier E would result in emissions of dust, and PM10 from the construction area including new construction access roads, and concrete crashing and batching plant. In view of proximity of T1 and aircraft it was important to control dust emissions to ensure no risk to aircraft operations. The submission provided a number of control measures, such as hard paving of access roads to reduce dust emissions, wheel wash, covered trucks, and various dust suppression measures. To predict the impact of emissions during operational phase a detailed air quality dispersion model was used, for the forecast years of 2012 and 2024 for ‘do nothing’ and ‘do something’ scenarios. The emission data was derived from aircraft movements, ground traffic and boiler plant were compiled for the forecast years. The model predicted ground level concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide, hydrocarbons, (benzene), carbon monoxide, particulates PM10. in the locality of the airport and adjacent to the motorway and local roads around the airport. Emissions from aircraft were derived from LTO (Land and take-off cycle) using different aircraft and engine categories with estimates of times for LTO. The number type and category of aircraft using runways was supplied by DAA (a total of 28


aircraft categories ranging from large Airbus 340 and Boeing 767 to medium and small jets and turboprops). Road traffic emissions for M50 and M1 were derived from traffic prediction models developed for the project (projected mean peak morning number of cars, commercial vehicles and speeds for 2012 and 2024 scenarios). Emissions were also derived from ground support vehicles operating near the terminal and boiler plant complex and planned CHP for T2. The results of the study demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the ground level concentrations for ‘do nothing’ and ‘do something’ scenarios for T2. Going through each of the emissions, he concluded that predicted ground level concentrations within the airport boundary did not exceed NAQS. The highest levels were predicted near the M1 and M50 and high along the main roads in the locality. In conclusion the results of the modelling study demonstrated that the predicted increase in ambient concentrations in 2012 and 2024 due to T2 would not have significant impact within the adjoining communities or on the local environment. For the operational phase, traffic management would be in place to reduce congestion on the approach roads to the terminal so as to reduce vehicle emissions within airport complex. In response to third party assertions that a health impact assessment should have been undertaken, he stated that the health impacts in relation to air quality have been dealt with in the context of compliance with NAQS which provided limit values for each. The methodology used in the EIS to assess the exposure risk to the local community around Dublin had examined the current ambient air quality based on monitoring results from the sampling network operated independently for DAA. To evaluate future air quality impacts a detailed dispersion modelling study was carried out based on road transport, aviation emissions and emissions form the airport complex, and the results were compared with current and future NASQ. This type of evaluation procedure demonstrated the community health risk in terms of predicted or monitored airside pollutant concentration and these valued could be compared to the relevant airside quality limit value. The results of the airside quality impact study for T2 indicated that the predicted impact emissions associated with the development did not have significant impact on the local air quality, and therefore a more intensive investigation of potential health impact from atmospheric emissions, by undertaking a Health Impact Assessment was not warranted for this development.


The planning authority had no comment to make but referred to condition number 35. Questions and clarifications Ms. Lawton stated that the data presented was out of date. Mr. O’Donnell (DAA) stated that the date the report completed was 2006, but it included the year before. They were compiled annually, but he would try to get a report for the first half of the year. Mr. Bailey had looked at a preliminary look at the monitoring results, they were below the impending Ozone Directive and similarly PM 25 were below ( he noted aircraft activity would not create the latter). Ms. Lawton referred to a document in relation to airside quality around airports (W-24/04/07) and stated that it was very significant to the communities living around Dublin Airport. She noted references to high levels near the roads, stated that the proposed development was increasing the amount of traffic coming to Dublin Airport and increasing the number of car parks. Most emissions occurred during take offs, effecting communities. There was no safe level for benzene. She referred to several individual readings and submitted they needed all the data, not selective. There was a sea breze along the cost between malahide and Portmarnock. She asked for a list of all the aircraft types allowed to land and take of at Dublin Airport. While they were told Ryanair was renewing its fleet, charters were using old dirty aircraft. Mr. O’Donnell would try to find out. She said it was not enough not exceeding limit values on an annual basis. Mr. Bailey repeated aircraft was not source of particulate emissions. Highest concentrations were near the M1 and M50. Near Portmarnock and Malahide it was due to burning of fossil fuels and cars, not related to Dublin Airport. Mr. Bailey explained how the NAQS were set. The benzene levels of 5microgram referred to by Ms. Lawton was below the levels set. Sea breeze did not stay static and unlike certain areas where it moved up and came down again, this did not happen in Dublin. Portmarnock was 7km from Dublin Airport, and the sea breeze was coming at an angle, and would not have any significant impact on any of the other communities around airport. It only impacted if there was a yo-yo effect (rise above, go to sea and then come back down on the coastal community, this did not happen in Dublin area) The aircraft were well above a 500m above Portmarnock. (Poolbeg chimneys were 220m high). Mr. Byrne asked why he could smell kerosene, and films on the cars (dumping of fuel). Mr. Bailey said dumping of fuel could only happen far away from settled areas.


There were monitoring stations at Portmarnock, (toscar patha, GAA grounds). Ms. Lawton asked for a monitoring station at the coast, between Portmarnock and Malahide. She said benzene 558 was a quarterly result. She asked for a list of gases coming out of the 30m high chimney stack at energy centre. Mr. Bailey said it was going to burn natural gas as in domestic uses. No there would not be heat pump. In response to question by Ms. Lawton he said one needed very high levels of pollutants ‘Synergistic’ effects in air quality terms. This was not the case here. To have effects on lungs etc it had to be in very high levels. Ms. Lawton said four local authorities were opposing to another runway at Heathrow, because of health effects on communities. Mr. Bailey said it was of a very different scale. In response to statement by Ms. Lawton regarding high levels near other UK airports, he said he had looked at the results of monitoring carried out by independent consultants, and used NAQS. EPA used the same standards. The monitoring locations were chosen to represent different local communities, end of the runway, rural, urban, locations and near Portmarnock. He said he did not carry out the monitoring, but was happy with what they did. Currently it was Bord Na Mona. He had done various ones including for air quality monitoring for Dublin, he had seen no reason for concern. Mr. O’Donnell presented the uncertified 2006 figures compiled so far as asked by Ms. Lawton (Y-24/04/07). In response to earlier question by Ms. O’Brien regarding last paragraph of first page of the document entitled ‘ Dublin Airport Ambient Airside Quality Report 2005’ Mr. O’Donnell agreed the wording was not the best, but they were trying to say that there was no requirement on DAA to carry out monitoring. Ms. O’Brien asked who had the responsibility. Mr. O’Donnell referred to EPA Act, Air Pollution Act, and said local authority and EPA would be the authorities. Mr. Sweetman said engine testing issue was not resolved, that issue was raised at the runway hearing. Inspector reiterated that this hearing was concentrating on the air pollution issues arising from landside activities, as the other hearing would cover pollution arising from airside activity in more detail. Mr. Bailey said the air dispersion model carried out for runway included the same road links, as such the cumulative effects were considered. Ms. O’Brien asked if he had looked at the traffic as a result of T2. Mr. Bailey was given the traffic figures for the year 2024.


Mr. Harley said the figures were underestimating the current levels. The centre line projections were not adjusted to reflect the latest numbers (should be at least 5% higher). Mr. Bailey said the information was supplied by DAA for the aircraft movements, he had used the high growth scenario. Mr. Harley accepted that would be closer to reality. In terms of traffic he thought they would be higher than presented. Mr. Bailey had taken vehicle speeds into account in the modelling exercise, and during am peak (two-way). Mr. Byrne said as the monitoring station at GAA referred to earlier was not surrounded by houses, but located in a green belt, it was an indication of the quality of evidence by Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey said other data showed no elevated level around Dublin Airport so it would be reasonable to conclude it was a local reason. Evidence by third parties Ms. O’Brien had MSc in Environmental Science and Degree in Biology, Diploma in geology and pollution control. With the help of a power point presentation (Z-24/04/07) she said she was going to read the material submitted with a sceptical eye. She read from DAA website which stated that the monitoring programme was broadened and it provided and integrated picture of the spatial and temporal variations of ambient air quality around the facility, and that the results were assessed in conjunction with meteorological data from Met Eireann and statistics on aircraft movements, and that the environment department liased with EPA on the results of monitoring. She said the monitoring system seemed to be carried out by engineers not biologists, who had a different way of looking them including cumulative effects. For example in the case of Sulphur dioxide the limits were ecological (such as grass) limits but not in terms of limits for humans. In the case of Liverpool (which she was familiar with) measurements were taken every 15 minutes and provided on the website. Using an example she said she thought they needed to be presented in that format. While Dublin had measurement (numbers), but FCC did not provide their figures to the public even if they were taken. While most of the time the Atlantic air carried the air towards England, there were times of no wind. The ultimate capacity aimed by DAA was 60mppa. This would mean serious increase in traffic and workers and pollution. The workers needed to be protected too.


Pollution did arise just from the aircrafts, but a lot from the ground traffic. She did not think baseline figures were provided. They lived down wind of airport. Annualising figures was not acceptable. Air pollution was trans-boundary as we all found out during Chernobyl. She showed a ‘Global Image’ by Heidelberg University to show how the pollution moved westward. In response to question by the inspector, Mr. Bailey said the road traffic data was obtained from DTO model, which produced vehicle types and numbers and speed included the road links. The emissions data for cars, and vehicles were obtained from website for various vehicles. He responded to other questions. Sulphur dioxide was not a problem for Dublin Airport as it was produced by industrial processes or smoky fuel. The ecological limit was for sensitive areas such as Black Forest or the Alps. The ozone plumes did not occur where it was produced, moved with air stream. Distinguishing cause and effect was very important. Power stations in Pennines would be likely to cause the high levels of ozone in Liverpool. In Ireland ozone levels were very low, only increased coming from easterly direction. One could find variation if hourly results were provided, but the important thing was that they did not exceed the standards, not the variation. Ms. O’Brien reiterated that Mr. Bailey was given ‘robust’ figures by DAA. Mr. Bailey said deciding where the monitoring locations would be was important, not the numbers. He had visited the monitoring locations and from what he had seen, he was satisfied that he would have done something similar. Location of equipment for continuous monitoring was important in terms of vandalism etc. continuous monitoring was carried out in five sites on a rotation basis (in one case). There may be justification in continuous monitoring, but moving around to get a snap shot to indicate levels was acceptable. Ms. O’Brien said while they were monitoring continuously it was not true they were monitoring continuously at the same locations. There was discussion on what continuous monitoring meant. (it meant continuous monitoring for pollutants, if they were below limit at one point, monitoring continued at another). Who decides what to monitor was derived from NAQS. Then the concerns of the community would be taken into consideration including other compounds. In response to Mr. Harley’s question if all numbers were actually based on high growth scenario, Mr. Bailey said the numbers (aircraft movements) were supplied by DAA.


Mary Coveney for DAA confirmed they were given centreline figures. Mr. Harley repeated they were already out of date. In the forecast the centreline figure for 2008 it was 22.5mppa, Ms. Coveney said the numbers were not understated. The trends since the runway inquiry indicated lower numbers. Airlines moved towards larger aircraft carrying same passengers on fewer aircrafts. Indeed the forecasts were already indicating lower figures. It was true that they were likely to be slightly ahead of the forecast. Ms. Coveney said the issue was aircraft size. She repeated that aircraft size had increased from 120 to 189, as Ryanair and Aer Lingus started changing their fleet. Mr. Harley asked for aircraft movement figures. The figures given to Mr. Bailey would not change, but may be slightly ahead presently. The kind of analysis done by York Aviation was standard in that for every million passengers 1000 jobs were created. This method was used by many airports around Europe. Mr. Harley said that was not the case here. That was not the methodology used here. If you had used this methodology there would have been higher number of jobs created. Mr. Harley stated that employment figures effected traffic levels, and therefore were relevant to airside emissions. Mr. Bailey stated even if there was 5-10% adjustments in growth figures for the aircraft movements, they would still be well below the NAQS levels. In response to Ms. O’Brien’s question in relation to maximum hourly concentration, and averaging, Mr. Bailey said the values specified in the EIS were below the levels. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Mr. Bailey explained reasons for adjusting some of the monitoring stations was fire station and proximity to residential. Directive for Ambient air Quality and cleaner air quality 2005/447: 447 was in proposal stage. In the Castlemoate site the monitoring equipments seemed to be removed when the limits exceeded due to rock crushing. The purpose of air monitoring exercise was to look at ambient air quality, not to measures a short term impact arising from a single activity. The important issue was the impact on local community. Mr. Sweetman said the equipment was being removed to exceed the times one is allowed. This would mean every breach of air quality was explainable, through other activities. Coachman’s Inn was outside the airport.


Mr. O’Donnell explained the results were provided following request by the third parties, but it was unfair to ask specific questions on that as Mr. Bailey did not carry out monitoring. Mr. Sweetman said ‘SR Technic’ were subject to a pollution licence and there was continuous monitoring. (A1A2). This should have been included in the EIS as it was within the blue line. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman in relation to impact on bats and otters, he said the limit values were set for black forest (acid rain). Mr. Sweetman said EIS said hourly values for sulphur dioxide was for the protection of human health. He repeated it was not a by-product of aviation activity. The second session of the module was held on a different day (02/05/2007) and was attended by the full team of the planning authority. This session concentrated on questions and answers, firstly to planning authority. Mr. Flanagan (for Fingal County Council ) stated that the planning authority’s position was that the planning authority was satisfied with the contents of the EIS and the assessment carried out and the mitigation measures identified by the applicant, particularly in relation to the construction phase. Rachel Kenny (for FCC) stated air quality was considered in many ways. In terms of construction of T2 they were satisfied with the EIS, the mitigation measures proposed, as augmented by condition numbers 32/33, which they now proposed amalgamation thereof. In respect of air quality in relation to aviation activities we had the benefit of details in relation to the second runway. In the EIS for the runway the impact in worse case scenario would be fully assessed. They were satisfied again in respect of air quality. In response to question, Mr. Flanagan stated they did not consider any significant impacts arose in terms of air quality. They accepted the analysis by the applicant, and it did not form a major plank of their consideration. They considered there were more fundamental issues to be considered. Ms. Lawton stated that looking through the DAA booklet (Jan 2006), referred to page 7, she said they dependent on accuracy of the figures, and asked whether it was referring to nit oxide or nitric acid. In page 36 they had given 31 days for the month of February, and asked if the report was fictitious. The Bord Na Mona report referred to exceedances on a number of pages. She said if there were exceedances now, they were worried there would be more after the expansion. She asked FCC for air quality report, but had not received any. Had asked for the air quality management plan but have not yet been provided one.


Mr. Sweetman (for Teresa Kavanagh) referred to planning authority LAP and the SEA of the LAP, which said in 2005 ‘some of the monitoring positions were adjusted to better reflect th airport activities and the range of PMS extended to include, .. These reports were shared by the planning authority. Levels were exceeded 13 times. Noting that monitoring positions were moved, repeated that the planning authority had not taken any action. The airport seemed to be free of any form of checking by the planning authority. There was absolutely no assessment of the exceedences by the planning authority. They were not even included in the planner’s report. S.9 of the plan was completely forgotten. The planner’s report did not constitute an EIA. It did not even list ‘air’. He asked where the monitoring was. Mr. Lumley (for An Taisce) first wanted to address the adequacy of the information provided by the developer in relation to EIS as clarified by the evidence in relation to air quality, aviation emissions, transport emissions, and emissions by the terminal and other airport development, as these were areas of principle concern. With regard to Aviation emissions he stated S. 9.3.2 of the EIS gave aviation emissions methodology, based on landing and take off cycle emissions. It referred to combined various aircraft emissions for the three runways. There was another significant emission –engine testing- these were not identified in this EIS. He noted this was also a concern in the parallel application. There was also major deficiency in identifying the actual additional car parking requirements as a result of this application. There was absence of such information in relation the total car parking needs, whether it would be provided all together or on an incremental basis, whether it would be provided by DAA or by private operators, and the amount of car parking in the MSCP not yet applied for, all needed to be quantified for the 35mppa. These could then from the basis for calculation of emissions from these car parks, basis for air modelling. In case of the central plant emissions there was an overlap between air quality and CO2 emissions. It would be more appropriate to concentrate on CO2emissions. The evidence given by the planning authority showed there was wholesale failure by the planning authority to adequately assess the EIS and address the requirements of the SEA Directive. Had they done so they would have to provide baseline and ongoing monitoring data to allow for comparison and determine whether intervention was required. Under Article 10 of the SEA Directive the authorities were required to monitor the implementation of the plan. This went beyond the principles of the EIA Directive. Evidence of that had to be provided prior to proceeding. If FCC had carried out a compliant SEA ( which was being disputed), baseline data and ongoing monitoring data had to be a primary requirement for assessment of the proposed development.


Mr. Bailey (for DAA) referred to the 13-14 consecutive days where there were exceedances, and said he examined the data in detailed and concluded that there were analytical errors . The station was near the rock crusher. (no wind in the direction required, Sunday levels as high as other days). Experience in pM10 monitoring required further analysis. While he did not refer to those during the hearing that was because he had after examination decided to discard the data. The monitoring station at Castlemoate house was interfered with, and was relocated to a more secure location, (30m away in dog compound –more secure) which he considered gave a good representation of the air quality in that section of the campus, and in proximity to Caochmans inn. Ms. O’Brien said Castlemoate house was at the end of the runway used by small aircraft, which had more wing movements. That could have been the reason. Mr. Bailey did not think so, they would not be taking off from Castlemoate house, thy would be using another runway. In response to question he understood there would be a permanent continuous monitoring location at the edge of the 10/28 runway. There were negotiations for further monitoring locations. The first would be within the airport boundary, with further rings outside the airport and towards Portmarnock, etc, on paths of the runways. He believed the expanded monitoring in 13 locations would be made available by DAA on a website. While there would always be dissatisfaction with monitoring locations, it was important to note that DAA were attempting to represent the air quality at the airport and near a field in the vicinity of residential communities. He had extensive knowledge and was satisfied that the chosen locations would give satisfactory information regarding air quality in effected communities such as Portmarnock, St. Margaret's and Swords. In response to question by the inspector to extrapolate the validity issue to the rest of the data, referred to individual dates where he had checked the data together with wind speeds for the dates, he said that kind of levels would have brought in a lot of complaints. The complaints would need to be made to DAA or to Fingal County Council. The assessment he carried out was based on the info available and he considered it adequate, to give an indication of the air quality and any exceedances. In response to Mr. Sweetman he said the data he used for the EIS was 2004-2005. Mr. Sweetman disagreed saying that was made available to the public at this hearing. He had not carried out the monitoring. Mr. Sweetman asked for the list of planes and wind charts to check. He asked for the purpose of monitoring on the site. PM10s were invisible. Nobody had given any information that the monitoring data was looked at by anybody, until the hearing.


The rest of the monitoring results were consistent with what one would expect from such a location. Monitoring was being carried out by Bord Na Mona, provided in reports presented to the board (DAA). He did not know if the results were submitted to the planning authority. In response to question by the inspector to explain their air quality policies of the planning authority, and who reported on the air quality, Ms. Kenny stated that the comments of the EHO did not highlight any inadequacies in relation to air quality. The planner considered and accepted the description of the receiving environment to be adequate. They considered the air quality issue in the context of the T2 application, rather than runway. Mr. O’Donnell (for DAA) stated that the monitoring results were sent to FCC and to EPA on an annual basis, at the end of the year. 2005 figures were sent in 2006. Ms O’Brien stated there is no continuous monitoring at Dublin Airport , as in the case of other airports, day by day instantaneously. Ms. Lawton had a copy of draft Dublin Regional Air Quality Management Plan (policy 14 strategy 2) referred to such data being made available to public and to media. The planning authority would get back on the issue, following checking its status. In response to question by the inspector as to what happens when the data received shows exceedances, and if there were any enforcement arising from such exceedances Ms. Kenny said they would check with EHO. Mr. Bailey said the report on the EIS and this hearing should address the receiving environment in the context of likely significant effects on the air quality as a result of the development. He would stand over his conclusions that there has not been any exceedances over the NAQS for Benzene, CO, NO2. While there would be an issue in relation to PM10, (he did not except there was) this would be a short term event. DAA was in the process of setting up a monitoring station (advance stage of procurement) which would provide data on a continuous basis. If there were very high NO2 levels, there would be a necessity to check whether it was originating from the locality or was a wide spread issue. Air mass over Dublin had elevated levels arising from traffic. Mr. O’Donnell would come back with some proposal to suggest measures for dealing with exceedances. Mr. Sweetman suggested data was available to Bord Na Mona and to DAA but was not made public. Ms. O’Brien said the DAA website stated ‘scope of the monitoring program was expanded in 2005 to cover 11 sampling locations, and analysed for concentration of various parameters likely to be associated with aviation activities, and that this provides an integrated picture of spatial and temperal variations of ambient air


quality around the facility’. The impression was given that this was being done, and there was no problem. There was no information, no control. Mr. Bailey referred to the annual report and going through individual figures stated that there was no evidence that there was a problem. Ms. O’Brien stated that as the data was annualised or monitoring stations were removed or switched off, there was no evidence it was continuous. She suggested the data was invalid. Mr. Bailey disagreed. The monitoring network was similar to Dublin city Council and other local authorities. He repeated following installation of the network continuous monitoring data would be made available. Mr. O’Donnell clarified a person with environmental qualifications was employed by Dublin Airport and when the results come back they were analysed within the airport. Any difficulties identified were looked out. He gave examples in relation to fire tending activities. When the results of the Castlemoate house came back it was assumed that it was the rock crusher was the source of difficulties and the contractor on the site was asked to introduce dust suppression measures. What was now being proposed was ‘continuous monitoring system’, and the Board might impose conditions to deal with the issue in the light of that development. Ms. O’Brien asked for noise monitoring data as it would be used as a base for this development as well as for the runway. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the traffic movement figures were not compiled in the manner requested by Ms. Lawton, who was concerned about free parking for the first fifteen minutes creating 4 movements who would drop and pick up passengers. Mr. Sweetman insisted he wanted to see the data referred to by Mr. Bailey. In response to question by Mr. Harley if he considered the two scenarios to be reasonable and sensible, Mr. Bailey said the information he used reflected on aircraft movements was based on projections supplied by DAA. In response to question in do nothing scenario where there would 38mppa with one terminal would he consider it to be reasonable and sensible, said he was satisfied with the difference between two years. Mr. Harley repeated that the fundamental of the comparison was flawed. They were taking an impossible situation as being realistic. Ms. O’Sullivan (ARUP) explained that do minimum scenario was developed in conjunction with Ms. Weston. It involved a situation where the peak hour spread to rest of the day. It was a realistic situation in the future where nothing happened. They were not saying it would be an adequate level of service. Mr. O’Donnell explained that the scenarios were being developed for the purposes of this terminal proposal. The basis of the comparison of the effects were entirely


consistent with what is required in EIS terms. It examined what is likely to occur if nothing is done. Mr. Lumley referred to section 9.3.2.3 of the EIS in relation to miscellaneous operations and asked if he included engine testing activity. Mr. Bailey had not because it was a very short term activity. Mr. O’Donnell stated that engine testing was part of the runway application and was exhaustively examined in the runway hearing. Mr. Sweetman stated we were told for the purposes of this case it was presumed there would be no runway. So they were asking engine testing in the context of no second runway. Mr. Lumley asked if this would be a terminal with additional 15mppa, with aviation movements to accommodate extra 15mppa movements. Mr. Bailey was asked to calculate impact on the basis of aircraft movements, not passenger movements. Mr. O’Donnell explained air emissions were determined by aircraft movements. In response to question what brief was given in relation to no of car parking spaces required to accommodate the proposed development, Mr. Bailey responded only the MSCP. Yes it was 1500. No he did not factor mobility management plan. No he did not factor long term car parking movements in his calculations, as they had low turn over for generating air emissions, they did not generate impact in terms of air emissions. He did not take into account those outside the campus area. The information he was supplied with included location of car parks, short term and long term in terms of capacity and turnover rate. In response to question given that DAA was proposing additional 10,000 long term spaces as part of their mobility management plan, would he change his calculations, he said it would not, as car parking would take place in Harristown and Eastlands. Mr. O’Donnell explained that all the traffic moving in and out of the airport was taken into account. Mr. Lumley asked what other movements were taken into account, for staff, for hotel visitors etc. The model took the projected traffic movements calculated by the traffic section. Mr. Lumley asked what the differences were between the car parks, short or long term, or their locations, or bus movements. Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Bailey to look at the cumulative effects of all the developments he stated would have insignificant impact. Mr. Flanagan for the introduced John Healy (Environmental Officer for FCC). In response to question by Mr. Flanagan to explain the air quality monitoring at the Dublin Airport, he said they carried out the monitoring on behalf of all three County


Councils including around Dublin Airport for NO2 but not for CO. All the results complied with EU regulations. They also received the monitoring data by DAA every couple of months, in a summary level. No he had no reason to take enforcement action. The Air Pollution Act 1987 was the regulatory mechanism he worked under. They might have a need for pollution licence for the engine testing. That was dealt with under the runway. Mr. Sweetman stated there was no application to EPA for an IPC licence. There was only one which was from SR Techniques. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman had he ever seen the results of 2005, Mr. Flanagan corrected that somebody else from the County Council would have seen the results. Mr. O’Donnell introduced Victoria Carroll, (air and water manager for Dublin Airport.) In response to questions by Mr. O’Donnell she said, the ambient air quality monitoring program had developed over time from a small program to present 13 locations around Dublin Airport and within the communities surrounding the airport, to test for parameters associated with transportation activities including aviation. A broad range of locating monitors at the potential source and at the potential receptors was used, to correlate air traffic movements, road traffic movements and Met data to see if any elevated results were attributed to the aircraft activities. If elevated levels were identified they would examine the reasons, while continuing to monitor, so as not to neglect other community groups. In general the air quality in Dublin region was good, due to prevailing winds from gulf stream and exposed nature of Dublin Airport. The data they collected were compared with the air quality indices provided by the EPA. They would also compare them with Dublin city centre figures to provide a subcontext. They conducted the air quality monitoring willingly in response to community concerns and made the results available willingly. They were available to members of public if asked. In response to question by the inspector she stated the incidences where elevated results occurred were near the site of Castlemoate house- rock crusher. They took immediate action and mitigation measures they introduced such as dust suppression measures using water showed immediate effect. Another incident was due to parking of fire engines adjacent to a monitoring site. They were satisfied these did not represent ambient air quality, but due to specific activities in the vicinity.


In response to question by Mr. Sweetman she said, no, one could not normally see PM10 with naked eyes. But in the immediate vicinity of the rock crushing plant larger particles could be seen. Ms Lawton asked Mr. Healy (FCC ) when he monitored PM10 in gate 12. He had not. Within Dublin Airport they only measured NO2. The nearest PM10 monitor location was at Cloghran. NO2 monitoring was done at Malahide, Portmarnock, Balbriggan. Ms. O’Brien asked the information to be available on the internet. Mr. Healy said the previous site had not worked very well, he would refresh the data as soon as he got a chance. Ms. O’Brien asked how, where and when monitoring was decided. Mr. Flanagan said they would normally recommend a condition only if they think there would be problem with this issues, such as a quarry. In this case they did not because there was no problem. Mr. Flanagan provided a copy of the draft Regional Air Quality management plan 1999, adopted in Dec 1999 under 1996 Air Pollution Act. He said it was aimed at premises. Today most pollution arose from road transport, therefore local authority did not have legal authority to address those issues, take action Mr. O’Donnell said the air quality monitoring locations and operations were controlled by independent consultants (previously by RPS and Bord Na Mona recently). In response to question by Mr. Sweetman (referring to data on 10/03/05-11/03/05) that wind speed directions were the same, but the readings for PM10 s were different, and was that because the runway was used in one of the dates, Mr. Bailey said the runway in question was 11/29, he considered the aircraft activity on that small runway would not cause that type of change measured on a 24 hour basis. In response to what caused it he thought (referring to earlier explanation that heavy rock crushing caused such elevated levels) Mr. Bailey said there was some contradiction. Mr. Sweetman said Mr. Bailey’s evidence in the morning was not based on facts but on hypothesis. The hearing continued to move into the module of Climate change.

Climate Change This module was discussed on 2nd May, 2007. I note there were reference to this issue also during the first module in terms of policy issues and particularly in relation to adequacy of the LAP and the SEA.


First party evidence Mr.Bailey had MSc in Meteorology and Climatology He was lead consultant for Air Quality management plan for the Greater Dublin Area, carried out in the late 1990s. He had also prepared the impact assessment for report on the northern parallel runway. He read form a written submission (BC-02/05/2007) The operation of T2 would not have any significant impact on local climate. The curved roof of the building would help reduce of degree of turbulence downwind of the building, and there would be no impact on the existing wind flow conditions beyond airport boundary. Due to the size, alignment and height no shadowing impact would be observed at ground level beyond the airport boundary. The National estimates of Greenhouse Gas emissions published by the EPA for the year 2005 gave a total from domestic civil aviation of 0.116million tonnes of carbon dioxide, compared with 13.5milion tonnes from the transport sector. These were based on aviation fuel sales for domestic flights. Even by 2012 the aviation sector was projected to be less than 1%. While approximately 2.3million tonnes of CO2 contribution was estimated in 2004 from the annual fuel demand for the aviation sector (including domestic and international flights from airports in Ireland), this was based on annual energy, and the amount of CO2 emissions during landing and take-off cycle (LTO) was only a small percentage of this amount (7% for B737-400 series aircrafts), as much of the emissions occurred outside Irish Airspace. Atmospheric emissions were excluded from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate change. National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 did not include specific emission reduction target for the aviation sector, but indicated support for the proposals of the European Commission for inclusion of aviation sector in the emissions trading. The European Commission proposed in 2006 amendment to the Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading to include aviation activities. This would allow airline operators to purchase emission allowances. This would also require operators to monitor and report emissions form their fleet entering into effect form 2011. He noted that this scheme specifically related to aircraft operators and not to airport operators such as DAA, and was designed to encourage higher fuel efficiency. Based on the data supplied by the DAA there would be less then 2% increase in aircraft traffic by 2012 and around 7% in 2024 from the operations of T2 and pier E. This was minor and would have insignificant impact on total Greenhouse Gas emissions generated at Dublin Airport arising from landing and take-off patterns. Total future annual CO2 emissions from airside and landside activities at Dublin Airport had been derived based on projected aircraft movements. During the LTO cycle these would be 150,000 tonnes for 2012 and 200,000 tonnes for 2024. These


were calculated from engine fuel consumption obtained from IACO database. Projected annual CO2 emissions from the boiler plant at Dublin Airport were 24,000-26,000 tonnes per year. The annual fuel consumption estimates for airside and airport operated landside traffic indicated an annual CO2 emissions of approximately 2,400 tonnes from the airport campus, bringing the total emissions from landside and airside activities to 176,500 tonnes in 2012 and 228,500 tonnes in 2024. The Greenhouse Gas emissions from road transport associated with the operation of T2 on the local road network were of minor significance in the national context. National emissions from the road transport sector were estimated to be 13.5 million tonnes or about 19% of total CO2 emissions from Ireland in 2005. Therefore any change arising from the projected additional cars travelling to and from T2 would be negligible. The traffic study carried out by the EIS had estimated that compared to the scenario without T2 volumes would increase by less than 15% in 2012 and 21% in 2024. Use of alternative transport modes and improvements to engine design would help offset the increase in exhaust emissions from vehicles travelling to and from Dublin Airport. The energy generating plant had the benefit of a permit for the EPA in relation to CO2

emissions under the National Allocation Plan. T2 has been designed to include a high energy efficiency CHP plant with annual CO2

emissions estimated at about 6,200 tonnes. In terms of annual emissions form the energy sector this was insignificant at 0.1%. The requirements of condition number 32/33 imposed by the planning authority would be achieved by planned energy saving measures to existing boilers /heating systems coupled with the CHP boiler plant proposals submitted for the T2 energy centre. Evidence by planning authority Rachel Kenny read from page 15 of her written evidence. Referring to the section 18.3.7 of the EIS stating that an annual allowance of 22723 tonnes has been determined by the EPA for the period of 2008-2012, and given that the applicant has indicated an estimate of 17,300 tonnes for T1 for 2005, concluded the cumulative annual amount for T1 and T2 would be 24,000 tonnes for 2012 and 26,200 for 2024. Following a review of the issue of Greenhouse Gas emissions in conjunction with the Council’s environmental and sustainable energy policies she was satisfied that a re-wording of condition numbers 32/33 would be appropriate. She stated that the Council would have no objection to amalgamation of the conditions nos. 32 and 33. Evidence by third parties


Ms. Lawton referred to the letter from DAA to EPA requesting increase of emission allocation (BI-02/05/2007), and asked whether they were seeking an increase in CO2 emissions. She stated (referring to document she circulated BB-02/05/2007) the figures with Standstead (comparable to Dublin Airport with two dominant airlines- Ryanair and easy jet forming 87%of the fleet) CO2 emissions in 2005 were 6.9 million tonnes. She was querying the figures given by Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey would answer later. Ms. O’Brien said it has been proven to be in place. The Government had introduced bans such as smoking ban in other areas to change behaviour. She asked measures to be introduced by the Government to take the lead. Mr. Harley said as in other areas the EIS, Mr. Bailey’s analysis based on two scenarios had grossly underestimated the impact on global forming from emissions. Referring to section 18.6, he said he did not accept it was difficult to quantify. He submitted written evidence but would not directly read form it (BE-02/05/2007) He would try to quantify it using Stern Report. He reiterated that economic analysis was a fundamental precondition to sustainable development. Therefore he would examine climate change impact in economic terms. He believed that the proposed expansion of Dublin Airport will cost at least €8.4 billion in climate change damage alone, and waste of €13million in total. Dublin Airport expansion plan would bring the total number of passengers to 35mppa by 2020 and to a full capacity of 60mppa by 2035 (as stated by CEO of Dublin Airport). Ryanair had provided figures to US Securities and Exchange Commission based on fuel consumption, mileage per passenger trip and number of passengers stating that every Ryanair passenger had produced 93 kg of CO2 in fiscal year of 2006 (A report by UK Government economist had provided 300kg of CO2 for UK passengers, therefore Ryanair was a conservative estimate by 1/3) He referred to figures provided by Prof. Stern that cost of the damage done by Global warming and the contribution of CO2 emissions to that damage at US$ 85 per tonne of CO2 (Page 322 of Stern report). The report had also stated that the warming effect from aviation industry was 2-4 times higher as emissions were released at higher altitude. Using a factor of 2.7 (given by George Monbiot), he calculated that every Ryanair passenger did about €17 global warming damage. In view of the fact that Ryanair had the youngest and cleanest fleet, the other airlines with older fleet would have higher levels. Applying to all Dublin Airport passengers at 21 million in 2006, and using Ryanair figures he calculated 1.95 million tonnes of CO2 and €357million in global warming damage. When the airport reached its capacity at 60 million around 2035 as a result of the expansion programme, the extra 40 million passengers would do an extra €680


million worth global warming damage per year. Using present day values, he calculated the damage from now until 2050 to be €8.4 billion. The 20,000 tonnes equivalent of CO2 allocated by the EPA for each of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 to Dublin Airport was only one hundredth of the 2 million tonnes of CO2 emitted by Dublin Airports 21 million passengers in 2006. (anomaly was because international aviation was not included in Kyoto Protocol) He concluded that when the cost of 4.5 billion arising from waste due to misuse of land, and economic cost of road congestion (as previously presented) are added a conservative estimate of expansion of Dublin Airport was €13 billion. He concluded as such the proposed development was an unsustainable development. Mr. Lumley (for An Taisce) provided a number of submission (BF1, BF2, BF3, BF4, BF5, BF6, BF7 –02/05/2007) He said he wanted to outline particular issues in relation to Climate change in three areas- terminal, land based transport and aircraft emissions. The overriding consideration was that climate impact must be quantified before anything else and quantification could only be done by way of tonnages. He referred to lack of data both in Ireland and elsewhere and different terminologies, where some referred to CO2 equivalent (an aggregate figure which adds to CO2

emissions other Greenhouse Gas emissions, than converts to CO2 emissions) Another difficulty was finding aviation figures in relation to CO2 emissions. There was also confusion as regards to dates of many documents, as well Returning, three areas of emissions, he said there was immediate difficulties with regards to terminal building (18.4. of the EIS). Mr. Bailey document earlier simply referred to one of them and needed clarification, as raised by ms Lawton, he asked if DAA was able to meet the emissions cap imposed by EPA. He suggested leaving this to a later stage to be agreed by FCC was not appropriate Every application had to be looked at in terms of its cumulative impact on national or Global emissions. State sector was required to provide exemplary standards in energy usage. There was no such measures as elementary as use of appropriate light bulbs. Secondly, there was a major deficiency in the EIS 18.14.18, which Mr. Bailey had sought to address in the hearing. There was a major element missing. Land transport for the airport (staff, car hire, commercial development, public, passengers being dropped off / picked up). It should be possible having regard to extensive data available including origin destination figures provided, it should be possible to come up with tonnage of CO2 equivalent for the current land based transport to Dublin Airport. There was a very serious national situation. All of the Greenhouse Gases in Ireland had already risen 160% over Kyoto 1997 levels, as against 13% requirement.


There was very limited lea-way to reduce transport emissions. Therefore they needed to be at least contained at current levels. It was quite clear the mobility strategy proposed by the DAA was inadequate in mitigating transport related emissions. Although there would be advanced use of public transport due to Metro, this was not quantified, and would be undermined by DAAs own transport strategy, 10,000 long term spaces in un identified locations, additional demand by staff of other aviation operations, hotel and other servicing developments that arises from expansion of an airport. If the figures used 15% in 2012 and 21% in 2024 (calculations not produced) how much land based traffic was going to increase taking today as basis. Those figures could not be tenable. Another strategy was introduction of a cap for further growth of car based passenger and staff access. This was not proposed or its impact was not quantified. This was the largest single origin or destination point, and proposed by emanation of the state. Unless it set a precedent for addressing the CO2 emissions, we would be going nowhere. It would be harder to find another project with trans-boundary effect, that would arise from expansion of the Dublin Airport to 38mppa. He referred to difficulties in finding independently verifiable quantitative data on emissions. The EPA figures were only related to flights that had origin and destination within Ireland. He referred to figures related to Ryanair, as reported in the press. There was similar difficulties in obtaining figures from other airports such as UK. He referred to attempts made in the case of Standstead and Gatwick. Some attempt was made on Standstead. The distinctive feature of Dublin Airport was similar to Standsted with Ryanair and Easy jet accounting for 80% of traffic. The study had come up with 6 million tonnes of CO2 (not CO2 equivalent) He suggested a methodology using origin and destination of the flights and using the amount to half way point, they could quantify the emissions. He then looked at the quality of the data (peer reviewed). He referred to The Tyndall centre for research, the need to contain CO2 concentrations, strategy for contractions, disparity between rapidly rising emission levels and governments inability to recognise and respond to the growing crises. Ireland had fastest growing emissions, and had highest per capita aviation miles in Europe. He looked at other sections of the document, such as the need to obtain aviation forecasts, to curb aviation growth until fuel efficiency counter balances the effects. If these could not be achieved, the only way the targets could be achieved by way of contraction. He referred to importance of water vapours impact on higher altitudes causing additional warming. In S.7.5 the conclusions suggested very little improvement and only arising from technical improvements in the aviation industry


The design life of the aircrafts locked the aviation industry into a situation of kerosene dependency as fuel. As such the improvements would not be adequate. The other document he referred to was commissioned by coalition of a number of organisations, entitled ‘Clearing the Air’ by CAN (Climate Action Network) Europe. He then introduced an extract from a book by George Monbiot (biologist and Guardian Columnist) who had originally argued trading to improve poverty. The extracts he read argued a single air trip of a passenger on London Newyork trip generated CO2 equivalent generated by a car in a year. It also explained why impact of airplanes was not confined to Carbon they produced. Aviation was the fastest growing source of Greenhouse Gases. Between 1994 and 2004 the number of people using airports in the UK had risen by 120%, and the energy consumed by planes had increased by 79%. Their CO2 emissions had almost doubled in that period from 20.1 to 39.5 million tonnes. There was no technofix. It concluded that while cuts could be achieved at homes, it was not possible in the aviation industry. Mr. Lumley maintained we could not proceed with analysing impacts of aviation unless we had actual tonnage of emission, without a baseline figures from the aviation industry (industry’s own data) The burden to carryout an Article 3 assessment under the EIA Directive lied first with local authority and now with An Board Pleánala. He submitted An Board Pleánala could not carry out an assessment under Article 3, as neither the baseline data nor the projection data required under Article 5, were available. CO2 emissions had to be calculated. As such the Board could not make a determination without further information. Alternatively the permission could be refused on the basis of inadequate information on EIS. In response to question by the inspector Mr. Lumley said unfortunately there was no model in calculating Greenhouse Gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel had used 2.7 figure. Questions and clarifications Ms. Lawton asked if they were aware of the European views on the effects of Nitrogen Dioxide on the climate change and asked that the Board take into consideration. Mr. Harley asked why in this global warming case DAA did not use the usual argument, ‘do something’ and ‘do minimum’. Mr. Bailey said it was not an exact science, but it would not make much of a difference in this case. We were dealing with a campus development. The scale was different. He agreed with Mr. Lumley that it was very difficult to get information.


Mr. Harley did not agree with the figures Mr. Bailey has produced. The information given by Ryanair to Securities and Exchange Commision would suggest different figures. Mr. O’Donnell said if the point made was that it went too far, he agreed they had gone beyond the impact this development, what they were required to do. He re-explained that in a do minimum situation, the airport could continue to expand, as a matter of law. Mr. Harley did not see any analysis of impact of the proposed development on the climate change. Mr. O’Donnell responded it was very difficult to see how a terminal could effect climate change. Mr. Sweetman stated the EIA directive required looking into trans-boundary effect. He asked how much fuel was used at Dublin Airport. Mr. Bailey’s best estimate was 60-70% of the amount used in the country. (1.5million tonnes of CO2) Mr. Bailey did not know how much fuel was used in Dublin Airport. Mr. Sweetman insisted DAA must have the figures (770,000 tonnes of fuel was used nationally-EPA). He agreed with Mr. Sweetman that it would be in the region of 500,000 tonnes. Mr. Sweetman disagreed with the statement that most of the emissions occurred well outside Ireland. Mr. Harley referred to S.18.4 of the EIS and asked which was ‘this’ figure. Ms. O’Brien asked if registration base of the airplanes would determine the costs. Mr. O’Donnell for DAA referred to EPA licence for the energy centre, and asked Mr. Dix to explain the process. He said Ms. Lawton was right and DAA had applied for an increase in EPA allowance. Yes there would be an increase in CO2 emissions for the airport site when T2 came into operation. But a lot had to be brought into negotiation, as use of CHP would produce more CO2 on site but offsetting what would have been generated by the ESB outside. He repeated CHP was supported by the EU and promoted by the Irish Government. The condition did mitigate against introduction of CHP into the site. In response to question regarding imposition of limits in condition number 32 and whether DAA was appealing against it, Rachel Kenny for the planning authority stated that reason was sustainable development and minimisation of CO2 emissions. They had decided to combine the two conditions (32 and 33), following examination of the figures permitted by EPA. Mr. Dix explained compliance with the original condition would force them to buy from ESB, but at a higher level of CO2 emissions.


Mr. Sweetman said the condition was not legal. Mr. Dix explained that they did look at wind power but there was issues with safety, and yeas they had applied for subsidy to install CHP. It was in the process. The revision suggested by planning authority was acceptable to DAA. Mr. Harley concluded that the figure must be 2.5 million tonnes of CO2, Mr. Bailey agreed. Ms. O’Brien suggested monitoring locations at both ends of each runway, within the compounds of outer markers. Mr. O’Donnell stated they had no difficulty with continuous monitoring and making info available to planning authority and to the public if required. Mr. Bailey stated the monitoring network in and around Dublin Airport was quite good having regard to security of location, supply of electricity In response to question by Mr. Lumley if he could extract tonnage of CO2 emissions for land based transport to the airport, and when he could provide a baseline data, (as EIA Directive required to quantify), Mr. Bailey said the answer was no. One did not know the origin of the journey. Mr.Lumley asked why the information could not be provided given the origin and destination of vehicles in and around Dublin Airport were available in the transport model. Referring to Mr. Bailey’s earlier statement that emissions from short term car parks was larger, Mr. Lumley stated the ratio of short and long term parking was important. Mr. Lumley reiterated Climatic impacts was trans-boundary and had to be examined in that context. At the request of Ms. Lawton planning authority provided a copy of Draft Dublin Regional Airside Quality Management Plan (BG-02/05/2007) Although not during the same session there were references to climate change in the short presentation by Trevor Sergeant (Green Party) on another day. He was concerned that the development if permitted could be seen as another impediment on the road for the country for being carbon neutral (He was not talking about aviation industry being under the radar in Kyoto agreement, which would be revisited soon). An uninformed decision could come back to haunt us. It would be more difficult to comply with our responsibilities at international level morally and cost wise, if proper assessment was not made.


Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage (26/04/2007) This module examined the issues in relation to Built and cultural heritage. It was attended, at the written invitation of the inspector, by two experts from DoEH&LG namely, Brian Duffy chief archaeologist, National Monuments Service, and Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer senior architect Architectural Heritage Advisory Service and Heritage Policy unit DoEH&LG. First party evidence There were three submissions by the first party, by Mr. Lamond Mr. Slattery and Ms. Courtney. Mr. Lamond (lead architect for the project) said he prepared a power point synopsis of the materials related to options for location of T2 with particular emphasis on Corballis House. (AG-26/04/2007) In terms of site analysis the important considerations were depth of terminal box, location relative to pier C and options without pier C. He referred to optimal terminal depths (162m in Standstead, 164 in terminal 5 Heathrow). They had tried to work with narrower boxes. They looked at the area available, the brief was for 75,000m2 giving a three storey building with a footprint of100mx 250m. With the help of slides he explained various options they had looked at. They looked at locating terminal building to the west of Corballis House which measured only 9,000m2 and was totally inadequate. Located to the east of Corballis House the new terminal building became very off centre relative to Pier E, T1 and GTC. (and to future Metro). Walking distances to from transportation centre and from primary functions were becoming too great. They also needed to connect to pier B. They had looked at locating it south of Corballis House, but that meant loosing the most important asset of an airport, places to park the planes. They had looked at fitting it between pier C and Corballis House and perhaps being separated by a road, but it was just too tight, severely impacting on primary functions. They had also looked at a very linear building, but again the walking distances were becoming too extensive for both passengers and staff including baggage handlers. A larger footprint and volume would be required with higher energy requirements and greater environmental footprint. It would also compromise the efficient operation of the terminal building. It also necessitated demolition of a number of buildings, such as catering facility.


Using the schematic diagrams for ideal layouts separately for departure and arrivals process he again explained that each function needed a certain depth to function at optimal level. Using the proposed arrivals plan he maintained that the spaces allocated were as tight as one could get without compromising the functional efficiency. He repeated that the depth remained constant and only the width changed in terms of making a building larger to provided for extra capacity. He then explained the options they had explored in incorporating Corballis House into the proposed development, either within the building envelope or in an external recess. The first option created problems at apron and first floor levels, the setting for Corballis House would only be internal and not in a primary public area, Corballis House itself did not provide an appropriate operational use, it increased the complexity and timing system of baggage system, and severely constrained te primary passenger functions and increased the travel distances. The second option (incorporating Corballis House within an external recess), also had problems. There would be impact at both apron and first floor level, would expand the building footprint, volume and envelope, setting of Corballis House would be compromised as it would be seen only off through road to T1 with restricted views, it increased the baggage system complexity and in-system times, and increased travel distances to primary functions. Most importantly it would effect security, as external recessed increased security risk. He stated the building was not just a sleek box, but a simple designs were necessary for a secure structure. In conclusion, they had recommended demolition as avoidance was not feasible, incorporation into the new building would create unacceptable operational and performance compromises, and Corballis House was of local regional importance and not national importance unlike OCTB which was of international importance. The second speaker for the first party was David Slattery, (conservation architect, a fellow of the inst of architects). Reading from a written brief of evidence entitled’ Observations on the potential impact of the construction of a new airport terminal on Corballis House (AH-26/04/07), the Original Central Terminal Building and the Airport Chapel’, he stated the last two pages of the submission gave a brief outline of works he was preciously involved in. The report has been undertaken because the new terminal would require demolition of Corballis House. A detailed architectural survey was undertaken of exteriors and the interiors and a detailed photographic record has been made. The survey together with the report provided a complete architectural record of the building as it now stood. He referred to times and extent of opening ups in the building in conjunction with the archaeologists. The report set out to address the condition of the fabric of Corballis House and was concerned with addressing the architectural and historical significance of the building.


Under Assessment Methodology he referred to a number of cartographic sources dating back to 1840s and stated that the building as it exists in its present plan form from the early 19th century, but the house appeared to be of 18th century origin having gone through a major reconstruction in mid to late 18th century. The cartographic history indicated that the context and setting of this rural residence was radically altered and changed and that its original context and setting no longer existed. He referred to the dimensional surveys which provided complete architectural record of the building, consultations undertaken with FCC and architectural heritage advisory unit, DoEH&LG, various field investigations and the room by room details provided in the report. He stated that he would not bore the hearing with details. Terminal Building was designed and constructed in 1940 in the international style. He stated that it must rate as one of the most significant architectural designs constructed in Ireland in mid 20th century. The building was quite revolutionary in its design and was described in many reference books. It would have at least national or international rating. It rated as a building of international quality and whilst its original setting had been radically changed with the construction of new and larger buildings and hangars, it still maintained a setting, which provided the building with appropriate view and vistas. The current proposal for T2 would not impact on the setting of the OCTB and made no physical impact on the building itself. The Church of Our Lady, Queen of Haven was built in 1964. It was constructed in an enclosed courtyard. It was listed as having a regional rating. The proposed terminal was considerably removed from it and did not impact on the building. Corballis House as it currently stands was afforded regional importance on the NIAH scale. The building was of some architectural interest. Referring to s 52 of the 2000 Act, and going through architectural assessment suggested in the Architectural Heritage Guidelines for listing as a Protected Structure he stated:

• The house was much altered, modified and extended and could not be considered as an exemplar of good quality architectural design of any particular period

• The house was not the work of an known and distinguished architect • The building had several phases of construction but did not reflect any style

other than that of an early 19th century house • The building made no particular contribution to the streetscape, landscape or

setting • The interiors could not be described as being well designed and rich in

decoration, complex and spatially pleasing, though a number of rooms retained a level of quality and decoration

He concluded that whilst Corballis House is of some architectural interest, it would be difficult to consider that it merits regional importance. He further considered it extremely difficult to consider that in its much altered setting it can be deemed as holding a considerable significance architecturally. The building was an assemblage of phases of construction which have been pulled together through 19th century


remodelling to appear as an early Victorian House. In his view it would be more appropriate to rate the building of being local importance on the NIAH scale. In reviewing the alternative treatment options for Corballis House in particular incorporation of Corballis House within the architectural design or movement of Corballis House in its entirety to another site, he concluded that it has been clearly demonstrated by the architects that the first option was not viable in the context of trying to generate an optimum, efficient and elegant design. Assessment by a specialist firm had indicated that relocation of Corballis House to another site would be highly intrusive, and involved demolition of the central hall and the stair hall and the level of propping and bracing would be extensive, with inevitable cracking and settlement. In their view the level of damage and impact would be unacceptably high, and the original setting would be lost. He also noted that relocation was not considered as an appropriate option under the Architectural Heritage Guidelines. In assessing the impacts of demolition of Corballis House against criteria provided in EPA and NRA Guidelines, he said that removal of a Protected Structure would result in a negative direct and significant impact. This would be mitigated by full recording using measured drawings, photographic records and description. This report would be part of the record. Demolition would allow further study of construction methods and evaluation and determination of the history of the house, and items deemed to be salvageable or significance would be salvaged, such as entrance doorcase, decorative plaster niches in room 4. the residual impacts will also be significant resulting from demolition of a Protected Structure. The third speaker for the first party was Lisa Courtney, (senior archaeologist with Margaret Gowen & Company Ltd.) Reading from a written evidence (AI-26/04/07) she stated that she had undertaken a number of projects including some for the DoEH&LG and Fingal County Council. The archaeological chapter of the EIS for terminal 2 was prepared by the Company. She had reviewed the baseline information presented in the archaeological chapter of the EIS and prepared all the information for the purposes of the brief of evidence. The purpose of an archaeological assessment was to assess and describe the architectural heritage, identify and evaluate the significant impact of the scheme on the receiving archaeological environment, and propose appropriate measures for the avoidance or mitigation of these impacts within the design of the proposed T2 development. She referred to a number of sources they had consulted, and the site inspections carried out with an aim to confirm character, location and condition of previously recorded monuments, to record the location, extent and possible character of newly discovered features, identify areas of archaeological potential where no upstanding features area visible.


They had ongoing consultations with National Monuments Section at DoEH&LG, and since the submission of the planning application, they had carried out two further archaeological assessments as recommended in the EIS (15.5.2 and 15.5.3) for architectural Building assessment, and archaeological assessment of the T2 site (under licence). As a result of these surveys the National Monuments Section had requested additional site works to determine the origin and extent of the earlier structure at Corballis House. She described the additional works that were carried out (in relation to the building), concluding that thickening of the wall in certain sections were the result of 20th century works and not related to a medieval structure on the site, exterior foundations on certain walls were result of post medieval works, four architectural fragments were reuse for the construction of the 17th and 18th century structures. Geotechnical investigations carried out under licence revealed no archaeological deposits, sites or finds. The supervised removal of plaster work at Corballis House confirmed that an earlier structure was contained within the extended 18th /early 19th century house and functioned as a dwelling. The early elements that have survived the extensive remodelling are fragmented and hidden. No activity on the Corballis House site was earlier than the mid 17th century. The original house was a ‘humble cottage’ compared to many cottages of that era. The building seemed to have gone through several phases of extensive refurbishment through the course of the 18th century to reflect the elevated social status of the new owners, the Wilkinson family (1706-1832) changing the structure from a vernacular cottage to polite architecture dictated by the fashions of the time. During period the orientation of the building was changed from west to east. She referred to the site of the Castle, of which there was no visible trace within the townland of Corballis, and the trenches excavated in the area of the car rental facilities, noting that the area had extensive network of live services and cables littered throughout. The tests showed no archaeological soils or features. She also referred to Collinstown House which was removed during construction of the aerodrome in 1935 (Dail records). She referred to the process to identify the archaeological potential at the site using many different techniques, under the supervision of National Monuments Section. The additional tests corroborated with the findings of the EIS, and answered particular concerns of the National Monuments Section. The findings indicated a single storey single pile vernacular dwelling made of locally available material by local people dating to 17th century. The partial and fragmentary remains of this poorly preserved structure were incorporated into the fabric of the later designed house. Architectural evidence detected no unique features or items of significance in relation to the early structure.


There were a number of other examples of vernacular structures (listed in the civil survey) present in North Fingal area today, at various locations including Kinsaley, Corduff, Johnstown, and similar remains to Corballis at various locations such as Rush, Rusk, Baldoyle. She concluded that while interesting, the fragmentary remains of a vernacular post-medieval structure did not constitute a national monument that should be maintained in situ. If development were to proceed, archaeological excavation of the remains would be appropriate to ensure a complete record of the footprint of the building. For the site of the Castle she recommended that architectural excavation should precede the development subject to approval of National Monuments Section. Planning authority evidence Fionnuala May, (Senior Conservations Architect for FCC ) had extensive professional experience. The purpose of her brief of evidence (AJ-26/04/07) was to set out the policy context underpinning the local authority’s adjudication in relation to architectural heritage and archaeological aspects of the application for Terminal 2, to clarify how assessment were reached and to respond to some grounds of appeal. In relation to architectural heritage policy context, she referred to UNESCO convention on protection of World Heritage (1972), ratified by Ireland in 1991. The Granada Convention (convention for the protection of architectural heritage of Europe) 1985 was ratified by Ireland in 1997. These provided the basis for Ireland’s national commitment to protection of architectural heritage. The conservation principles of care and protection of architectural heritage first introduced under early planning legislation were superseded by the local Government planning and development act 1999, and then by the Part IV of the 2000 Act. The main features of this Act were clear obligations for planning authorities to

• to create a record of Protected Structures (RPS) in their functional area • to preserve character of places and townscapes which are of special

architectural historic, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific character or contribute to the appreciation of Protected Structures

• to included objectives in the development plans for protection of such structures and preservation of such areas

• to include interiors, fixtures and land within curtilage of a Protected Structure All works which materially effected the character of a Protected Structure would require planning permission She also referred to National Monuments Acts 1930-2004 and stated that this allows overlap with the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The planning authorities were empowered to protect the architectural heritage in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of their respective functional


areas, through adoption of suitable policies in the development plans. These were given practical effect through liaison between conservation and planning officers. She referred to policies HP8 and HP9 contained in County Development Plan 2005-2011 for protection of built and architectural heritage. Policy HP8: To preserve, protect and enhance the architectural heritage of Fingal

for future generations Policy HP9: To protect structures contained in the Record of Protected Structures

and features that contribute to the character of architectural conservation areas

Under policy context for archaeology she referred to Valetta Convention which Ireland had ratified and the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004, which provide basis for comprehensive protection, and management of the archaeological resource which included known sites and features and those yet to be discovered. The Planning and Development Act, 2000 required development plans to contain objectives for the protection of archaeological heritage. She referred to policies contained in the County Development Plan 2005-2011, in particular Policies HP1, HP2, HO5, HO8, and to the following specific policies included in Dublin Airport LAP. AR1: To secure an architectural assessment of the Recorded Monument Sites within

the Master Plan area in consultation with National Monuments Section AR2: To secure the assessment of the potential impact of any development on

archaeological sites bordering and within the master plan area She stated that DAA was therefore required to undertake archaeological investigations and to comply fully with the National Monuments Acts to ensure any architectural is fully evaluated and resolved. She stated that the architectural and archaeological remains as revealed within the application area were

• The site of a castle (RM DU014-011) of which there is no visible upstanding remains

• Post-medieval masonry within the existing walls of Corballis House (RPS:613)

• The extant of Corballis House • Location of Colinstown House

The Council’s decision reflected the singular circumstances embodied in the application. She referred to Section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which provided that permission may only be granted for the demolition of a Protected Structure in exceptional circumstances. Where a proposal is made to demolish such protected structure, it required the strongest justification before it can be granted permission and will require input from an architect and engineer with specialist


knowledge so that all options other than demolition, receive serious consideration. It may happen that the special interests of a Protected Structure have been damaged or eroded to an extent that demolition is permissible. She described the alternative options considered for the treatment of Corballis House.

• Retention /incorporation of Corballis House within the scheme • Relocation of Corballis House • Deconstruction /reconstruction of Corballis House • Controlled demolition (following comprehensive recording)

Following assessment of various options and careful consideration of the conservation assessment submitted as part of the EIS the decision to apply for demolition was made. The justification came from the fabric, significance and setting of Corballis House. She stated that although included on the RPS Corballis House had its setting and curtilage (which are an intrinsic part of a structure) eroded to a significant degree over the last 50 years as the airport developed around it. The layout of the roads which have greatly impacted on the house took place prior to enactment of the 2000 act. Avoidance was a preferable option, but given the significant constraints the architects for the proposed development were unable to generate a proposal which would satisfy the requirements of the terminal and retain Corballis House. She referred to the recommendations which were incorporated in its entirety as conditions in the planning authority decision. While avoidance would be the preferred option, given the strategic national importance that the terminal 2 project constituted in this instance ‘exceptional circumstances’ as identified in the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Therefore, notwithstanding the architectural and archaeological significance, it was proposed that the most appropriate option was to permit the demolition of Corballis House subject to conditions. In assessing the project Fingal County Council had considered the policies and objectives related to the proposal, and the assessment had concluded that the criteria for exceptional circumstances have been met and the mitigation proposed was in line with best practice and appropriate. In response to propping by Mr. Flanagan she agreed that the architectural heritage objectives of the LAP were contained in section 8.2, and the list of Protected Structures contained in table 2 were in fact included in the County Development Plan. She agreed that the LAP made reference to an individual building only in objective AH1. The OCTB was the building with most significant structure of architectural merit on site.


She agreed the other objectives were related to conservation of architectural heritage as far as is consistent with the development of necessary airport infrastructure. AH2, AH4 in particular. Submissions by third parties Ms. Lawton was deeply saddened that a house that stood for generations was being knocked down. She would love to know the details of Wilkinson family. The passengers waiting for the planes could be given the tour of the house. The proposed development was not only destroying the planet but also built heritage. Mr. Byrne said previously while she was the airport manager they had a heritage program. He had visited other airports and their cultural heritage programs. In one of the conference trips to US Dallas, the heritage program involved a house 150 years old with a display of coca cola bottles. He was saddened to see what was being done here. He said if he could afford would hire an expert who would provide evidence on why the building should be preserved. The experts were hired by companies to justify decisions. He said it seems the decision was made to put the terminal building there and the house had to go. He would have looked at this beautiful historic building with all its imperfections, then decide where the terminal should go. Ms. O’Brien said she had outlined in her previous submissions that she preferred that the whole airport went to west. She agreed with the previous speakers. Mr. Harley referred to the storey about the stranger looking for directions and the response by the local stating I would not start from here. He said the issue was whether terminal should be located at this location in the first place. He referred to the earlier submission by M. Moran (Terminal and Piers study), and the options that were examined, concluding that the eastern option was the best one. The analysis with sensitivity looked robust superficially. He had a written submission (AK-26/04/07) where he had carried out an analysis of the options and weightings more closely. He submitted that with the chosen categories and the weights the results were fixed. He said unless sensitivity test was done to include critical variables you did not really doing a sensitivity test. (He had expertise in the area) He looked at the three categories, presented in Mr. Moran’s table and added a heritage category from 1-5. He said Corballis House was threatened by this proposal and not by others, and applying ‘heritage’ sensitivity the eastern option would become third and not the first option. He concluded that on the basis of the analysis on which the choice of East option was based was not robust and could not serve as a sufficiently reliable basis for the


planning permission sought. The issue was not whether Corballis House could co exist with the terminal, because evidently it could not. He did not think (in reference to previous discussions with Mr. Moran) that one could apply the system used by American institute of architects in this case. He repeated that the categories particularly deliverability was conveniently chosen Mr. Manahan for Ryanair said they would not be arguing on the quality of the house, as put by others. Their argument was that Corballis House was more important in terms of what could be achieved on the site. He referred to previous discussions between DAA and Ryanair where DAA had in response to Ryanair plans to locate a terminal in the northern section proposed to locate a smaller terminal to the south east of T1, but then went ahead and put an application for a much larger structure. He repeated they believed the size was greater than needed. It was their believe that rather than controlling the size through conditions (28) it would be better controlled if Corballis House was retained. He said DAA had no interest in developing western campus, which was realistic as they owned the lands in the eastern campus. Their case was that T1 was currently accommodating 22mppa, and could accommodate 25mppa, together with T2 which could hold 25mppa capacity of the eastern campus would be over 50mppa. He questioned how one could control this by way of conditions. Corballis House could be a way to control. He referred to the presentation by Mr. Lamond, and the fixed footprint which they tried to fit into various locations. He said this was based on 25 000m2, and they had not looked at a building with 15,000m2 footprint. He said the whole thing was driven by the applicants starting point of I need this floor area, and I must have it, Corballis House is in the way so it needs to be demolished, rather than saying Corballis House is there how can I work around it. If one could jump over the road, they could also jump over Corballis House. It could be retained so that the traffic passing could see it in the context of how things were previously. The option of incorporating it into the new building was dismissed because of interference with other uses such as ‘storage’. A smaller building could be built in the space and leave the house as is, alternatively a terminal could be built in the northern section, or in the western section.


They did not believe the circumstances were such that a building of this size must be built at this site, there is no alternative and Corballis House must be knocked down. They did not believe such circumstances existed under the current planning system. Mr. Sweetman started by saying that the section in the EIA process was headed ‘cultural heritage’. Secondly ‘the yoke’ (referring to connection to pier D in front of OCTB) took so ‘majorly’ from the setting of OCTB, he did not think with that sort of destruction one could do much worse to it. Similarly Corballis House has been degraded since 2000, since the Act was passed. The section 57 (10)(b) said you could only demolish under exceptional circumstances, if there is no alternative. There were lots of alternatives. Questions and clarifications In response to points raised, Mr. O’Donnell referred to PM/SOM report and stated that reading the report in detail would indicate it is a very sophisticated report and included the points raised by Mr. Harley. Alan Lamond said while not being the author of PM/SOM study he had examined it very carefully. The study was concerned with the heritage issues. One of their concerns was related Terminal and Piers OCTB. They too were concerned with cultural/heritage issues, and had looked at various options, and had come to the conclusion that southern option was a better option, for a range of issues. He repeated the impact on the curtilage of OCTB was an important consideration. He responded to Ryanair team and said that it was not the storage areas that were located in the area where Corballis House was located, it was the key service functions such as stairs and lifts and mechanical functions. He repeated the depth was the key. Making a building smaller was only possible through reduction of the width. In response to the question by the inspector that as the 17th century cottage was discovered within Corballis House following completion of PM/SOM study and indeed the lodgement of the application, would the rating of the house be changed in the light of the recent discoveries (and were they aware of the recent developments), Fiunnula May for the planning authority said they were aware of the recent works being carried out, and no they would not change the rating. She explained that there was a particular reason why a building was rated in a particular way. It was not necessarily related to their significance, but in accordance with the ratings devised by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH). If a building was not given a listing of regional higher rating, than the building could


not be included in the list for Ministerial recommendation to be included in the Record of Protected Structures. In some cases there was a borderline situation, which she thought could be apportioned to Corballis House, where the rating was on the cautious side. The buildings of local importance could not be subject of a ministerial list for recommendation for inclusion in the RPS In FCC they normally accepted the rating given by the NIAH, except in extraordinary situations where an error was made. Mr. Slattery for the first party stated that there was a difficulty with the level of guidance the guidelines offered. He referred to the criteria he quoted previously. The criteria were very effective and fair. Using the criteria again the rating would remain the same. The recent investigations had confirmed his view from the earlier stage that the building was a mix of bits and pieces from various times. The findings might have changed the view from archaeological point of view, but from architectural point of view there would be no change. The inspector invited the experts to express their views. Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer (DoEH&LG) PhD in architectural history, had a long list of credentials. He stated that the view of the department previously was that the building was of regional importance and this had not changed. Referring to the evidence by the planning authority, he stated that the department would take the view that in this case those exceptional cases had arisen. Reading from section 57(10)(b) of the Act, in relation to exceptional circumstances it was the view of the department that such circumstances have arisen. The suggestion by at third party regarding alternatives, he said there was nothing in In response to the question posed by the inspector whether something very important and valuable was being lost and if so were there exceptional circumstances to warrant such a decision, he said they agreed that exceptional circumstances had arisen. The building had incorporated section from six or seven different phases 17, 18, and 19th century and it was not easy to compare with other buildings. Clearly it had 17th century building fabric and as such was of some interest. There were other buildings with 17th century fabric in Fingal area. They had looked at the overall context. The department had taken an overall view and when one is dealing with important infrastructure development exceptional circumstance may arise and they believed they had done so in this case.


Chief archaeologist, Mr. Brian Duffy (DoEH&LG), wanted to clarify that the National Monuments Act did not provide for any ratings of monuments. In regard to what was contained in Corballis House, it was a national monument within the meaning of the Act, but the building did not have sufficient archaeological significance to raise it to level of a national monument. They would not be very concerned about its removal through an archaeological process, that would be the standard mitigation measure. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Mr. Slatery stated that following taking measurements, he had considered that the thickness of the walls suggested an archaeological dimension. Mr. O’Donnell clarified that they were directed to carry out further investigations and the maps provided today represented the up to date situation, and there was corroboration between Mr. Slatery and .. Mr. Sweetman asked if they had considered removing Corballis House to Lisadel house, and whether they considered importance of Countess Marchievitz., and referred to a storey of Corballis House by David Nolan published by Aer Rianta, he read Countess Markiewicz rented Corballis House .when she set up a training programme for republican youth movement and said this was of extreme cultural importance. He said Mr. Slatery’s evidence was completely false. He also said that the house was used by the British Army in 1918, and asked if that did not constitute cultural significance. Mr. Slatery had read the book. One of the Wilkinson was Lord Mayor of Dublin which could have some passing significance. Countess Markiewicz had spent a lot of time in a lot of places. He did not think there was any cultural linkage to Corballis House. In relation to importance of the extent of the landownership and that the reference to a humble cottage was questionable, as it was rather a large ‘farm house’, Fionnula May said it was a three bay cottage and she agreed with the description. Mr. Sweetman insisted the original building at 6m x9m was very big for its time, it was a stone building, not a mud cottage, and then it was turned into a big house. Its importance was being underplayed. In response to question when Corballis House was degraded, Mr. Slattery said he said it was compromised, by airport development around it. Mr. Sweetman asked when the lawn around the house was removed, and said it was after 2000 Act. Fionnula May (FCC) did not agree, the aerial photos indicated otherwise. Mr. Sweetman said it was converted to offices illegally. Mr. Manahan asked the distance between Corballis House to pier E. Alan Lamond responded 68m to pier C plus the 13-14 depth of pier C.


Yes they had considered relocating pier E to one end. The most valuable piece of land from airport planning point of view was apron space. It was constrained on that side by the runway and there would not be adequate space to park planes. In response to question that the options they looked at was always based on the area requirement given by DAA (3 storey building of 75,000m2) as the starting point, he responded affirmative. In response to question by Mr. Manahan that if the Board turned the application down, if keeping the house would cause him grief, Mr. Slatery said he would be quite happy. He had not set out to condemn the house. He had considered keeping the house within the building, and asked how far one needed to move to see it properly. He said one had to ask the question if the house justify a treatment such as moving like a national monument he did not think so. In response to same question, Fionnula May said the Council’s attitude was always to preserve these buildings and it was not a question of being happy or indifferent. She could not comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of various options. They would respond regardless of the size of the development proposed. If another application came in that did not involve knocking the house it would preferable. Yes, they had one precedent demolition of a railway bridge (F02A/04259) the bridge was inhibiting freight traffic on Dublin Belfast corridor. It was allowed to facilitate development of national importance. In response to question if there were other alternatives, the exceptional circumstances would not arise, she said the alternatives were apparently clearly examined and found not be acceptable. Therefore exceptional circumstances would pertain. The application was being examined on the basis of what was being proposed not on other proposals. In response to question by the inspector regarding the curtilage of Corballis House, Mr. O’Donnell referring to many cases he was involved in, said his submission was that in this as the curtilage was the footprint of the building. He referred to caselaw, Riversdale House (Begley and Clarke v. south County Dublin) where the High Court held was that the gate piers and the house were protected but the area in between was not Mr. Slattery referred to 1974 maps were the best to show the earlier curtilage. He agreed with Mr. O’Donnell that it did not have a curtilage anymore. Mr. O’Donnell stated that this matter (what is protected) was considered in a High Court case, (Ian ? properties v An Board Pleánala). What was protected was what was protected from the date the actual order was made in each development plan, so that what the curtilage might have been when the building was first protected may not have been the same curtilage when it is most recently protected.


Mr. Harley asked if there was a specific sensitivity test in relation to heritage, and following response by Alan Lamond he concluded that this confirmed his earlier conclusion that the results were previously determined. Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer (DoEH&LG) referred to section 54 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and said the legislation allowed for architectural salvage. He said some confusion arose in the Guidelines (Page 91, 6.7.6 and page112, S 7.4). He said while they were against a trade of salvage materials and removal of features from one building to put into another, they were in favour of salvage in the case of buildings that are going to be demolished. These were apart from those that had to be salvaged under the National Monuments Act. Should the Board decide to grant permission they would expand beyond the condition imposed by the planning authority regarding items to be salvaged, in particular to include joinery items. He suggested a general condition requiring further evaluation and drawing up a list of features to be salvaged by the applicants with the agreement of the planning authority. Brian Duffy (Chief Archaeologist, DoEH&LG ) said they would expect and require archaeological supervision of all removal works, and archaeological recovery of all items (stones, timber), re-used in the building. It would then be a mater for the national museum to decide on the disposition of how to proceed. Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer came back to the hearing on a subsequent day of the oral hearing (02/05/2007) and made a submission to clarify some of the matters raised by third parties in the earlier session. He referred in particular to suggestion that some historical events concerning Corballis House had not been dealt with in the submissions of the applicant, specifically a connection with Countess Markiewicz, and with the arms raid by the IRA in 1918. Reading from a written statement (exhibit BH-02/05/2007) and including copies of the book by David Nolan referred to by the appellants, and an OS map, he said the houses occupied by Countess Markiewicz in the Dublin area could be identified by references in contemporary Tom’s Directories, and in her biographies. He went through the details of these, and stated that David Nolan’s book was consistent with this account. The IRA arms raid was related to the Collinstown House which was occupied by two units of the British army, which was demolished in the 1930s lay on the other side of the public road to Corballis House.it was clear that British army did not occupy Corballis House which remained in private ownership until the 10940s. He said he hoped that this clarified the matter that the connections eluded in the previous session were not in fact correct. Mr. Sweetman who had raised the issues said he had not read the page of the book prior to the references, agreed with the conclusions and apologised.


Urban design, Building design, passenger experience and visual impact (30th April, 2007) First party presentations For this module the first party had three presentations. The first was by Alan Lamond Director of Pascal & Watson, and the lead architect for the T2 project. (power point exhibit AR-30/04/2007) He outlined the primary objectives of the project as

• Development of a new terminal, pier and forecourt (road frontage) facilities for 10-15mppa

• Deliverability of first phase by end of 2009 • An auditable process engaging stake holders • Best value and right cost in terms of both capital and life cycle • Safe deliverability of the project and minimum impact on existing operations

The secondary objectives included specific objectives for the terminal, and pier For the terminal

• Ability to incorporate (CBP) customs and Borders facility • Meeting airline and operator requirements • Enhanced customer experience • Successful retail component • Flexibility of design and future proofing (capability to meet changing future

requirements) • Independence of operation from T1 • Sustainable landmark building

For the pier Sizing to suit projected stand mix, being able to cope with busy hour and forecast growth Efficient and elegant building

• Further objectives were clear and simple way finding, • Unobstructed passenger routes, • minimum level changes • avoidance of cross flows • Comfortable waiting areas

The landside development was consistent with the airport master plan, and the relationship of the terminal building to the road system was the main driver of landside development.


It provided segregation of the traffic for T2 from T1, thus helping improve traffic congestion. Provision of arrival kerb in front of the terminal building was an unusual achievement for a large airport development. Future Metro station and Ground Transportation Centre provided an ideal point of arrival for passengers, a main node connecting into both terminals, allowing passengers to reach either in a comfortable way. These together with the road system provided a cohesive proposition where whole landside circulation came together. There was also a link between the terminals, while the flows were not big, they needed to ensure connection for staff and those passengers needing to move. All of the linkages crossing the forecourts were elevated and separate from the road level, therefore there was no mix of passengers and vehicles. Referring to condition number 29 he submittted that it was not justified because of distance and the passenger numbers. Distances at 158m was a lot less than 300m referred to in IATA. Also a different building design would be required to house a travelator. Their design was appropriate for the number of passengers. On airside, Pier E provided 19 gates and code C stands. There were 6 contact stands in front of pier C so there was a net gain of 13 contact stands. They had ability to provide ‘MARS’ stands (multiple aircraft ramp systems) where you could provide for both code C or Code E planes. There would be some re-grading of aprons and re- aligning of taxi ways to provide easy access to stands. They were designing the terminal and piers for service level C (Reasonable service at reasonable cost, recommended minimum design level by IATA). The constraints in the depth and width of the site area led to development of two buildings linked as one. On one side the building fit in between the access route incorporating route to T1 and pier C, and on the other between the catering buildings, hangar and T1. There were three primary levels for the passengers. Main checking floor for passengers, primary arrival level, and primary departure level. Pier C was incorporated at the arrivals level. The departures area was sailing across on top of pier C. it took advantage of the volume to provide pre clearance area for us immigration and retail / catering areas. All was developed within one cohesive architectural treatment, in a curvelinear form. Pier E was designed to get max number of contact stands in the area available. The design was specifically configured to move from phase I to phase II seamlessly with no threat to the operation of the terminal as it expanded.


The design principles were consistent with those established in the Dublin Airport LAP. There were clear references to the ‘character’ of the building. They used that as an opportunity. The terminal building would be a major contributor to the urban design style of the Landside airport campus. It would transform the approach for all surface access traffic, creating a contemporary image for the airport community as a whole. The layout, form, content and fabric of the building all contributed to create a radically different identity and set a new benchmark for all future developments at the airport. Other design principles included

• Continuity and enclosure (making sure space in front of the buildings are enclosed by the building, where public, semi public and private spaces for both pedestrians and road traffic were distinguished),

• Legibility (making sure key components of the building are readily understood as in the check-in hall, delivering an environment as welcoming as possible),

• Ease of movement (way finding as intuitive as possible for all passengers) and they tried make sure all the spaces were generous and met the needs of ‘meeters and greeters’, plus ‘weepers and wailers’

Tried to make sure that movement patterns aided by the architectural form and central spinal corridor with roof light. The passenger experience started before they got to the building. They were trying to change the present. The first glimpse of the building would give a positive impression in terms of space, volume, ease of movements through the campus, within and between buildings and clarity of signage helping them go directly where they wanted to go. The urban design philosophy was founded on the concept that the Ground Transportation Centre and metro right at the heart of the campus, with clearly defined routes to both terminals. Design of Terminal 2 The arrivals journey was on one level. 75% of the passengers did not change any levels until they got to MSCP. (25% would drop down to kerb level for taxi).immigration hall able to accommodate large volumes of passengers also had generous ceiling height at 5m. similarly the reclaim hall was spacious, with ample circulation space. The customs hall was more modest with drop of floor to ceiling height, moving from airside to landside functions onto a generous arrivals hall joining their ‘meeters and greeters’ Experiencing the benefit of the central way finding spine. The departures The checking hall facing the departures forecourt creates an environment as welcoming as possible with clear visibility of functions. Passengers entering the building go either through conventional checking desks or through self servie option to drop-in desks. They rise up to the heart of the building at its highest section to


accommoate the lifts, the building rises as they move up in their journey. The departure lounge (not street as in T1) but a radically different concept, a relaxing experience. Clear visibility of the airfield, as they move into the generous volumes of the pier, with clear visibility of the plane they are about the board. The passenger experience and sensibilities were also influenced by materials. They use high quality materials in the external environment, gracious landscape features, internal design concept capturing Irish palette and local materials. While it was an international airport it was an Irish building. The external landscaping and ponds would similarly appropriate setting for an international terminal. Using a stylised diagram he explained the functions of various areas in the departure process. Check-in hall needed be wide enough to face into the forecourt. The landside concourse needed to be square to provide adequate space for Weepers and wailers. The security function needed to be as wide as possible to pass as many passengers as quickly as possible. Ideally, the departures lounge needed to be spacious where people could see all the functions available to them as they moved onto long departures pier. The central spine needed to be crystal clear to provide as direct as possible to the planes. Taxi arrivals, courtesy coaches dropped off in front of the building. In Dublin the airport community wanted ‘shoreline checking’ (long linear arrangement). They provided 56 check-in positions which can dual as conventioanl or drop in desks. There were areas for OOG (oversized baggage) checking, and for super out of gauge ( that do not use conveyor belt at all). The queing areas were calculated on the basis of IATA standards, and could be either straight or Disney style. Self service Kiosks (SSK) were located adjacent to the vertical circulation. Bag drop positions, self labelling etc would all be accommodated when required. Security control right at the heart of the building had 19 lanes to have adequate capacity and reduce waiting. In Dublin Airport at the moment there was very short depth before and after the conveyor, which slowed the process. People needed time to unpack their laptops, toiletries etc before and re pack after wards without delaying passengers coming after them. There was also a route for premium passengers (for long haul flights). He moved onto condition number 34. Explaining the distances, and taking on board the comments by FCC they reduced the journey time . this was not a situation where they wanted a straight line but rather give people time to catch their breath look around, at the orientation point, having gone through the stressful part the passengers wanted to know how long before the pier, but wanted to relax.


In this case there was a second orientation point where they moved to either pier B or to Pier E, with clear way finding to either. Also clear way finding to catering area, or retail area. As they moved through the departures lounge into gates with contact stand capcbility, with size purposefully designed to accommodate either type planes. In the arrival scene, the double sided pier best in terms of function. The immigration hall provided 18 immigration boots. The width of the immigration hall changed with time. it started from the outer wall of pier C. The depth remained constant. There was also provision for transfer passengers. The baggage reclaim hall provided a clear route for the passengers with no baggage to claim. The perimeter of the carousel determined the size of the baggage hall. Some required 70m, some required 90m belt. It allowed for belts specific to the size of the planes, for OOG and super OOG bags, but also special belts for premium passengers. Again the width of baggage hall expanded with time, the depth did not change. The customs hall needed to have short frontage, but allow for choice red, green or blue channel, as well as space for customs control support facilities. Also accommodated functions for dept of agriculture The arrivals hall again needed to be spacious to meet the needs of passengers as well as ‘meeters and greeters’. This hall allowed of small amount of retail and also catering for those waiting for passengers, and also served departing passengers with ‘wailers and weepers’. From there they moved onto their onward transport modes. The aim was to make the basic journey as simple and as direct as possible. The design also needed to provide functional areas for the staff, with clear demarcation of airside and landside areas, and for ease of movement through the building. He outlined how this was achieved both within arrival and departure areas, at the back of public areas, using vertical and horizontal circulation areas. Delivery routes for staff and goods needed to be considered, including catering facilities, and retail goods. The primary retail deliveries were from the departures lounge with dedicated goods lifts, with minimum possible interference with passenger routes. There was also need for clear route solutions, for waste. This included again clear demarcation fo ladnside and airside. One of the problems was trolleys. Getting them where they were needed. Throughout the main consideration was to ensure clear demarcation of airside and landside and no breaches of security.


The baggage hall was designed to cater for the absolute peak period. There was crisp arrangement for transfer of bags. Hold baggage screening systems needed to be provided. Airline support systems were best located above the check-in desks to allow staff to see and respond quickly to developing peaks. Ramp (Apron facilities) had to provide for baggage handlers, offices for staff operating on the airside. As the building capacity expanded the building got wider. The building form incorporated full use of pier C. They were providing a dramatically improved outlook as one approached to airport, not just to T2. They were proposing a curvetious and simple building. There was a lot of sophisticated geometry behind the design of the building, with very consistent sectional treatment all throughout. The double curvature was created by the check-in hall. The central spine provided the direct route for passengers in the centre. The building had glass where the passengers would get maximum benefit. The roof provided the best insulation. The glass front to the front was a key element, providing a welcoming face to the passengers as they arrive and lasting impression as they left. The pier building was equally spacious and provided They considered this as a landmark building, a recognisable contemporary piece of architecture appropriate to an international airport as a gateway t the world. They incorporated Irish character through materials. A proper environment for both the travelling public and the staff. Energy performance of terminal 2 Mr. Dix was a director of ARUP and a mechanical engineer. He was a member of group advising UK Government on the introduction of EU energy Performance of Buildings Directive. He was also the chair of group providing guidance on compliance with the legislative aspects of Energy and Carbon emissions in buildings. (exhibit AS- 30/04/07) He explained how the issues of energy use and mitigation of co2 levels arising from T2 were addressed. They addressed, the baseline energy demand of the terminal, potential energy conservation measures, co2 emissions as a result of energy use of T2, and potential renewable energy sources. Their baseline calculation estimated co2 emissions to be in the region of 17,500 tonnes / year. This arose form combination of use of electricity and gas for heating. It maintained fresh comfortable conditions.


This baseline allowed 6% lower than the regulations would provide. The significant portion of energy use was heating and cooling. Achieving comfortable levels usually required treating fresh air before it got to the building to 12 degrees at high levels. This system introduced fresh air at 18 degrees (normal air temperature in Ireland) at lower levels. For energy conservation they reduced the numbers of fans by using natural air exhaust, through use of natural daylight and control of high efficiency artificial lighting, using variable water pumping systems, high efficiency boilers, and effective automatic building control systems. These reduced the energy consumption by a further 17% down to 14,500. There was further scope for improvement the amount of energy use from electricity was about half of gas, while co2 from electricity was three times as much as 3 times as much was generated during production of electricity. Ireland’s carbon intensity was about 40% higher than UK. In the case of power stations only 35% went to the consumer. By producing energy on site the waste heat could be used on site. This way the carbon emission at the site would be reduced to 12,560. They had also looked at potential for using renewables firstly they considered biomass. Combined heat and power they were not very good. Furthermore there was a shortage of such fuel in Dublin region, and there was no reliable pellet supplier. Secondly they had considered ground sourced heat. This firstly used electricity, to power the heat pumps. Secondly the ground conditions not appropriate as clay over limestone was impervious and not efficient. They had considered solar heating for hot water, but they were already producing heat from the combined heat and power plant. Ireland was yet to fully implement the Building Energy Use Directive. They had therefore tested the building against UK implementation. Having used the UK model they found that the T2 building would be 32% below the notional building and therefore well within Irish targets. EU overview stated that use of combined heat and power represented a substantial potential for increased energy efficiency and reduced environmental impacts. In fact in Ireland there was incentives for innovative schemes including CHP. In conclusion they considered the design included many energy options for T2, A CHP plant would reduce carbon emissions, the design bettered the standards presently in place in Ireland and Uk, and they considered they have addressed the mitigation of energy consumption of the terminal building. Landscape and visual impact Thomas Burns, a landscape architect with Brady Shipman and Martin, was involved in a number of major infrastructure developments. (exhibit AT-30/04/07)


The landscape assessment of the EIS assessed the likely significant effects of the proposed T2 on the receiving landscape and visual environment. The assessment included review of the plans, sections and elevations of the proposed scheme, aerial photography, various publications and reports, together with visits to the site and environs of the proposed development. The assessment had also regard to the EPA Guidelines on the information to be contained in EIS. Eighteen photomontages were prepared containing views which represented typical range of views towards the proposed facility and seek to illustrate the physical and visual nature of the proposed development in its setting. He described the existing landscape as visually open and relatively flat, where the area outside the airport lands retained a rural and agricultural quality. By contrast the lands within airport were characterised by buildings related to airport operations and associated facilities, and incoming and outgoing flights. The airport determined the character of the landscape of its surrounds. Following a brief history of the development of the airport from early 1940’s he described the main characteristics of the proposed development. the check-in hall, arrivals and departures area would be housed within a single structure of contemporary styling. The roof would be of strongly curving metal profile with extended overhanging canopies. While having a central concrete core and plinth detail the external walls of the building were predominantly a mix of opaque and translucent glazing accentuating the overall contemporary approach. The roof of the check-in hall rose from 12 m at its eastern end to 28m at its centre. The roof level over the arrivals/departures area rose to 34m falling slightly down to 30mat the airside overhang above pier E. The submission further described the other buildings pier E, central plant building, also referring to MSCP. As the existing environment comprised a robust and highly developed environment the proposed development had limited potential for adverse impact. In effect it represented further expansion of an already major airport facility and as such consistent with the existing and emerging trends of such a facility. The construction would give rise to visual impact through loss of trees and plantings, ground and landscape disturbance, and necessitate removal of some roadside planting. These will be locally significant. The proposed development necessitated removal of Corballis House. They noted the house retained none of its original landscape or visual setting and was fully subsumed into the general fabric of the airport facilities. As a historical structure its removal would give rise to a significant visual impact. As with construction stage potential impact form post-construction or operational stage would be primarily limited to more immediate airport related areas. The proposed facility will be visible as a new structure within the existing expanse of built development at Dublin Airport.


From the external areas, the proposed development would be most readily perceived from areas immediately south of the airport including the South Parallel Road, the associated link road to Collinstown Cross and from limited number of residential properties immediately south of link road. In views from such areas the proposed terminal building would be a primary visual feature and its contemporary styling will be of particular visual interest. It would have a positive impact on the views. Going through photomontages submitted with the EIS, he concluded that the proposed development would have a limited and generally positive impact on views form outside of airport lands. The proposed development would dominate the central landscape and its strong architectural presentation would define the ongoing landscape and visual character for Dublin Airport While the proposed development would increase the sense of illumination at the airport, the illumination would be primarily internalised within the terminal and avoided extensive light-spill to the night sky. The existing environment was already highly illuminated and as such no further impact would arise. The submission referred to a number of mitigation measures during construction stage, including fencing and hoarding, and during operation stage to include provision of a high quality setting for the landmark building, creation of a sense of arrival at the entrance to a modern airport complex, provision of woodland planting to frame the approach, and choice of high quality finish and detailed design for lasting quality. The landscape master plan provided for landscaped lawns on either side of the approach road, to include semi-mature tree planting, and punctuated by narrow bands of sandstone that run consistently across the whole of the entrance corridor. Woodland belts defined and framed the lawns. A series of stepped pools led to the eastern elevation of the proposed terminal. Shallow pools incorporating cascading water and water bodies would be illuminated. A space would be provided for setting of flags of nations in the form of a ‘park of nations’, relocated from its present location. The proposed development would have a significant residual positive impact in defining the progress of the airport and marking a distinctive step forward in the treatment of building development at the airport. Planning authority evidence Reading relevant section of her written brief of evidence Rachel Kenny for the planning authority conceptualised the proposed building in three elements (main


terminal building, the check-in hall and the pier), and connection via an elevated bridge over the vehicular route to T1. The curvilinear roof design of the main body of the building was reflected in the smaller check-in hall. The main front façade to check-in hall was distinguished by its vertical full length glazing. Pedestrian links to T1, to future MSCP and to arrivals kerb formed the smaller building components. In response to arguments put forward by third parties in their appeal that the proposed development is excessive in terms of scale / size, she maintained that T1 would be operating at and beyond capacity until T2 is operational, and T2 had been designed to facilitate re-balancing of passengers between T1 and T2 , improving the situation for passengers using T1. She also maintained that T2 was designed for improved passenger experience with a greater and more appropriate quantum of floor space per passenger. This would accord with DS4 objective of the LAP. It was also accepted that T2 would be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changing aviation/ passenger trends or any emergency which may arise. She was satisfied that ht size of the proposed building did not prejudice the ultimate delivery of T3 within the western campus as per Dublin Airport LAP (reference to condition number 28) The external design / architecture of the building was considered acceptable and advancing the planning authority’s objective pertaining to design standards. The proposed terminal building was distinguished and prominent by virtue of its massing and curvilinear design and would contribute positively to architecture and aesthetics within the airport. The planning authority assessment had also related to ensuring that passenger experience was prioritised with the proposed building, ensuring this was unequivocally addressed by the applicant and by way of conditions. She suggested amendments to conditions numbers 38, and 40 . The consideration in relation to passenger experience included experience for both arriving and departing passengers and quality of the layout. It related to the ease which passengers can access /egress terminal whether by public or private transport, the ease which passengers can find their way around the terminal, between terminals and external facilities, the quality of external architectural and quantum and quality of internal space provided for passengers. They had further considered circulation issues, including between terminals, between T2 and future MSCP, and between terminals and future Ground Transportation Centre, and Metro north stop (which will be underground). Ground Transportation Centre also allowed for integration with a monorail system to carry passengers to western campus in future.


While the condition number 29 had required a travellator between T1 and T2 arising form concern regarding walk times and lack of integration between terminals, they had no objection to its removal, as they were now satisfied that the passenger numbers would be low, and a travellator would unduly compromise the design and would be of limited practical value. They were further satisfied that the revisions introduced by the first party (during presentation by Alan Lamond) represented an appropriate response to the condition number 34. She further referred to way finding and signage and condition number 37. Referring to s. 19.2.3 of the EIS in relation to access for the mobility impaired, they were satisfied that the design satisfactorily dealt with the issue, as augmented by the condition. She had reviewed the issue of green house gas emissions in conjunction with the Council’s environmental and sustainable energy policies and was satisfied that a re wording of condition numbers 32 and 33 in a combined manner would be more appropriate. (wording suggested). Third party evidence: Ms. Lawton said there was no mention of aging population and people with disabilities. She asked for signage in Us Gaelge to be given equal status with English signage. She suggested revolving doors would be better for energy saving. Marie O’Brien congratulated the designers, saying it was very good and in a different location it would be magnificent. She has been travelling over 50 years, and remembers early ones being Nissan huts.. She had also noticed her mobility was being reduced. While she noted refernces of 150m here or there. The transatlantic flights presently arrived early in the morning. If half of the north Atlantic flights used pier E, the remaining ones had to go pier B. walking distances to Pier B have not been given. She noted elimination of travelator. She went through the route one would follow coming from Metro, through the ghost car park, through T2 , and other end of pier E or along the front of pier C and terminal 1 to pier B. she asked the distances involved. She suggested the people would not be using the lovely lounge area much, particularly the older ones. She suggested the new terminal at Charles DE Gaulle did not work because there were no toilets near, gates. In Luton queuing system was quite bad. She hoped this would not be the case in this terminal. Taking off shoes going through the security gates, etc were problematic in some airports. She was worried about the distances, and asked how much one had to walk if piers B and E were full and passengers were directed to pier D.


Mr. Manahan for Ryanair said from the point of view of users arriving a single building rather than two buildings, taxis buses etc use a circular road system it would be easier. In this system drivers had to choose which terminal to go to, and then go around. He was looking for clear signage approaching to the building, but no signs were shown on the presentation. T1 had ugly signs I front but there were no signs for T2. They believed the passengers would not have a smooth travel up to the terminal. Secondly, walking distances from the metro or from Ground Transportation Centre through the car park, and through the terminal and onto the piers would be too long. They reiterated that the check-in building was unnecessary excessive in size and the whole building could be reduced in size, by its elimination. They needed more clarification as to why travellator was being taken out and whether the reason was its cost. They thought the central lounge and retail area was much larger than it needed to be. This seemed to be more for the benefit of retailers, who wanted more footfall. The revisions introduced only shortened the route it by 29 seconds. He did not think it was adequate. He said if premium passengers were allowed shorter routes, the average punters should be given a shorter route as well, free of retail offers. He argued people were forced to go along a longer route than necessary based on retail needs. They believed the depth of the lounge area and retail area was excessive, and the depth of the building could be reduced. He asked what the depth of T1 building was. From the front door, through the check-in area, Disney queue, security, the street and the back of the shops. He wanted to compare it with the 100m which was said earlier as minimum necessary. Ms. Lawton, asked how they complied with decentralisation policy, and effects of the environment on the communities, (Policy DAS4) Ms.O’Brien asked if it had not been more appropriate to request further information instead of conditions. She noted the decision of the planning authority was made in a hurry. The planning authority maintained they had sufficient information regarding the issues. All needed was details. Ms. O’Brien asked that a travellator be provided. Mr. Alan Lamond responded to some of the points raised by third parties. The signage included highway gantries, these were in the EIS. Way finding would be provided in detail, in relation to condition number 37.


Irish language signage would be provided in the terminal, again the details would still needed to be worked out. There were further linkages to the signage along the motorway etc. the details would have to be worked through as one went along The distances- changing age profile of population was a growing concern for all terminal operators and a key element in all terminal design. The profile was shifting considerably. For every change of level people were offered lifts, escalators and stairs. Throughout the whole design process they were trying to reduce the distances as much as possible, but they also needed to cater for security arrangements and large aircrafts, which necessitated larger areas.. Referring to the linkages between the two terminals he said the population using the landside was very small. He pointed the location of energy centre, IATA requirements of 300m. There were travellators in the airside, in pier C. He pointed that distance in lounge area was 60m. The equivalent distance in Standstead was 100m. in Heathrow it was 190m. He reiterated that the lounge area was very compact. There was a lot of customer research done. They wanted to be able to look around, shop or use catering facilities once they went through the security. He indicated how one would go from decision point to pier B. Airports did not like revolving doors, as they tend to get stuck. They tried instead to provide three draft lobbies. There was generous provision of toilet facilities. They had consultations with users, to capture everything that was required. Front to back T1 was about 90m. He thought using T1 as benchmarking was inappropriate. It was very compressed and created an inefficient environment. Particularly discharge of people to ‘street’ was very problematic. In T2 they had provided a very compact solution, without compromising efficiency and passenger comfort. Ms. O’Brien suggested segregation of waste at source. Ms. Kenny confirmed a lot of consideration was given to the issue and at the design stage. Mr. Dix responded that the existing power plant serving T1 would remain. He stated the emissions would arise entirely from burning of natural gas. In this it would be equivalent of 1200 homes in terms of size, but more efficient. Mr. Bailey stated that natural gas produced sulphurs levels at negligible levels. Mr. Lamond said travellators did not meet the health and safety standards to carry trolleys. That’s why they were providing lifts. There were back to back staircase to provide fire escapes. 100m was not a sacrosanct figure. Many terminals had more (Stanstead 160m, Heathrow 165)


The distance at its narrowest point between Corballis House and landside face of pier C was about 68m. Mr. Manahan asked the distance from the edge of the road way to pier C. he thought there was adequate distance, to locate a terminal. Ms. O’Brien thought one walked about a kilometre broken in pieces. In response to question to explain impact on Corballis House in terms of visual impact, Mr. Burns said its demolition will be noticed, but after wards they would forget. The actual change was what created the impact. They would just notice its removal. There would be no ongoing impact once it is removed. The signage had to have a distinctive purpose, legibility and clarity. They needed to be treated as a family of structures, in terms of consistency. Natural heritage 26/04/2007 This hearing was also attended, at the invitation of the inspector, by Dr. Morris Eaken of NPWS (DoEH&LG) Evidence by the first party Richard Nairn, (managing director of Natura Environment Consultants ltd) was the author of chapter 10 on flora and fauna in the EIS for the proposed development. Reading from a written evidence (AL 26/04/07) he outlined the methods employed in the methodology used ingathering information, which included desk top study, consultations with NPWS, Bat Conservation Ireland, Eastern Regional Fisheries Board. They had also reviewed the EIS for the Northern Parallel Runway, and unpublished reports on water quality (2005 and 2006). Field surveys were carried out for flora and fauna during April-May 2006, and birds during April-June 2006. A special survey of bats was carried out on two dates in May, by a licensed bat specialist to determine whether bats were roosting in mature trees or in any of the buildings, and whether the site was used by foraging bats. He described the environment as being entirely artificial consisting of roads, car parks buildings, with landscape planting. None of the habitats created by landscaping (trees, amenity grasslands, ponds were of significant value. The nearest designated site was 2.5km from the site boundary. After going through the findings of the surveys, he concluded that the site had no significant value for flora and fauna, and significant value for nature conservation. Therefore direct ecological impact of the proposed development on the site was considered not significant.


The indirect impact would not be significant except in relation to possible discharge to surface water, which would be subject to stringent mitigation measures. Sluice River located some four kilometres east of the development site was known to be used by otter (protected species listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive). Subject to attenuation of all surface water from the site prior to release to the local drainage, there would be no direct or indirect impact fish populations and other food for otters in the sluice river. The only mitigation measures required during construction phase would be installation of pollution control measures on all surface water drainage from the construction site (including silt and soil), as outlined in chapter 12 of the EIS, carrying out site clearance during September to avoid nesting period. During operational phase they would recommend tree planting to replace lost habitats for common birds. He stated that they were withdrawing the first party appeal against condition number 30 attached by the planning authority. Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority stated that in the context of drainage measurements proposed (to be discussed in drainage section) and subject to condition number 30 which was not being appealed, they were satisfied that ecological issues were satisfactorily addressed. Third party submissions Ms. Lawton said she was onto EPA and the only development subject of IPC licence from the EPA was SR Technics. Ms. O’Brien, (a number of degrees in environmental science) had a power point presentation(AM 26/04/07) which she had prepared for the surface water module. She indicated where the streams were located and said they were actually running in ditches. She stated that over the years expansion of airport involved a number developments including paving of the land between old airport road (R132) and the M1, cargo bridge buildings, hotels and a number of car parks. She noted FCC had imposed stringent conditions for the disposal of surface water, requiring storage on site and slow release of water to minimise run-off. She referred to Kealy’s and Wad Streams, and Cuckoo stream, and said all the surface water is discharged into these streams. She had got involved in the issues following drowning of a 4 years old child, when the streams overflowed their banks. With the help of slides she indicated that the water from the airport drained onto other peoples lands and onto the roads. She showed pictures of flooded roads, running along the streams, all of which drained by the Sluice Stream and into Baldoyle Bay through Sluice marsh, a cSAC and NHA. Baldoyle Estuary was NHA, SPA and SAC, and it was a Ramsar site. 45% of the world population of wintering Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) used the site.


Referring to pollution rating of ‘moderate’ to ‘serious’ (EIS), of Cuckoo Stream, she said this river receives the discharge from the airport (including leaks from toilet tanks of planes while being emptied, from car parks). She said DAA tended to treat only the water from sewerage pipes. She submitted the estuary received all of the waters from the airport. She referred to section 3.6.1.2 of the Terminal and Piers Study which stated ‘the existing paved area of the airport drained by a separate sewer system’, and maintained these flow directly into the surrounding streams. She noted the statement ‘the new development would replace the existing paved area, and therefore storage and attenuation is not considered to be required’. She also referred to EIS 12.6.2.2 which stated ‘attenuation would be provided in the development including all areas where development of brownfield surfaces will occur’ concluded that the two suggested different scenarios. The Master plan (page 128) objectives SW1, SW2, SW3 referred to ‘incorporate the requirement to implement such measures for all new development resulting from the implementation of the Master Plan’, while S. 6.9.3 of the SEA for the Master Plan ‘there is currently no treatment or attenuation of surface drainage from the Airport, thus any chemicals used in de-icing of planes and runways are discharged to the surface water network’. She noted the Northern Parallel Runway attenuation plan detailed direction of any polluted runoff into a special storage tank to be discharged into foul sewer, but there was no such plan for T2 proposal. She asked if this was because apron areas were not considered new development. De-icing took place at the apron. Fuelling of airplanes and servicing of toilets also took place at the apron areas. She referred to a number of pollutants including hydrocarbons that were generated by these activities. Reading from objective SW2 ’to intercept and collect, for separate treatment and disposal, runoff contaminated with de-icing chemicals in a manner compatible with achieving and maintaining ‘salmonid water quality’ in the receiving waters, she asked which it was going to be. Would the old part of the airport including major polluting parts of the aprons, taxiways and the runway continue to discharge directly into the local streams, while the new sections area attenuated. Alternatively would all of the runway at the airport be collected and the polluted portion be directed into a separate storage for discharge into the foul sewer while the rest is attenuated to ‘greenfield ‘rates. She noted this would fulfil the requirements of SW2. Referring to chapter 12 map 4 of the EIS which indicated several petrol interceptors and attenuation tanks around T2, one petrol interceptor and one attenuation tank at pier E, she asked if there were any others around the existing airport.


She submitted that the cumulative effects of water discharges of the new development was being addressed piecemeal, as they took place. The effect of the existing airport was not. Mr. O’Donnell for the first party said the questions raised were more appropriate for the surface water module which would be discussed the following day. Mr. Harley thought there was admirable concern for the fellow creatures while there was very little for the homo-sapiens. Mr. Sweetman said the condition number 30 requiring assessment after the event was not acceptable. He referred to his complaint to European commission and the circular by NPWS. He noted the planning authority had ignored the submission from the fisheries Board. There should have been a condition regarding otters. He had looked at the Cuckoo stream, which looked like it was filthy, full of soap. He noted Mr. Nairns evidence and through the airport area cuckoo stream moved from being poor to awful. He said there must be toxicity testing of these rivers. This was not in the EIS. He asked the position of the pond in Kinsealy, attenuation pond for Sluice River, which discharged to Baldoyle SAC. There were some works going on where the compound going to be. It was quite near to cuckoo stream and he asked what the measures was to prevent surface water runoff from the compound. There was no mention of eels. They were threatened and had to be looked at in the interest of biodiversity. In relation to conditions he said

• The conditions relevant to surface water had to be seen relevant to ecology.

• Condition number 21 was meaningless as one of the worst times for surface water pollution was during construction, not ‘prior to commencement of occupation’ as the condition number stated.

• The condition requiring submission for written agreement of the water

services dept was unenforceable, wrongly worded.

• He referred to condition requiring revision to achieve greenfield status and compliance with Dublin drainage scheme was not acceptable.

He submitted that information had to be in the EIS, to assess impacts on the habitats.


Referring to other conditions as well he maintained the planning authority clearly indicated they did not know what the applicant was going to do. He submitted planning authority decision ultra vires European Court judgements in granting permission for this development because there was not adequate information available to the planning authority to indicate there would not be adverse impacts on annex IV species otters and salmonids. There were bats in the runway section. They were quite likely to come to the site. Condition number 30 required removal at precisely the time the bats were hibernating. Mr. Flanagan (Counse for FCC) left it to the inspector to read the letter from Eastern Fisheries Board. He submitted the mitigation measures contained in the EIS were interlinked. Mr. Sweetman agreed they did interlinked but maintained they were inadequate. Mr. O’Donnell said the evidence given by Mr. Nairn did indicate that it was unlikely that Bats existed in the area. Single sighting of a bat did not mean colonies, but obviously they would ensure somebody would be there to monitor. He would disagree that the conditions were not precise. The conditions imposed by the Board could require prior to commencement of development. He was aware of a court decision imposing such a condition. His understanding that there would be no impact on Kinsealy pond from this application. The approach in regard to surface water disposal would be that the entirety of the surface water would be attenuated and treated, so that existing waters would not be greater than they are. Mr. Flanagan said the reason the condition was like that was because there was on going work with Dublin Airport and difficulties were being resolved as applications came on stream with up to date knowledge. Obviously the Board might take a slightly different view. Mr. Sweetman asked how the agreements were being made as required by the conditions. Ms. O’Brien said conditions were imposed to achieve ‘greenfield’ attenuation in every new application, but the answers given by Mr. O’Donnell indicated that they did not apply to existing areas. At the invitation of the inspector regarding his views, Dr. Morris Eaken from NPWS, said surface water runoff seemed to be the main issue.


Mr. Sweetman referred to indirect effects on the SAC. He said there was possibility of likely effects on the otter. Mr. O’Donnell said their expert had said there were going to be no effects on the otter. Dr. Eaken agreed and said the assessment established that there was no implications for the otter. He was happy with the EIS and the methodology used. Mr. Sweetman insisted condition number 21 showed that effects on otters were not assessed. The onus was on the applicant to prove there was none. In response to question by Ms. O’Brien if noise would effect the geese in Baldoyle SPA, Dr. Eaken said if he is required he would attend the noise module. The inspector said the noise arising from aircraft activities was a matter for the other appeal. The noise arising from terminal related activities and land traffic were not likely to have significant effect on the geese in Baldoyle SPA. Surface water disposal, drainage and cumulative impacts (27/04/2007) While the module was related to surface water drainage and disposal (except solid waste) it was outlined by the inspector that following on from the module on the natural heritage, the indirect impact on the natural heritage arising from the surface water disposal and drainage would also be examined in this module. The module would also examine the cumulative impacts. Dr. Eaken (DoEH&LG), Ecologist, also attended the session. Mr. Manahan stated that Ryanair team would not be making any contribution to the hearing. First party evidence Mr. Paul Couchlan for the DAA was, a chartered civil engineer. He was the lead infrastructure engineer for the T2 project. He said his brief of evidence would primarily relate to surface water drainage, and in particular attenuation to address the issue of flooding and pollution control. Reading from a written document (AN 27/04/07) he said the surface water drainage for T2 project has been designed to comply in all respects with the relevant LAP surface water objectives and complied with the recommendations of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS) in respect of new development and


redevelopment of brownfield areas, so as to attenuate to pre-development green field run off rates. The GDSDS required no flooding on site up to 1:30 year storm event, with protection of buildings up to 1:100 year storm event, and allowance of 10% for effects of climate change. DAA had specifically required attenuation at 1:100 on site to prevent flooding and mitigation of risk to aircraft from birds attracted to ponded water. He stated therefore the surface water attenuation system was designed whereby the surface water is channelled to underground storage tanks and where the flow is restricted to a controlled run off rate of 2 litres /second / hectare (onerous rate in accordance with GDSDS) The surface water run off from paved areas, roads and hard standing areas would be collected through trapped road gullies or through drainage channels and discharged through precast concrete spigot and socket pipes. The scheme drained to two different catchments. Cuckoo stream collected the runoff from the airside areas, while Kealy’s stream collected landside run-off. At the request of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, some of the areas previously included in the Kealy’s stream catchment were redirected to Cuckoo Stream catchment. This would not have any negative impact as all the areas were attenuated at greenfield rates and attenuation measures would more than compensate for the small increase in volumes. He described the details of the system and concluded that this in conjunction with similar levels of compliance as part of the Northern Parallel Runway scheme will result in overall positive cumulative impact at the campus. The pollution control of surface water run-off was addressed in two parts. On the airside run off would be intercepted on apron slabs through a network of continuous drainage channels discharging into underground surface water system. Online monitoring within a downstream manhole would be provided to detect the presence of contaminants including de-icing agents. When contaminants are not present, the run-off would be directed to attenuation facility sized to store run off from all impermeable areas under T2 development draining to the Cuckoo stream sub-catchment In the event of on-line monitoring detecting contaminants, a shut-off valve would close and direct the contaminated water to a separate holding tank which will then be diverted to the foul sewer system, so that de-icing run off did not compromise the requirement to maintain salmonid water.


To address the hydrocarbons in hardstanding areas and roads petrol interceptors would be placed at source, prior to discharge to the water course or to surface water drains. He referred to two drawings to indicate the proposed surface drainage network. These were also included in the EIS. They show drainage proposals in the new road layout on the landside and around proposed pier E on the airside. The aquifer in the area was a bedrock aquifer. In the location of T2 there was a covering of between 10m –20m depth of highly impermeable boulder clay which effectively protected the bedrock aquifer from any potential surface water pollution. Planning authority’s evidence Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority drew attention to the significant number of objectives in the LAP contained in pages 27-29, and in particular SW4. Mr. Patrick Finn, senior executive engineer for the water works department read from a written evidence (AP-27/04/07). He said the application was assessed having regard to the objectives of LAP and in particular sections 7.1,- 7.4. the water services department had sought clarification on a number of points but following liaison with the planning department the requirements of the water services department were incorporated as conditions. They were satisfied that surface water issues could be adequately addressed by way of conditions and recommended that condition number 21 be re-worded (details provided). He referred to document ‘Control of water Pollution from Construction Sites Guidance for Consultants and Contractors- 2001. They were satisfied that the ground water issues could be adequately addressed by conditions numbers 22 and 23, (again recommending re-wording). The water services department had undertaken to extend the 900mm sewer to Colistown Cross by Sept 2009, and they were satisfied that there would be adequate capacity in the public sewer to cater for the proposed development. they were satisfied that foul drainage issues would be adequately addressed by way of condition numbers 17, 19 and 20. They were also satisfied that the existing public water mains in the charge of the County Council were adequate to cater for the proposed development and an adequate water supply would be available. They had no objection to the internal water supply network detailed design being finalised at a later stage subject to adequate storage and pressure boosting being incorporated in the design and to details being agreed prior to commencement of work. They were satisfied the water supply issues could be adequately addressed by conditions 5, 24, and 25.


Third party submissions Ms. O’Brien (appellant) referring to her presentation the day before said she was not clear whether the proposed measures were only for the application area or for the rest of the airport. The airport complex took 1/3 of the head of streams involved. Most of the water discharged came from the airport. Baldoyle estuary was only at a distance of twice the length of the runway. There was not sufficient length or volume in the river to recover before pollution discharged from the airport reached to Baldoyle SAC. She was not sure who did the monitoring, and if different departments in Fingal County Council talked to each other. She thought monitoring was done but control was not done. If T2 went ahead it would add to the diminishing effect of the airport. In 1989 a new runway was put into place without any conditions. All of the run-off from the airport was discharged directly onto the streams which caused flooding. She referred to the drowning incidents. She thought Fingal County Council needed teeth to address all of the problems as a matter of urgency. Mr. Byrne stated that all the conditions related to new development where the developer was asked to clean up its act. During the runway hearing they were told there would be no additional passengers as the result of the runway. The passengers regardless of whether generated by the runway or by the terminal would be occupying the same (larger) planes. It was not acceptable to confine the measurements to one or the other. Dublin Airport was developed 70 years ago was never designed for the pollutions of today. The alternative option of a greenfield airport elsewhere would provide the best measurements as required, rather than trying to solve the problems in a piece meal fashion like sticking a plaster on existing systems which were obviously inadequate. Mr. Harley supported the views expressed by the previous speakers. Mr. Sweetman referred to permission granted under F06A/ 1949 (compound), where in condition 2 said the permission expired in ten years, or F06A/1248 whichever expires earlier. He said there was no permission for the runway. Which was a condition of this permission they were appealing against. Cumulative effects arising from that condition was not addressed. He referred to condition (4) requiring delineation of the flood plains, and condition (6), all requiring submission of details for compliance. He had checked and the commencement notice was given but he had checked there was no compliance documents. Reading from the water services report for the FCC which required further information ‘… EIS had said that 300mm sewer required upgrading. It also said FCC or private developer had intentions to upgrade 900mm sewer prior to terminal coming


on line. This is in correct there are no current proposals in advance of the terminal coming on line, the applicants should be required…’ said there was no evidence of this being done. He continued to read from the report, and commented as he did so.

• Discharge of contaminated dewatering to Ringsend sewer plant was not acceptable. Ringsend already had problems.

• Pond should be built before starting. • Surface water management of the proposed development should be revised. • The proposed development did not comply with the provisions of the

development plan. He read the condition in relation to protection of the aquifer, and said permission could not be granted prior to assessing these. Chances of the ground water (proposed to be dewatered) being contaminated was very high. He also referred to the last sentence of the report which had said that the EIS had not examined the interrelation between these and human beings. He submitted that the water services dept. was unable to assess the development because the information was not there. He could not understand how permission was granted. Since 2006 there were 13 applications. He asked if any of the conditions in relation to discharges, water and groundwater were complied with in any of those applications. He asked that the Council produce evidence this happened. He had involved with another case (Lean vs Aer Rianta) where the same applicant (in Shannon airport) had completely ignored the requirements. He repeated the water section of the EIS (as outlined in the water services report) was completely inadequate. Questions and clarifications At the invitation of Mr. O’Donnell, Mr. Coughlan for the first party explained that they had provided sufficient attenuation capacity to deal completely with the requirements of the scheme. When hardstanding areas are crated the rate at which water reaches to water courses was shortened. The contaminants would be diverted to holding system and would be discharged to sewer system. Hydrocarbons would be intercepted and diverted to sewer. Both technical and manual systems would ensure this happened. In response to question he said these applied to the area within the red line. In the area outside the red line it was the intention of DAA to comply with all the requirements of the LAP and GDSDS, as and when they area developing new areas or


redevelopment of brown field areas. There was a specific study to meet the requirements of the plan. Ms. O’Brien asked if the existing runways, the existing aprons, the existing terminal or car parks would not have any attenuation applied to it. Mr. O’Donnell said some of those already had conditions applying to them. For any new development the very rigorous standards would be applied. The new runway would have a different catchment. In response to the question by the inspector if the 2litrs /second/ hectare standard would be achieved in the whole of the lands in the ownership of the Dublin Airport, Mr. O’Donnell said the study was being carried out to address any issues that may be arising within the whole of the airport. Ms. O’Brien asked since T2 would be used in connection with pier E ad pier B, how would the issue be addressed in the case of pier B. Mr. Cochlan said there would be improvements in the whole airfield. There were works to pier B in the CIP programme. They would also be included in the study. Mr. O’Donnell did not know when the study would be completed. Ms. O’Brien reiterated, that the objectives of the LAP applied to any new development, did not address the existing developments. Mr. Flanagan said the LAP was unusual to include such detailed requirements. It was very different than other LAPs. It reflected the level of understanding of issues at this particular location. The planning authority had taken the view that the main effects of the proposal on the receiving environment identified, and then mitigation measures were identified. They had adjudicated that the measures to be put in place were technically well understood. In response to the question by the inspector if the planning authority intended to achieve its objections only through applications for new developments, or regardless of any applications, Mr. Flanagan said it would be through regulatory process including water pollution licences. Contaminated water was subject to discharge licence. Mr. O’Donnell clarified it was the ‘point discharge’ that required water pollution licence. In relation to flooding at SR Technics site, Mr. Cochlan also explained that there was another attenuation scheme in Eastlands which started in Dec 2006, to be completed in June. 14000m3 of attenuation tank constructed in the eastlands car park, which would cater for all surface water into Kealy’s stream catchment plus a portion of the catchment to Wade’s stream, and would deal with the issues related to SR Technics hangar car park.


Ms. O’Brien asked if they would consider a culverted stream coming out of Dublin Airport lands to be a point source. Mr. O’Donnell said a point source was anything other than percolation. Under water pollution Acts (1977-1990) there was a requirement not cause or permit pollutant water enter into ground water. In response to question by the inspector, Mr. Finn for the planning authority said he did not think that the information required in the conditions 22 and 23 did not have to be in the EIS. He was satisfied absolutely that there would be no contamination of the ground water as a result of the proposed development. Mr. O’Donnell reiterated that the extent of the overburden was such that there was no risk to the ground water. Mr. Cochlan said during the investigations they had determined the permeability was extremely low. They would read conditions numbers 22 and 23 as a fall back. At the invitation of the inspector, Dr. Eaken said he was satisfied with the explanations and referred to the requirements of Water Framework Directive. Ms. O’Brien said despite the Directive, the water coming out of Dublin Airport was very polluted and the Water Framework Directive was not yet applied, and it did not apply to volumes. Mr. Finn (FCC) confirmed Water Framework Directive implementation date was 2015. The works for its implementation were under way with Dublin city Council as the lead authority in the Dublin region. In response to question by the inspector regarding catchment of the two streams, if monitoring was done by FCC , and whether the proposed development was compatible with the requirements Mr. Finn said salmonid quality which was extremely stringent meant all other requirements were also reached. No he did not know when this quality would be achieved. Mr. Sweetman referred to exceedence of tulerine (dangerous substance) in the Sluice river in 2005, asked what the planning authority did about it. Mr. O’Donnell said the DAA might or might not be responsible. Mr. Flanagan said it is a water pollution act issue. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Mr. Finn said he had not written the water services report. Rachel Kenny for FCC said they had regard to water services report and felt it reasonable the conditions attached would address the concerns of the water services department, and at no stage they were in any doubt of the adequacy of the EIS and the mitigation measures proposed. In response to question by Ms. O’Brien, Mr. Cochlan said the levels of runoff were 25mm per hour.


In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Rachel Kenny for planning authority said the report should be read in full. He asked documentation in relation to meeting where it was considered that further information could be addressed by way of conditions. It was not a procedural matter, as it was related to review of the EIS carried out by planning authority (Direct effect, Article 10 (a) of the 2003 Directive). Mr. O’Donnell said those details were submitted. Rachel Kenny said following on from the report, and discussions, they were fully satisfied that the likely significant effects and mitigation measures were fully addressed and the issues contained in the report were of minor technical nature. Mr. Flanagan said the information in relation to sewer was sufficiently addressed. Rachel Kenny said pipe work referred to was known prior to the decision. Mr. Sweetman asked how the dewatering of ground water in the basement would take place. Mr. Cochlan said there was no basement in the scheme. They did not anticipate any dewatering as it evaporated during excavation. Mr. Sweetman could not find the borehole locations in the EIS. Mr. O’Donnell explained as the impact was not significant they did not have to include all documentation. Mr. Sweetman decided 10-9 was the best place to locate a dump, not an airport. There was no similar location in th whole of Ireland. Mr. Cochlan said the analysis had assumed the area within airport was impermeable and they had planned the attenuation on that basis. Mr. Sweetman asked if the new hardstanding area Pier B and the construction compound were factored in their considerations. (cumulative impacts) In response to Mr. Sweetman Mr. Flanagan There was no prior to commencement condition in the case of the Eastlands development. No they did not have any difficulties in relation to compliance with conditions. There was no enforcement in relation to compliance issues. Mr. Sweetman reiterated that commencement notice was given in the case of the construction compound. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman whether the water discharged was cleaner or dirty, Mr. O’Donnell said he would provide the data collected. Mr. Finn said there was one IPC licence and a number of discharge licences under the water pollution acts, and monitoring would normally be carried out. Mr. Sweetman said in relation to water conservation the proposed development was material contravention of the plan. Condition number 24 was a request for further information. Ms. O’Sullivan referred to drawing 12.1 for sampling regime positions. In the EIS they had looked at 2002-2004. The quality of the water was pretty much constant. Ms. O’Brien was amazed at the statement in relation to permeability. The number referred to was within the red line. There was variability within airport lands.


In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Mr. O’Donnell said the material excavated would be reused. Mr. Sweetman suggested FCC should buy it and use it in their dumps. Mr. Harley referred to measures referred to and suggested 1 in a hundred year would be based on historical figures. Asked if 10% would be adequate to deal with the climate change. Mr. Cochlan said it was guidance from the GDSDS. In any event they had allowed strong measures. Having followed this module of the hearing there has been no changes in Dr. Eaken’s NPWS (DoEH&LG) views in terms of indirect effects on the natural heritage. Noise This issue was discussed on 1st May, 2007 First party evidence Mr. Damien Kelly for the DAA had considerable experience in noise assessment and noise control in both construction sites, and operational developments. He had considerable experience and was involved in a number of road projects including N8 Fermoy to Mitchelstown road scheme. He was the principle acoustic consultant with the firm. Reading from a written statement ‘Noise and Vibration’ (AU-01/05/07) he stated that the NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes was relevant to new road schemes but not applicable in this case where additional traffic was introduced into an existing road network as part of a new development. The EIS contained details of the noise study performed in accordance with best practice. Consideration was given to typical sources of noise and vibration associated with the ‘construction phase’ of the development. A number of practicable noise mitigation measures were proposed. The changes in noise levels from the existing road network as a result of the proposed development were predicted and the results were compared with appropriate guidance. He referred to European Communities Noise Regulations 2001, and Guidance on control measures BS5228, and stated that these would be taken into account.


The construction noise would arise from vehicular movements to/from the site and use of machinery such as excavators, concrete batching plant, dumper trucks, compressors and generators. Various practises would be adopted during the construction including limiting the hours. In their view the condition number 31 as imposed by the planning authority was a standard condition inappropriately applied in this case, as there would be no residential amenities to be effected by the construction of T2, because it would be isolated from residential areas. They suggested the condition number 31 was a standard condition attached to avoid impacts on residential amenity. It was inappropriately applied in this case, as no residential property would affected by the construction of the proposed terminal. They would request a revision to extend the hours of operation to 06:00-00:00, and allow work in exceptional circumstances.

Works which warrant construction in exceptional circumstances included • Continuous pouring of concrete for pier E and T2 structures • Continuous pouring of concrete on site for airfield aprons construction of

passenger bridge linking check in area to arrivals and departures area • Installation of traffic management measures • Erecting and removal of cranes

Further mitigation measures would include establishing communication channels between the contractor and local residents and local authority, Appointment of site representative responsible for noise and vibration, monitoring of noise and vibration during critical periods, and sensitive locations (road works and apron works) to comply with limits set out in the EIS. A variety of noise control measures would be employed including selection of low noise plant and machinery, erection of barriers around noisy items and processes, use of vibration isolated support structures, fitting of vehicles with exhaust silencers, use of sealed acoustic covers in various machines, shutting down of intermittently used machinery, keeping site roads even etc. Vibration from rock breaking and excavation would be the most significant but the selected methods would ensure not likelihood of structural or cosmetic damage to existing neighbouring dwellings. During the operational phase noise emissions form the ground operations would be well below that of and masked by noise from aircraft flight. Noise from ground operations would be relatively low at the boundary of the airport. The predicted increase in peak hour traffic levels associated with the development would give an increase of 3dB in the vicinity of the roads, and junctions surrounding the development. This would be insignificant.


In conclusion, while there would be some impact during the construction phase, the binding noise limits and mitigation measures would ensure the noise impact is kept to a minimum. Vibration during this phase would not be significant. Noise impact during operational phase would not be significant. The brief of evidence by the second speaker for the DAA Mr. Sharp related to ‘Assessment of Effects from Aircraft Noise as a result of the Provision of Additional Terminal and Pier facilities at Dublin Airport’. (AV-10/05/07) He had a long carrier specialising in acoustics including with British Aerospace, and had attended over 300 planning inquiries, and some 15 noise nuisance cases covering a wide range topics including aircraft noise. While the assessment had assumed that the proposed northern parallel runway would be operational, it did not presume that it would be allowed. An analysis of the noise effects from a second terminal and pier in the context of only one main runway would show no net effect in terms of noise impact. This evidence would not discuss noise effect that would arise from a second runway but rather assess specifically noise impact that would result form the increased activity from the proposed terminal and pier facility. The proposed second terminal and associated pier would result in a small increase in aircraft activity relative to that associated with one terminal. The paper would concentrate on noise effects from aircraft activity in flight. These were displayed in the form of noise contours for current and future assessment years, with or without the second terminal and pier. He explained how the noise contours were prepared using a computer software and on the basis of 2005 figures for no of flights (summer 92 days). Data provided included flight procedures, runway locations, runway alignments and recommended flight tracks, as well as aircraft movement growth factors for the years 2012 and 2024. The day time noise contours were generated using low annoyance (57 dB), moderate annoyance (63dB) and high annoyance (69dB). Fingal County Development Plan had adopted low annoyance contour as the outer zone for development. Comparing ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios for the years 2012 and 2024, he concluded that majority of Portmarnock and Swords areas would remain outside the low annoyance contour. This would be due to predicted increase of around 2% in aircraft movements in 2012 and 7% in 2024 which would result from the proposed terminal and pier. This would represent 0.4dB increase in noise levels. He noted that these conclusions were not sensitive to relatively large changes in aircraft movements. The reason the noise contours presented in this case were slightly smaller than those presented at the runway hearing, was because of different aircraft growth assumptions by Dr. Coveney. The former was from 2005 baseline while the runway contours were


prepared from the 2003 baseline, second was GDP elasticity and the third was reduction in domestic flights. Similarly there would be very small effect on the night-time noise levels as a result of slight increase in the number of night-time flights equivalent to the day time increase (2% in 2012 and 7% in 2024). Associated 0.4dBa increase in noise levels would be imperceptible. In summary the paper concluded that the provision of a second terminal building and associated pier would only result in small percentage change in aircraft movements. Consequently, the proposed terminal and pier would not result in significant change in noise level or in the areas encompassed by the do minimum and do something noise contours. The proposed development would not result in significant effect in terms of noise impact to the community. At the time of the runway hearing there was no Irish regulations in terms of noise levels. Since then the requirements of the Noise Directive were brought into Irish legislation. Both the EU Directive and the Irish Regulations required preparation of ‘strategic noise maps’ in major installations. Dublin Airport was in the process of preparing one. Document 29 provided in the appendix explained how these maps are to be prepared. The noise model they used was the most widely used in the world. It set procedures for data input. For each individual aircraft the details such as destination, departure route etc would be entered, then the contours would come up. The criteria in relation to annoyance levels were used since 1963. The Irish legislation would change this. In response to the question by the inspector he stated that the size of aircraft did not have a bearing on the noise levels, so the fact that pier E would have capability for larger aircraft would not make any difference. In the case of Dublin change in the Ryanair fleet would mean approximately 12dB lowering of the noise levels. The noise contours produced based on 2005 base had a mix of noisier aircraft than the present levels, therefore the current levels would be lower. Mr. O’ Brien asked for noise measurement results. Mr. Sweetman asked Coachman’s inn as a noise sensitive location. In response to question by the inspector Mr. Sharps clarified that if the northern runway did not go ahead the capacity would be constrained and there would not be any increase in no of flights. Fred Walsh for Portmarnock residents association stated that ICAO (international civil aviation association) allowed for higher noise levels from larger aircraft.


Mr. Sharp stated that there was no correlation between the aircraft size and noise levels since airbus. He referred to a chart indicating a number of types of aircrafts which he referred to using various chapter numbers (chapter 1, 2, 3 etc) He was not involved in prediction of future aircraft numbers. At the request of the inspector Mr. Kelly described the construction works and the impacts arising. The construction compound would be located adjacent to M1. There would be workers arriving, huts etc would be provided. The workers would be bussed to site. The location was indicated on the map. Construction noise would be 70dBa during day time and 60 dBa at night time. Majority of the works would be located within the airport site and away from the residential areas. Nearest sites were car parking compounds. Niamph O’Sullivan confirmed construction compound was the location subject of F06/1949. Evidence by planning authority Mr. Flanagan said the planning authority was advised by Eanne O’Kelly (noise consultant) who considered there would be no adverse noise impact from the proposed development. They deemed the assessment carried out by the applicant to be adequate, but of course it was on appeal and subject to points raised in the hearing. Planning authority was not bringing their noise consultant into the hearing. He referred to F07A/0093 extension to a long term car park and stated that temporary permission

was granted by the planning authority Third party submissions Ms. O’Brien She was aware that this was not a re-run of the runway hearing. Referring to the 92 day period used in the model, she stated the times used were 0700-2300. The peaks occurred at different times and the modelling exercise was not as accurate as indicated. The results of the modelling exercise was taken as given by the planning authority and put into the development plan. These did not include the traffic noise. The conditions imposed were exactly the same as building an extension to a house. A 24 hour building operation would probably be more appropriate in this case given the existing noise levels at the airport. Modelling exercises produced lovely contours. These used the perfect take off lines. To validate the existing contours what was needed was actual noise measurements. There had to be a proof by way of actual measurements. Night time levels quoted were only estimated (not measured). Nobody could tell whether the aircraft which was particularly noisy in the morning was actually exceeding levels, because there were no measurements.


She stated that the aircraft using ‘Cross- Runway’ were noisier. She asked that further information be sought in this case as in the northern runway case. She repeated that actual measurements be taken. Mr. Byrne Stated that additional aircraft traffic would be brought about as a result of the new terminal. Single terminal with 15mppa would become two terminals with 30mppa. This would double the aircraft movements, and the noise levels. He talked about a number of aircraft movements with increasingly less time in between, and the disturbance arising from expecting another aircraft at night. The night time cargo planes were not as efficient as the others and noisier. The County Council had not taken their representations seriously, and had not addressed them. Noise was the reason they were here. The planning authority had relied the first party to provide the answers. The County Council whose mission statement was to protect its citizens was not doing their jobs. Mr. Harley (Portmarnock Community Association) Stated that contrary to first party assertion, they had already objected on grounds of noise. He referred to the selective way of using constraints, (runway or terminal) by the first party. They were arguing for a terminal for 15mppa, yet stating this would only increase the movements by 3%. To say terminal would have no impact was not credible. Mr. Fred Walsh for Portmarnock community Association was an acoustic consultant. Reading from a written statement(AY-0 /̀05/07), Mr Walsh emphasised that the data recently supplied to An Board Pleánala by DAA indicated that with their assumed growth rates, the proposed Terminal 2 could result in extra 30 night flight movements. Thus the noise was an important aspect of the proposal. He noted that while the EIS used 8-hour contours, to describe night time aircraft noise, most reputable authorities used single event parameters. Individual noise events had the most potential to disturb, rather than exposure to noise over an entire 8 hour period. While the EIS had acknowledged this (8B5.1), it had not compared the noise levels from individual events. Similarly the data in relation to growth rates was not converted to flight numbers. As at the end of 2005 over 18million passengers had used Dublin Airport and as this was projected to reach 30 million about 2015, annual growth rate would be about


5%.per annum, where as the figures given in Appendix A8B.7 represented growth rates of 1.6-1.95% per annum. This was a clear discrepancy. Using the figures given in relation to constrained and unconstrained scenarios contained in the DAA response to An Board Pleánala further information (March 2007), he calculated that 30 extra movements per night would be expected due to proposed T2. He noted that that in the EIS for the runway it was stated that the use of the runway at night was assumed to grow at the same rate as during the day. The recent record of night time flight numbers (2300-0700hrs) was 59 movements (DAA records). In 2005 the figure was 45, which represented a growth factor of 1.37 and represented a growth way ahead of the predicted 2012 levels. Over a 20 year period the night time flights would grow to 157. The conclusion that the proposed development complied with appropriate guidance and the associated impact was considered acceptable was therefore illogical. He argued that the use of Laeq, 8hr was not appropriate unit for assessment of sleep disturbance. The UK night Noise Act 1996 specified 1 minute averaging periods at night. The WHO recommended LA maxFast criterion of 45 in bedrooms at night, for reasonable sleeping conditions. T2 EIS had used the most inappropriate method of assessing annoyance, instead of sleep disturbance. Noting that there was no data on airside LAmax in the T2 EIS, he argued that the extra 30 flight movements would have significant sleep disturbance implications in Portmarnock, if normal departing flight tracks are used. He noted that while there was measured baseline data available for road traffic noise there was no such data for the airside. While the programme used for calculation of aircraft noise was indeed internationally known, it gave discretion to the user’s judgement on certain relevant factors. In his view use of INM by DAA gave rise to serious doubt for the calculated values for two locations 4 and 5 which are in Portmarnock area. He repeated that use of noise contours was not appropriate methodology for measuring sleep disturbance, and the WHO standard of 45 LA maxFast for up to 15 events per night should be used. The WHO recommendation for the schools was 35 LA eq . The submission referred to insulation requirements around Standstead airport at 57 LA eq contour (day time) and suggested a number of conditions should a permission be granted. These include He suggested total ban of night flights over Portmarnock, a limit of 45 LA maxFast indoors from 2300-0700 hours and continuous monitoring as well as financial assistance towards monitoring costs.


In his further comments he examined various sections of the EIS, and elaborating on some of the earlier points, concluded that L for night time has not been estimated accurately, the EIS did not include details of any 10 points where noise levels were calculated, drew attention to results of a survey carried out at no 14 Woodlands where values of 70.5 dBA and 56 dBA were measured depending on change of the flight tract for take off (whether it was directly over Portmarnock or to the north of the same), noting significant lowering of noise levels. Finally referring to submissions to An Board Pleánala and the more recent data he concluded that there was apparently higher growth with significant impact than expected. Ms. Lawton said her presentation was not technical but reality. (‘Aircarft Noise: The Major Problem for Communities Living Around Airports’ BA-01/05/07). The whole problem was slicing of the impacts 3db from this 3 db from that, until it reached unbearable levels. She noted that aircraft did get less noisy but in those days you had to run to the garden and look for an aeroplane/ now there were too many. It was like a teenager banging the door every five minutes. You could not ignore it or get used to it. There appear to be no ban on chapter 3 planes. 737’s were supposed to be banned in Dublin Airport but charters were using those. There was no mention of the EU Directive 2002/ EC/ 30, a balanced approach was to be introduced airport by airport. It did not seem to apply to Dublin Airport, no night time curfew, no penalties for deviation from limits, no acoustic chamber etc. 2002/49/EC did not seem to do too much either. The planning authority was supposed to protect quiet areas for recreation and peace. Beach or Malahide Castle were not quiet, because of aircraft noise. In UK a case had collapsed because the inspector told them to go and take measurements. They would like 3000m (flying) height over their homes. The DAA had a duty to control aircraft noise. People get the same standard letters following complaints. Their priorities were safety, efficiency and environmental matters. The decision Order showed efficiency was more important than people. There were over 50 flights at night the terminal would add to this. A number of agencies were working on reducing noise in the future, but these were in relation to new best new technology. Most airlines already had young fleet and were not going to change for another 30 years, thus there would not be reduction of noise in the near future. Mr. Sweetman referred to 8B.15 of the EIS, which stated that overall there was very little difference… and drew attention to ‘extra flights…’.


The planes carrying passengers were facilitated by terminals. (They) did not understand why they were ignored. The noise contours had got worse in Dublin Airport as the no of aeroplanes increased. Noise sensitive locations were not just sleeping areas, but included working areas. There was a crusher in Coachman’s Inn. He asked measurements to be produced for that location. He was told 3dba increase was doubling of the noise. It was not imperceptible. Mr.Sharp’s statement in paragraph 7.7 that only a small percentage change in aircraft movements as result of T2 had proved that this terminal was unnecessary. He referred to the chart produced by Mr. Sharp earlier (in response to inspector’s question) and read the paragraph above the graph, which stated further significant reductions in aircraft noise was unlikely, and would remain relatively constant between 2000 and 2020, and any gains as a result of advanced technology would be counter balanced by increases in the number of aircraft movements. Therefore the emotionally charged controversies would not disappear. He also noted that the document was out of date, but more importantly it was a Boeing sales brochure. The LAP stated that the system monitored noise levels at half a second intervals on a 24 hours a day. It was an objective of the plan to make the measurements available. He read from Eanna O’Kelly’s note to planning authority, and drew attention to contradiction stating on one hand there would be no significant increase in noise levels, and the recommendation of measures for reduction. He again referred to Coachman’s Inn and requested continuous monitoring. Referring to Mr. Damien Kelly’s submission in relation to pouring concrete to sub structure, he argued that there would be a basement, and demanded bore hole logs. Every plane produced since 1979 such as 737 –200 would be using Dublin Airport. The information given in relation to type of aeroplanes and the facts did not relate very well. Questions and clarifications Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority wanted to set the scene in terms of his deliberations, he referred to the report by Ms. Kenny’s report and brief of evidence in particular in relation to condition number 31. He would later refer to refinement of the condition. To his knowledge there were no legislative limits regarding noise limits. No guidelines for best practice.


To his knowledge again there were no thresholds in various EU Directives. There was a Directive which required information gathering for noise mapping, up to 2010. At the moment it was only an information gathering exercise. In the absence of any legislative thresholds what the Board considered best practice would apply. In response to question by the inspector whether the planning authority considered the terminal and runway separately, Ms. Kenny said it was considered in the case of the runway as the ultimate capacity. In the absence of a decision on the runway they only considered landside noise, including construction. In response to question whether they considered in terms of only one going ahead she said they had considered that initially it would not involve any increase in aviation activities as it would be basically re-balancing of existing. They had not considered any increase arising from the T2, as the second runway would be required in any event, and full extent of aviation activities and noise impact would be considered in that context. In response question by Mr. Sweetman to define the parameters for questions, the inspector outlined that the inspector for the runway case had a specialist advisor who would be providing expert opinion in relation to methodologies chosen and the accuracy of conclusions. The hearing for T2 would concentrate on landside noise arising from traffic and construction, and increase in the airside arising from T2. In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Ms. Kenny stated that she considered noise sensitive locations to be residential properties to be most sensitive but regard would be had to hotels and places of work. (Regarding) the nearest noise sensitive locations to the terminal building she would need to check the file. The impact from the construction noise would be negligible because of the confined location of the terminal within the airport site. In response to question if there was any places of work within 200m of the site, she referred to those working in T1. Mr. Sweetman disagreed and said there were 15,000 people working in Dublin Airport. He noted that there were 40 acres of aprons being constructed near St. Margarets. He said while they were exempt from planning they had to be considered in the EIS. It was similar to a road built by a local authority. In response to question what information was made available in relation to monitoring Ms. Kenny stated that she could have requested as it was public information. He said they too were trying to obtain such information but were not successful. In assessing the noise impact she had regard to the EIS and report by the Eanna Kelly, and between the two she had adequate information on the likely significant impacts and together with the mitigation measures in the EIS and augmented by the conditions imposed by them to insure noise impact associated with the development was at reasonable level. Mr. Flanagan stated that they considered there was adequate information in the EIS, and if the Board felt otherwise, and if Mr. Sweetman felt they did not assess properly,


it was already said. He would take concerns about Article 3. Mr. Sweetman insisted that the planning authority had carried out assessment of the EIS submitted, but had not carried out an assessment under the EIA Directive. Mr. Flanagan repeated it was now before the Board. In response to question how she assessed the effects on people without knowing the levels of noise at various working places and around Castlemoate house, she said it was based on the information provided in the EIS and the report of the noise expert. Mr. Sweetman stated what was going to happen in the construction compound was not in the EIS. He asked why the planning authority report stated that there were no additional aprons proposed, in the noise impact section. He repeated why there was no assessment of the on-going construction of aprons in the assessment. There was no response. Mr.Byrne asked if the noise implication of doubling up the passenger numbers was not assessed outside the immediate site area of the site, Rachel Kenny said there was no doubling of passengers as a result of T2. If there had not been a runway application they would have gone into it more detail. Mr. Byrne referred to runway and stated that in the runway hearing they were told there would not be an increase in the passenger numbers because it was constrained by the terminal. In inspector ruled evidence provided in runway hearing could not be taken in this case. In response to question by Mr. Byrne, Rachel Kenny stated that condition related to construction applied to everybody and noise arising from aviation activity was confined to the runway application. There was no comparison with other airports in relation to aviation activity arising from another terminal and curfews. Mr. Flanagan said such issue was ventilated in the other hearing. Ms. Lawton referred to charter signed by 50 ministers on transport, WHO, in relation to guidelines on community noise exposure to prevent noise levels in excess of 55dBA and asked if Ireland signed up to it. She wanted to send it to the Board. She asked how the Council implemented the policy DAS1 and DAS3. A number of development near Portmarnock station recorded noise levels of 90dba. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated they DAS1 required a balanced approach. They had always done that but they also had to take into account of the importance of Dublin Airport to the country and the region, and to various Government policies which provided for They had introduced four noise zones, and deal with development proposals in the area. Resisted any development in the inner zone. They implemented the zones in any development proposals. Obviously these did not apply to existing development retrospectively. She asked where the engines would be tested to cater for the 7% increase. In response to question whether the planning authority carried out baseline noise level surveys, Sean O' Faircheallaigh said no they had not.


Ms. O’Brien asked whether any noise measurements included traffic as well as aircraft noise. The contours used in the LAP related to aviation noise only. Yes big airports such as Schiphol and Heathrow would have noise restrictions. Ms. O’Brien asked if the planning authority had a policy to impose conditions. If the terminal was not there they could not have passengers to fly. Sean O' Faircheallaigh said the planning authority did have a policy, in relation to cross wind runway, to restrict its use to adverse weather conditions only because there were housing areas much closer. Secondly, the use of the southern runway would be preferred for landings, while the northern would be divided between the two. (inspector reminded this appeal was related to terminal not runway) Mr. O’Donnell referred to existing lack of limits and how they could not be changed retrospectively. To control an existing established use was a matter of law. He referred to a High Court decision State (O’Hara) v An Board Pleánala where the decision of the Board sought to limit the number of gaming machines, was quashed because one could not be deprived of existing rights by way of a condition of a planning permission p.173 (O’Sullivan and Shepherd). He said ‘limiting the existing rights in relation to operations of the airport by way of a condition could not be done’. Ms. O’Brien asked if the airport cold go on expanding without restrictions, or could restrictions be imposed on existing operations. Rachel Kenny said, in the absence of applications it could not be. Mr. Sweetman referred to a power station case in Germany and said under the Directive restriction could be imposed on the existing operations. Case 431/92 p. 32 Mr. Flanagan said the engine testing issue was raised in the runway appeal. He also stated that the planning authority would have regard to draft plan. He referred to mitigation measures contained in the EIS. They did take the view that the measures were identified. Mr. Sharp (DAA) stated that there were values used to assess impact of noise from an aircraft. The LA eq index was a function of all of the noise energy in a particular aircraft. LA max index was the peak noise level from individual aircraft it was one event. Going through Mr. Walsh’s submission, he said using 8 hr night time contours was the appropriate way because there would be no changes to the routing of aircraft or aircraft type. Therefore leq would not change. In the case of the second runway was LA max used because it was more appropriate. Secondly, the growth factors (item d) were correct and all that was needed to determine the impact of noise, from aircraft in flight. Baseline year was 2000. If one


looked at the 2012 and 2024 figures, with or without the terminal, you would come up with 2 and 7%. The movement numbers referred to in bottom of page 1 and top of page 2 , some of these referred to passenger growth others aircraft growth. From the noise point of view 15 or 35mppa was not important. He was only interested in growth figures which dictated the aircraft movements. (reference to Ms. Coveney) It was accepted during the runway hearing that there would be significant impact in terms of noise from aircraft as a result of the second runway. LA eq 16 hr day LA eq 8 hr night was the appropriate indices to be used in this case. He referred to WHO Guidelines. 55dba leq 16hr day during the day, 45dba at night (lamax 60dba outside bedroom and 45 dba inside bedroom at night) were not points where effects occurred, but levels below which effects could be negligible. Exceedences did not necessarily imply adverse effect. The leq 57 contour, low annoyance contour was direct equivalent of WHO guideline 55 dba figure. The model did indeed allowed discretion to the user. This was discussed in detail during the runway. Changes in settings did not make changes to the size of the contours. 92 day period over summer was the accepted way noise contours measured. As they used 2005 figures it would be the worst case scenario, and would improve as the aircrafts changed to quieter ones. He did not agree 737-200 (noisier aircraft) were discontinued at the time, as the figures were taken from actual log-ins showed (appendix 8). They had used the same mix for the projections, but as they would be discontinued, the 205 was the worst case scenario. Use of certified measured noise data was the only way to prepare noise contours. They (measurements at locations) could be used to validate to the noise contours. Wind, heaviness, destination, etc would change. Appendix A gave a list of documents and showed how they are done. In relation to incremental growth until threshold of pain, he confirmed that noise contours for R2 was on the basis of unconstraint levels on the runway therefore they were larger than the terminal contours. The Irish legislation required constant reduction in noise levels in replacement aircrafts. EPND (effective perceived noise level) was similar to lamax. The chart was not a Boeing sales brochure but a technical document. Ms. Lawton required list of aircrafts allowed to use Dublin Airport, and asked if Dublin Airport was going to ban noisy planes.


The noisier airplanes were in the region of hundreds in 2005, but the number was down to 7. They were not favoured by any body. Ms. Lawton said 737-200 were not the only noisy ones and referred to 747-100. In response to Mr. Harley and two scenarios, he agreed 2005 base figures were used to provide 2012 and 2024 figures as in the case of air quality and traffic. Mr. O’Donnell agreed no terminal was not a feasible scenario. Mr. Foley stated that they were unable to control the growth, despite spreading the peak etc, he would not like to continue in such a scenario. Mr. Harley stated that the logic of the scenarios did not hold together. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the existing terminal was bulging and everybody knew it could not continue. Mr. Sharp stated that the conclusions he reached were not sensitive to growth in aircraft sizes. It had to change by a factor of 3 or 4 to have any effect. In response to question by Mr. Walsh whether chapter 4 was different than the others, he did not have the regulations, but stated that 737-800 with 189 seats was 12 dba lower that 737-200 which had 119 seats. There was no correlation between the size of the aircraft and the noise levels. If this proposal is turned down, the situation would be very similar to if it is approved, as the older aircraft were being replaced by less noisy aircraft. Mr. Walsh said despite lowering of noise levels the larger aircrafts would still make more noise. He asked the difference between second runway and second terminal. With second terminal there was not much difference, in terms of aircraft position in the sky, type of aircraft, while these would be different in the case of a new runway. Ms. Lawton said larger aircraft take longer to become air born. Mr. Sharp agreed, and stated that’s why they used leq which measured total energy. He had measured the noise level of individual aircraft and the number of aircraft which he considered to be a robust assessment. He referred to the EIS and how they arrived to the methodology. Following statement by Ms. Lawton that chapter four airplanes were only 3dba less noisy, and it was not important, Mr. Sharp would a position for Ms. Lawton in his company as she was very knowledgeable on noise levels. In response to question Mr. Sharp stated that the 12 dba reduction was specific to change from one aircraft to another, not changes in chapter numbers. IKO used power appropriate for departure or landing.


Walsh stated that there would be increased noise levels as a result of increased number of aircraft as a result of T2. While there would be 4dba increase in noise levels. It was not the terminal generating the aircraft movements. His statement had not said there would be 30 extra aircraft movements at night. It was stated by Mr. Walsh, as a result of mixing passenger and aircraft numbers. His estimate based on growth factors, was 2% increase in 2012 and 7% in 2024. Mr. Walsh argued the EIS was deficient. They were not given the night time flight numbers. He repeated additional passengers would create extra flights. He repeated that they were not given number of aircraft flying at night. Following references to information given to the Board (runway) the inspector advised the hearing that the Board would have information regarding both the runway and terminal, but the hearing for the terminal would not take evidence provided in relation to runway. Mr. Walsh believed the noise levels could very well accelerate than given levels. He thought growth was an important issue. He asked what growth factors were used. Mr. Sharp stated they had assumed growth factor of 2% in 2012 and 7% in 2024. In response to question by the inspector he stated the T2 contours at night time were smaller. From which one could definitely conclude that the impact displayed at the runway inquiry in terms of night time noise was higher than T2 inquiry. Ms.Lawton stated that greater number of people would be effected even though the contours had shrunk, because there were six decibels between contours. Mr. Harley still considered the logic of ‘without’ option was impossible. One could not have a second runway without the terminal. Niamph O’Sullivan said in their do minimum scenario they assumed the number of flights would continue to grow even if the terminal was not built. It just would not stop. The troughs in Ms. Weston’s graph would be filled. In response to question by the inspector Mr. Foley did not know if there has been an increase in night time flights as a result of terminal constraint, over an above the level that would have been generated by growth factors. He did not know the precise statistics, Mr. Walsh asked how the DAA were managing to put extra 1 million passengers. Ms. O’Sullivan stated that despite capacity restraint in both the terminal and runway they were continuing to growth. Neither the runway nor the terminal were operating at capacity. There could still be increase in both. Mr. Foley stated the number of passengers were increasing, but larger aircraft was carrying more passengers. Secondly the passengers were still going through though at low service levels. This was how they managed to handle the growth.


Mr. Sweetman referred to O’Hara judgement (earlier quoted by Mr. O’Donnell ),and said this was restricting the continuing intensification. He referred to ‘Howard and others v OPW’. All development that took place between 1989 and 1994 would be deemed illegal by Irish the Courts, under European Law. Only development legitimate under EIA was those before 1989. Discussions on conditions related to this module. Condition number 31 of the planning authority was appealed against by the first party,. This related to restriction on hours of operation. They had suggested revisions in their earlier submission. Mr. Flanagan stated Ms. Kenny was not present, but they would refer to her earlier evidence (232/4/2007), and the planning authority would agree to a relaxation of the condition number 31 of the planning authority, as indicated in page 14. Mr. Sweetman was on the side of the developer this time. The original condition would only make sense if people at noise sensitive conditions were all working night shifts. He suggested the hours in the condition should actually be reversed. Concrete breaking etc between 12 midnight to 6am would make more sense, because there was no body there. He wanted intelligent planning. Planning authority repeated in this case construction works would not have any effect. Mr. Flanagan repeated it was now up to the Board to impose an appropriate condition. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that this was a high noise environment. Mr. Harley wanted to draw attention that not everybody who lived in the environs of the airport was not present. In relation to Condition number 27, Mr. O’Donnell stated that the principle site of construction site would be the site itself. Remote construction compound would only be a marshalling site. They thought it was not necessary, but having regard to the discussions, they were withdrawing their appeal against that condition. The planning authority wanted the condition to stay. In response to question by the inspector, the planning authority had not considered the site next to M1 (recently granted permission) as the remote construction site. Mr. O’Donnell stated that was the site they had identified for the facility and was considered in the EIS. They did not want to make a specific application at the date of the lodgement of the appeal. He repeated they had looked at the site as part of preparation of the site. Planning authority agreed with Mr. Sweetman that the planning authority did not know where the compound would be. Mr. Sweetman stated there should be further information request.


Impact on residential amenities (04/05/2007) This issues was discussed on the last day of the hearing to facilitate expert witness Dr. Stein’s attendance. The speaker for the DAA was Niamph O’Sullivan of ARUP consultants. She was the coordinator of the EIS for the proposed development. She examined the impact on the amenities of the residential properties under a number of headings during and post construction. DAA was not located in a residential area, but there were a number of residential areas in the vicinity. The site where the T2 and Pier facilities were located was at a considerable distance from the residential areas. It had been explained previously that there would be no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the residential areas as a result of the proposed development and it was important to draw attention to the fact that this was a highly developed environment with ongoing development over the years. The impact would be localised and within the confines of the airport. While the proposed terminal building would be highly glazed and there would be increased illumination at the airport, its visibility would again be confined to the immediate area, and would not be significantly above the existing levels. There would be no adverse impact on the night sky. It had been explained during the hearing that the construction noise would be within acceptable limits, and the measures adopted were appropriate. No undue impact would arise from the airport activities (both on the air side and on the landside) during the operational stage. There would be no significant increase in noise levels to impact on residential environments both day and night time. The impact from emissions on the air quality during the construction stage would be minimal. Dust generation would be confined to the terminal site, and possibly to an area within 50m. This would arise from demolition and breaking of concrete, but would be sufficiently removed from the residential areas. During the operation of the terminal similarly the emissions would be low. The DAA was committed to maintaining monitoring ambient air quality. There would be some impact from traffic on roads outside the site area. The mitigation measures during construction period included staggering of starting and finishing times of the construction to reduce impact on peak times, scheduling of access and delivery of materials to site would prevent queues. The junction improvements in the surrounding roads such as R132 would prevent congestion and impact on residential areas. As outlined earlier the significant measures in the areas of surface water discharge and attenuation would lead to lower levels of discharge from the site and together


with similar measures proposed for the northern runway would result altogether result in reduced discharges as a whole and consequently a more positive impact on the environment and residential areas through reduced risk of flooding. Evidence by planning authority Mr. Flanagan said the planning authority agreed with the analysis presented by the first party. They would refer to proposed 14 of the submission of Ms. Kenny’s evidence and also draw attention to the revised condition no 31 in relation to construction times as discussed earlier. Third party submissions Ms. Lawton stated that airports could be compared to large industrial complexes such as oil refineries or power plants. Dublin Airport was the largest source of vilotile organic hydro carbons. It was measured that in an area of 6km x 8km Heathrow airport generated 60% of all the NO2 emissions, as well PM10 and PM 25. The figures were 70% for Frankfurt and 30 % for Zurich. We did not know in Dublin Airport because it was not measured. FCC measured only one compound. Information was not available on emissions which caused asthma, bronchitis. In terms of noise they preferred to adhere to the WHO Guidelines which considered 57dBA as significant noise. 30 Leq was more appropriate for bedrooms. There was argument that the terminal did not generate noise, but the passengers using the proposed terminal would be flying over the schools and playgrounds in Portmarnock area. Such noise levels caused chronic educational disadvantage. The students taking part in young scientist had noticed that when being asked questions the residents of Portmarnock were shouting out their answers, instead of speaking at a normal level. They were adopting to the constant noise without realising they were shouting. They had serious concerns about public safety. The EIS had stated there would be no additional impact but there was no evidence of revision to address the increase. Portmarnock was located within public safety zone, with huge numbers of residents. There were schools which would not be permitted if applied now. People sitting in traffic were at similar high risk as the residential areas. None of these would be allowed if public safety zones were implemented. They had serious concerns regarding contamination of water quality. They did not end up in a situation like Galway. They asked the Board to require local authority to implement the plans and make monitoring data available to public. She referred to the Noise Directive 2000/49/EC and asked why wait to implement its requirements. The night curfew was a significant issue.


Speaking on behalf of Ms. O’Brien Mr. Fitzmaurice stated that T2 could not be separated from T1. Anything that effected one effected the other. As seen in the recent incident in Little Forest Lane which lead to its closure, had serious implications on all the roads surrounding Dublin Airport. Half of the surface water in Cuckoo catchment was coming directly from Dublin Airport runway, flooding the area, contaminating water sources, and discharging into Baldoyle estuary which was a designated area. As stated earlier the attenuation tank in the SR technic development had failed and te adjacent car park was flooded. A number of developments were being carried out in anticipation of the proposed T2. All of these would have negative effects cumulatively. Separate applications were preventing assessment of the environmental affects cumulatively, and precluding discussion of the sus development of the airport as a whole. Air pollution monitoring could not separate the sources. Emissions monitoring had to be in real time. Noise monitoring must take place in permanent locations. The monitoring of figutive emissions to water must be timely. He suggested all monitoring should be real time to allow early detection. This would help DAA , FCC and the community. He further stressed that monitoring without controls was useless. The proposed public safety zones must be decided soon. There would be increased noise as a result of the proposed terminal. Noise had significant impact on the residents as well as visitors to the velvet strand. He had suggested at the runway hearing that the school at Kinsealy where 64dBA levels were measured should be relocated. There were several international airports in the island of Ireland of which 3 were operated by DAA. The airlines should be encouraged to provide extra routes from these airports. The Government’s NSS would be better addressed by developing those airports. He brought it to the attention of the Board that DAA and FCC were engaged in an enterprise which was damaging his health as well as health of his children and grandchildren for decades to come. They could not view it in equinamity. While the two authorities would benefit from this grandeosi dream, the tax payer would foot the bill and the communities would pay for the consequences. Mr. Byrne stating that he will only speak briefly referred to the studies showing devaluation of property located under the flight paths in other jurisdictions. In UK it was calculated to be 20%. He was not looking for compensation, but merely stating that such studies existed. He was more interested on devaluation of his health. He could like others in his neighbourhood smell the kerosene. He wanted to be able to sleep and use his garden. There was significant concern in the community about the cancer cluster in St. Anne’s estate. There was another cluster in Poppointree estate. He questioned if it was a coincidence that these two communities were located at either end of the runway 10/28. Somebody needed to look at the health impact on the communities.


FCC had a blurb in the County Development Plan mission statement about importance of those living in Fingal, but was not really doing anything about it. There was a paradox in the cc attitude. They would not allow new schools under the flight paths but the existing ones would be allowed to continue. Noise impact impaired education of children. He wanted to stress that there was total inadequacy on the part of Fingal County Council to consider the impact cumulatively of the developments at this airport on the communities. Mr. Harley stated that the impact on property values was in fact an indication of the impact on other areas as well. People did not want to live somewhere for a reason. The statement that property values were on the increase was misleading. Referring to caterus paribus principle he stated of course they would go up but that the values were lower than they would otherwise be. He had calculated the cost to the community to be in the region of 430 million (over life time not in one year), but the cost to the national economy was in fact 9 times higher. This was a fundamentally uneconomic proposal. he nation should worry about it. The argument that there would be no impact as a result of the terminal was flawed. The proposed terminal designed for 15mppa would create 120 000 movements a year, The do-nothing scenario was not a valid basis for comparison. It was not plausible to have two runways operating from a single terminal. If the second terminal was not allowed, the second runway could not be built. Dr. Staines was asked by residents associations to examine the EIS from the point of impact on human health. He had looked at the EIS several times and was astonished to see that for a project of this size there was no evidence that consideration was given to such an impact. One could not make a valid planning decisions without assessing the human health impact. The reason for considering such effects was to either refuse the proposed development or if the impacts were not considered mitigation measures could not be considered. He did not believe that during the operational stage T2 would not be associated with aircraft movements or traffic. Both of these had effect on human health and needed to be considered. He had listened to the first party presentation earlier, and there was no evidence that effects of the proposed development on the health of the communities surrounding the airport were considered at all. It was the job of DAA to consider such an impact. There were no comments from Ryanair, or from Mr. Sweetman. Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority stated that the question was a legal issue, it was a question of whether or not the concept of HIA was a legal concept within the


EIS, and as a matter of law whether use of HIA as a requirement or prerequisite of the EIA. The answer was a categorical no. The EIA looked at things more in the round. Nothing in the EIA Directive stated that examination of various impacts such as noise could not be done on a chapter by chapter basis. There was no requirement, no obligation for a separate HIA. He did not accept that a HIA was required under EIA. In his view the Board would be incorrect in law to assess the adequacy of the EIS by reference to a HIA threshold. Secondly he did not accept that there has not been an adequate assessment of the effects on the human beings within various chapters of the EIS. He did not accept that the EIS was inadequate in its methodology. None of the documents either from the EPA or from the EU required an assessment in the manner suggested by Dr.Stein. He referred to Article 2, Schedule 6 reminding the mandatory and discretionary requirements, and the current knowledge available in assessing significant impacts. There was no reference in the EPA guidelines that said that a health impact assessment in the manner referred to by Dr Stein. Mr. Sweetman disagreeing with Mr. Flanagan referred to Article 3 of the Directive which states that an EIS shall identify, describe and assess impact of each case on human beings, soil, air .etc and assess the interaction between the indents, he could not understand how one could assess the impact of these without assessing the interactions and impact on the health of human beings. He further stated that the EPA Guidelines actually stated that health effects should be taken into consideration. Ms. Lawton requested that planning authority to read out DAP 13 (4.6.5), and referred to a motion passed by FCC in Sept 2005, requiring that health impact assessment be carried out in the LAP to address the concerns of the residents in relation to air and noise pollution. Mr. Sweetman stated that this was not carried out. Mr. Flanagan was not suggesting that health impact has not been assessed. What he was saying was that the methodology adopted by the applicants to examine this was consistent with the requirements of the legislation. He did not agree that HIA should replace EIA, but rather be examined as part of it. Dr. Staines agreed that health impact assessment is part of the EIA. There were many aspects to be considered in a development such as engineering, economic, or transport aspects which were important and required expertise. The health impact must be included on the same level as these. The EPA Guidelines back in 1996 specified specifically that human health must be examined. He would argue that in the EIS as presented there was no adequate consideration of human health impact. Mentioning in several sections did not consider such an assessment.


Mr. Flanagan stated that DAP 13 referred to the environs of the airport, where for example current and predicted changes in air quality must be assessed. It said this should form part of the EIS. Having regard to the current legislation, these were appropriately assessed. There was nothing wrong form the point of EIA legislation with examining these on a chapter by chapter basis. He said lets not overly focus on the decision of the planning authority. If somebody was of the view that there was something fundamentally wrong with their decision, they could have challenge it, they could have challenged the LAP. This was not done. Instead they chose to appeal the decision. He had made his decision and deemed the EIS to be adequate. The matter was before the inspector now. He also wanted to point out that when one read the submissions and observations made in the first instance. At this hearing it was expanded greatly in the hearing. He did not have a problem with it. It was a decision by the inspector, and it was a project of national and strategic importance. One had to bear in mind that the submissions that were made to the planning authority were much more limited. It was now up to the Board. There were a number of objectives with letters DAP which related to South Fingal. There were three policies, under air and water quality management and required that every development in the vicinity of the airport. DAP 13 dealt with air quality, DAP 14 with water quality. He said we had quite a long discussion on those issues. There was no current legislation that required a human health assessment. This policy was introduced by a particular elected member and done on a non-statutory basis. It was well established in law one did not look at them in isolation of individual objectives or policies in a development but looked at them in an overall context. Sean O' Faircheallaigh thought it was not the best worded policy in the development His recollection was that the intention was to ensure that air and water quality management issues were taken into account where an EIS was involved, then somebody thought it was a good idea to throw in health impact. He did not think it meant you must carry out a health impact assessment. In any event it did not exist under Irish law. Mr. Flanagan concluded they were satisfied all the relevant air and water quality management the process was appropriate process, the issues were correctly identified and ventilated in the EIS, and equally were forming a part of this three week long hearing and were being discussed as part of the information gathering exercise for the purposes of the inspector’s report. Dr. Staines repeated that in his view health was required to be assessed as a component of the EIA. There was nothing in the documents presented so far that provided adequate assessment of human health impacts. If the assessment was not done, and he suggested was not done, than it was not possible to introduce mitigation measures. In response to question by the inspector if there was a model used in other European jurisdictions, he stated that it was commonplace in other European countries. He


referred to Schiphol runway extension, where there was a state of the art health impact assessment where the detailed evaluation done of the health of the population around the airport, detailed evaluation was done on potential impacts, and on-going monitoring of the mitigation measures. Other examples were Frankfurt and great deal of work were done around Heathrow airport. A very small example was the proposal for converting an old RAF base to a small commercial airport. It was accompanied by a full scale health impact assesment as part of the EIA. Mr. Sweetman referred to the judgement of Mr. Justice Mc. Carthy on the Mc Garry and others v Sligo County Council, and stated that the County Development Plan was a contract between the planning authority and the people. Mr. O’Donnell would deal with three issues, public safety zones, property values and air emissions. Acknowledging Dr. Sttaines’ expertise, and his views that health impact statement must form part of the EIA, he said that would have to be considered within the statutory code of EIA legislation. We were dealing with the case under Planning and Development Act, 2000 Referring to Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, which identified the context within which what is required to be contained in the EIS and what is required as part of the assessment is at indents one f the Schedule was the main effects, and then the likely significant impacts. It did not include every impact, but it was the significant impacts . Secondly, as far as EIS concerned , the approach was confirmed by An Board Pleánala and EPA, and indeed by the courts where you identified the likely significant effects. In so far as the human health issues they might arose from the proposed development directly or indirectly, form the emissions from the proposed development . These were of course considered in this case as part of preparation of the EIS. But it was found that there were no significant effects. So far as air emissions were concerned the figures in the EIS showed these were well below the limits set, where any consequences might arose for human health. The process was open and transparent. In response to the question by the inspector as to what would be included in a HIA if one was to carry one, Dr. Stein stated that he would not talk about the construction stage, because it very specialised. He would refer to operational stage. The major impacts from the terminal would be operational impacts related to first to flight movements, noise emission of violatile organics, outflaw from the runway area of contaminated water, emissions from aircraft exhausts, carbon dioxide emissions, fuel discharge. Second set would be related to transport of cargo, humans, fuel, and congestion. Noise was a major impact which has deleterious impact on the education of children, and in some cases hypertension and cardiovascular problems. These were all the impacts he would expect to be assessed and quantified, and only then one could decide they were not significant. He could not see how you could decide it was negligible if they were not assessed.


Mr. O’Donnell started with noise, the impacts arising form the construction ad operation were given during the noise module. Nobody took issue with the conclusion of the experts. Similarly the water was examined in a separate module, in great detail. Two separate systems for discharge of contaminated water and clean water. Air emissions from the landside transport were also examined under a separate module. Nobody could state these were not considered. Perhaps maybe not using the methodology he is suggesting, but they were considered. The approach adopted by Dr. Staines was worth considering in a more strategic context perhaps LAP. The approach adopted here was within the context of EIA legislation. At the invitation of Mr. O’Donnell Mr. Bailey explained that in examination of air quality impacts one looked at two things. First one looked at it under the National Air Quality Standards (2002), to see if they exceeded significantly. And for the development one looked at a mathematical model exercise to see if they would have significant impact on the NAQS. These were the only tools to measure if there were likely significant impacts. . He referred to the last page of his submission, which related to various figures. You either measured around the airport which DAA was doing for a number of years, and look at concentrations, which might be found beyond site boundary. To make a prediction one modelled to figure likely significant impacts, and compare with NAQS. He emphasised that the standards were incorporated in national legislation, and were devised based on EU expert committees assessing how special limit values should apply for health concerns. So one could take that the levels were where there was no risk to the local community. He was not sure how Dr Staines would carry out the study. The health indicators would be doctor visits, mortality rates, or hospital admissions. He had carried out a study in the 70’s, to measure air quality in Dublin, and it was very difficult to see any significant relationship. He concluded that health impact a2ssessment was carried out within the confines of NAQS. The methodology used in the EIS to assess exposure risk to the local community around Dublin Airport examined current ambient air quality based on monitoring results from the air sampling network operated independently for DAA. The results for 2005 and 2006 demonstrated that beyond the airport site boundary none of the measured pollutants exceeded the NAQS. He examined individually, NO2, SO2, Carbon monoxide, benzene, particulates M10 and M25, and Ozone, stating in each case that in residential areas where there were health concerns, the levels were well below the levels set by NAQS.


Existing measurement program carried by the DAA was far in advance of what was done in other areas like Stanstead. He was also satisfied that the monitoring network of DAA was adequate to assess the air quality in the area. The results indicated that the residential communities were not at risk from air quality. Also from a theoretical basis, Portmarnock was 6-7km down wind of the runway. At that altitude, any aircraft taking would be sufficiently above ground, and impact on the residential communities would be negligible. To predict the future impact a detailed air dispersion modelling study was carried out based on emissions from the road transport, aviation emissions, and emissions from the airport complex. This type of evaluation demonstrated the community health risk in terms of predicted or monitored air pollutant concentration and compared the values with relevant NAQS. The results of eh air quality impact for T2 indicated that the predicted impact emissions associated with the development will not have an impact on the local air quality. He concluded that based on the approach of evaluating the significance of ambient air quality levels to local community health risk, it was considered that a more intensive investigation of potential risk to health form atmospheric emissions by undertaking a HIA within the local community was not warranted for this development. He referred to the HIA carried out for Heathrow airport. Based on their analysis of GP visits, hospital admissions, the impact of the emissions was effectively nil. They had carried out the study in relation to various pollutants. Mr. Sweetman asked the relevance of HIA in Stanstead. Mr. Bailey was trying to explain that a separate HIA was not necessary in this case. Looking at NAQS provided much better benchmarking. Best approach to looking at the health of communities around an airport was through relating measured levels and modelled levels to the NAQS because there was a built-in safety factor in those standards. In response to question regarding distance of aircraft from St. Margaret, he responded that the emissions during approach was much lower than take-off. These were discussed by various experts during the runway hearing. Ms. Lawton drew attention to the word significant and that there seems to be different interpretations. They would prefer to use the WHO standards. She asked that synergistic approach be taken in assessing the impact on health of population. While Dr. Bailey referred to high altitudes, many times the people living in Portmarnock could see the pilot of the aeroplane flying over from their windows. Mr. Harley said the method in which they arrive insignificant effects was false. You could not build a terminal, but proceed with a runway, where you would have millions of passengers without a place to put them. He suggested they were re-writing the rules of analysis and coming up with non-sense. Referring to inspector’s question earlier he stated they could not ignore the impacts on St. Margaret’s. Concentrating on Portmarnock was not adequate.


Dr. Staines had stated (to Mr. Harley) before leaving that Mr. Bailey had not mention health surveys which would clearly define the base line. Mr. Sweetman asked how he could extrapolate from Standstead, which showed no impact, to say there was no effect, while Schiphol did not go ahead because of health impact assessment. The inspector requested documentary evidence to show the said conclusions. The EIA of the Schiphol included a HIA. He said both equally applied, and one could not use one that suited them, and asked if he had read the HIA of Schiphol airport. Mr. Bailey explained that it was in relation to difficulties in providing a causal relationship between hospital admissions, GP visits etc and airport. The population around Schiphol would be much greater than Dublin. He was giving Standstead only as an example of the type of HIA being carried out. He considered use of NAQS to be much more effective. In response to Sweetman he stated Standstead would be in a more rural area. Mr. O’Donnell read a condition suggested by Dr. Bailey: DAA shall monitor air pollutant concentrations within the environs of Dublin Airport at locations to be agreed with the planning authority. The pollutants to be measured shall include nitrogen dioxide, benzene, particulates (such as M10 and M25,) and ozone. The measurements shall be undertaken so that concentrations can be compared with compliance of the appropriate NAQS. The monitoring network shall include both continuous sampling equipment and passive sampling methods for monitoring the air pollutant parameters. Results obtained from the air quality monitoring network shall be submitted to the planning authority on a quarterly basis. Following review of first annual survey period, the frequency and pollutant parameters may be revised, with the agreement of the planning authority. Sweetman stated this was illegal. In response to the question by the inspector whether continuous monitoring could be made available through a website, he said the DAA would present the results to the planning authority and had no difficulty with making results available to the public, through the planning authority website. Safety zones, and property.values Niamph O’ Sullivan stated DAA had undertaken third party a risk associated with various scenarios of the runway. They looked at six scenarios, based on different modes of operations in the runway. The mode of operation used in Dublin Airport was incldud in that assessment. The result was that no scenario existed to risk to the property individual risk existed above 10-4 for a year.


They also looked at the public safety zones. There was a draft public safety zone but, was for the Minister for the environment and Fingal County Council. These were not yet finalised. In relation to property values, they had asked Gunne Residential, which looked at Portmarnock, Swords, Malahide and included rental values. Also looked at a comparable area and concluded there was high values in this area. They concluded that the existence of such major employment centre in the area made a positive impact. In response to question by the inspector she stated the comparable area was Lucan (compared with Swords). Proximity to M50, high density developments, 10-15km distance to city centre, bus services, distance to distance to retail areas, not on train line but in proximity, were similar. Mr. Harley agreed with her valuer, which reinforced what he said before. He repeated that the margin of development in the Dublin Airport would actually reduce the values. Three valuers used by themselves had stated in relation to properties under the flight paths that the value would be less by approximately 1million an acre. He wanted to stress the effect of the expansion of the airport. They maintained they would decline. He asked Mr. Bailey’s opinion on what would he think if he asked the impact of additional 15million passenger with associated aircraft movements, would he still come to the same conclusion. Basically doubling of the passenger numbers as a result of the terminal, as opposed to 2-3%. Mr. Bailey had looked at the aircraft movements given by ARUP. If there was an increase in the passenger numbers or change in aircraft types there could be changes but he could not answer the question. In response to the question by ms. Lawton, Mr. O’Donnell explained the meaning of the risk, referred to earlier, and compared it with risk from road accidents. No the figures were not provided in the EIS because they were not significant. There was an agreement regarding the length of the time since publication of the draft safety zones. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that the statutory period for an LAP was six years, and wanted to put on record of the appreciation of the huge amount of work put into the County Development Plan by the councillors. In response to invitation by the inspector regarding the condition suggested by the first party, Ms. Lawton stated as community they would prefer monitoring to be done by an independent agency like EPA or An Taisce. She also was worried about quarterly figures. It should be in real time. Mr. O’Donnell stated the monitoring would be conducted by an independent consultant, in this case Bord Na Mona, and the location and calibration would be decided in agreement with the planning authority so it would be independent of the DAA.


Discussion of conditions imposed by the planning authority. (01/05/2007) Mr. O’Donnell referred to a number of conditions against which they were withdrawing their appeal. (27, 43) Revisions to condition number 21 as suggested by the planning authority was acceptable to first party. Mr. Sweetman suggested condition number 30 should include otters. Appeal against that condition was withdrawn during ecology module. First party had no difficulty in complying with condition number 22 and 23, subject to minor amendments introduced by the planning authority. Mr. Flanagan stated that the conditions were precautionary. There was nothing in the application to suggest there were problems in this area but as in any construction site they wanted to be sure. Mr. O’Donnell stated that they had done an analysis of the aquifer and were satisfied there was no contaminated soil, and had not problem with complying. Ms. O’Brien wanted the condition to be included, as this was a ‘brownfield’ site and contamination was likely. Mr. Flanagan stated that the condition covered both the construction and development stage, but no they were not trying to complete an EIS by way of a condition. The significant effects have been identified. This was only precautionary and good practice. Protection of the aquifer and contaminated soil was specifically addressed in the EIS. The condition was precautionary. Simone Kelly for Ryanair wanted it on record that they were present in every day of the hearing. They wanted to make a written submission at a later day in relation to condition number 28, but supported the thrust of the condition. Planning authority suggested amalgamation of conditions 32 and 33 and suggested revised wording. In relation to condition number 38 the planning authority were suggesting revisions in relation to materials used. In terms of passenger experience the materials were important. Mr. O’Donnell agreed, as it was a specific objective of the plan. The planning authority suggested slightly more detailed condition for no 39. The first party thought it was an onorous condition but they were prepared to comply with it. Mr. Sweetman wanted to know what ‘substantially’ meant, but thought the condition was appropriate. Mr. O’Donnell referred to a number of cases where the courts


outlined what substantial meant. In response to question by the inspector he agreed that completion of planting within the first planting season would indeed be better. The planning authority suggested slight changes to condition number 40 to make it tighter. The first party had no difficulty, though they thought the information was already there. The planning authority thought condition number 4 was an omnibus type condition. There were other more detailed conditions in those areas. Referring to condition number 19 requiring revision of drainage calculations, Mr. Sweetman stated that a lot of information should be there was not there. In relation to 24 he asked if there was no water conservation plan in the EIS. In response to suggestion by Mr. Sweetman the condition required demonstration that there was inadequate supply of water, the planning authority confirmed that there was adequate supply of water, but improvements to the watermain was required. Mr. Flanagan referred to water management plan, and peaks and troughs during construction stage and confirmed there was adequate water supply. Mr. Sweetman concluded the problem had not been dealt with. Mr. Harley noted there were no noise conditions. They would ask for conditions for restricting night time noise, as suggested on page 5 of Mr. Walsh’s earlier submission. Mr. Sweetman suggested use of T2 should be restrained to between 0700-2300. It was within the remit. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the condition suggested (by Mr. Walsh) had no validity. If one applied the principles of conditions, such as being ‘reasonable’, ‘enforceable’, ‘precise’ and ‘related to the development’ as a matter of law total ban of flights over Portmarnock was just not possible. Secondly, in terms ambugity, unenforceability and reasonableness, it would mean the airport could not operate. Within Dublin area 50 dBa max could not operate due to a car passing, bird singing etc. Mr.Sharp stated you could not restrict aircraft movements within an area (Civil Aviation Act 1992). He repeated the WHO figures were guideline values not limits below which effects (sleep disturbance) can be assumed to be negligible. Because they were so low they would already be exceeded in many more properties. In the past they would have been exceeded in a wider area. And they were not enforceable. Mr. Walsh stated that they had produced evidence that they could use different departure procedures (take off in the northerly direction, rather than directly east) which in fact was being used recently, and was reported by residents as being an improvement. Mr. Byrne suggested it could be achieved as in the cases of Cork and Belfast airports, where they were closed over night. He stressed you did not have to take off east, and over Portmarnock. DAA had long term 40 year plan to take off to the west. If the Board did not impose curfew, they could limit take offs to west. They could be qualified in relation to use of T2. In 20 years time there would be curfew and there was need for leadership.


In response to Mr. Sweetman that there was no 1992 Act, Mr. Sharp stated it was an International Act. Mr. Sweetman insisted if it was international than the rules which applied to airports where closures were required should also be applied to Dublin Airport. Mr. O’Donnell, said the applicant did not control flights. It was a matter for the aviation authority. The flight paths etc were dealt with during the runway hearing. He agreed with the inspector that the issue was more appropriate to the runway case. Ms. Lawton said under the noise Directive there was a way of doing it. It had stated off- limits were appropriate. Reading from sections she stated local authorities were obliged to prepare plans on how they were going to control noise. Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority was not supporting those conditions. Inspector stated the matter would be brought to Board’s attention. Closing Submissions (04/05/2007) Third parties Ms. Lawton expressed disappointment that the board did not provide facilities for her to make her closing submission in her native language.

• At the outset it appeared that there was selective use of policies, ignoring decentralisation policies.

• No studies were produced by DAA or FCC on how to make best use of the existing airport infrastructure on the whole of Ireland.

• The reality of Climate change and our obligations for mitigation have not been dealt with by either authority

• In the scant reference to alternatives there was failure to think outside the box, in this case airport box

• Passengers from the proposed terminal would generate sizable no of aircraft movements

• The hearing failed to reach an agreement on the basis for projections on ‘peak’ or ‘peakier’ hours

• Noise modelling presented by DAA once again did not coincide with the real measurements provided by Dr. Walsh acoustics consultant

• There was a limit of night flight a community could bear, and the lack of night curfew presented huge problems

• There was a failure by the FCC to comply with their own objective DA07 on baseline noise measurements or indeed present any noise contours by measured by Fingal County Council


• She drew attention of the Board to the fact that human ear did not recognise project splitting

• There seemed to be a failure for implementing air quality management plan, and monitoring results were not available to the public

• The FCC carried out only one monitoring for a chemical NO2,outside the airport,

• The treatment of surface water run offs and ensuing pollution was highlighted. Indeed all monitoring was carried out by DAA, rather than FCC. This was as dangerous situation,

• There seems to be a complicit acceptance by the planning authority to accept all monitoring

• Although there was a mechanism EU Directive 2000/30/EC for airports to ban chapter 3 airplanes, or impose night curfew, the hearing was told the status quo would remain

• She was struck by the ease in which planning authority and DAA could come to an agreement in relation to planning conditions. Unfortunately this did not apply to community concerns. She referred to the expression ‘swimming against the water’

She asked the Board if they decide to grant permission for Terminal 2 to address these concerns. Finally she thanked the inspector for the cordial atmosphere in which the hearing was conducted. The inspector apologised and explained that the date for closing arguments could not be determined in advance for provision of translation services for the closing submissions. Mr. Sweetman (for Teresa Kavanagh) They were appealing the decision of the planning authority, because no assessment as required under Article 3 was carried out. Throughout the hearing they had claimed they had assessed the EIS and found it to be adequate but they had not even carried it out under Article 3.

• The planning authority stated that EIS was assessed, but the planner’s report in various parts referred to areas, where internal documents required further information but the planning authority chose to deal with these by way of conditions.

• The water services department report stated that the EIS did not comply with

the requirements as interactions with humans was not examined. • The parks department (16/06) raised concerned planting, Environmental

Health Officer required (29/06) measurements a map identifying all noise sensitive locations, for duration of construction and operation phase. This was not requested.


• Meath County Council referred to possible flights over county Meath but no

copy of EIS was provided. This put the whole application into question as trans- boundary effects applied

• Fisheries board referred to otters in the stream. Just because Mr. Nairn did not

think they were not there, did not mean they were not.

• Mr. Bailey stated that there was exceedAnce of limits twice this year, that would cause concern, yet there was no concern

• His submission on climate was not responded

• Dr. Staines’ evidence must be considered as damming because there was no

HIA. To say a policy in the County Development Plan was not to be implemented was from a despotic society

• There was legal restriction in use of conditions. Under no circumstances a

planning authority should used compliance conditions to complete an inadequate EIS, or require mitigation measures. The appropriate route was to require further information under Art 33 of Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (circular letter 2002)

He asked the Board to refuse permission and order the planning authority to pay his client’s costs. Ms. O’Brien Submission on her behalf was presented earlier during ‘residential amenities’ module CE/04/05/07 Mr. Byrne (He summarised from his written submission (CB- 04/05/07) Firstly he thanked the inspector for the courtesies she had shown, the way she conducted the hearing in a very fair and impartial fashion and tolerated their inadequacies in procedures.

• In his opening statement he had stated that this application should be rejected on grounds of prematurity, unsustainability project splitting, and inadequate and poor planning considerations. Everything he heard during the hearing confirmed his views.

• He would start with project splitting. This was a blatant attempt to frustrate the

full and proper consideration of the full effects of doubling this airport. He could not understand why anybody would separate major projects other than


to avoid bringing them individually, under the radar of public scrutiny to avoid public consultations.

• This particular application was not subjected to scrutiny it deserved. Not by

FCC the guardians, custodians of the public.

• There was no independent assessment of measurements,

• The application was processed by FCC in record time, within three weeks of receiving objections. Their objections and major concerns such as health issues were not subjected to normal rigorous assessment

• He referred to citizens charter of County Council to improve quality of life,

and protect for future generations.

• They wanted to safeguard the future operations of Dublin Airport having regard to environmental impact on local communities. They had not considered local communities. They only considered what was inside the footprint of the airport

• They did not consider sustainability within Fingal and national policies,

• The quotes regarding NSS were pathetic

• There were a whole range of safeguards, contracts, including health, Fingal

County Council had with its residents. In this case they had not honoured their contract

Mr. Harley (He summarised the main points of a written statement (C C-04/05/07) For the Portmarnock community this was a serious issue, and they believed their well being was seriously threatened by the proposed development. While they did not want this development, they also maintained that it was not good for common good or for the national interest. There was no gain to the community or to the nation. One could not have sustainable development unless it was value for money. CBA was not a waffle, but required for all projects over 30million. The preliminary study carried out by Aviation Regulator found a loss of 330 million (web site). He felt in fact it should be higher. All developments under NDP needed to be subjected to CBA. Their own calculation was that without including roads outside box, or Metro or cost to the community it would be in the region of 4.5billion. The EIS did not consider alternatives outside Dublin Airport. What was considered for the runway was not adequate. The only comparison was with ‘do nothing’. The


ESRI had in its report on the fourth NDP expressed concern that Dublin Rail’s transport projects had hitherto simply compared the project with do-nothing scenario, and failed to compare the effectiveness of bus against rail. This was the same negligent approach by DAA in T2 ignoring wider alternatives. There was selective application of various national policies, to justify Dublin or tripling of capacity at Dublin Airport. They could easily apply to alternative locations for airport capacity development elsewhere in or adjacent to GDA. He repeated that the sensitivity tests used for terminal location determined the outcome. The type of analysis used lacked objectivity. There was no demonstrable consideration of heritage in location. Heritage impact was not considered properly in functionality. The jobs argument was seriously flawed as explained earlier. There was serious exaggeration in numbers. The road traffic impact was seriously understated, particularly in terms of employee traffic. The employee impacts today was the same as passengers, but in future they were assuming this would disappear. The assumption that the second runway could be built without an additional terminal did not make sense. They were trying to avoid Similarly in terms of air quality the basis of analysis of the impact of air quality was the same ‘do-nothing’ scenario used elsewhere this was false and the conclusion in the EIS of no significant difference between the impacts under these scenarios was useless. He concluded by saying that the proposed development was unsustainable, and thanked the inspector for her courtesy. Mr. Hayden for Ryanair (The oral presentation diverted significantly from the written statement, CF-04/05/07) If one looked at the concept behind an oral hearing to assist the inspector and the Board, it was to identify concerns by objectors, seeking areas that require clarification and if there are issues yet to be resolved helping the parties to fill in the gaps. If you looked at the events of the past three weeks, what has happened between the opening and closing submissions and asked has there been much information to bring clarity, he submitted that there has not been. All that has happened was a process whereby it has become quite clear what is being constructed and what planning permission being sought for is a far greater process than being presented to the council.


In fairness the Council seems to have come to recognition that this proposal, T2 and the development in the eastern campus, would give rise to a capacity much greater than what was envisaged in the LAP. Therefore they had imposed a condition. What is really interesting is the response of the DAA to resist the condition. This was further support of the view that what is being presented by DAA is an entirely different proposal than they have in mind. Reading paragraph 3 of the written statement he stated that Ryanair’s fundamental objection was that the basis and information upon which it has been sought and obtained has not been either provided, or is transparent or complied with the statutory obligations in relation to the obligations on the DAA to make available to the public all information documentation, assessment and reports sought to be relied upon in relation to any particular application. In particular the DAA had sought to rely upon a contention of ‘commercial sensitivity’ in relation to very fundamental and basic information relied upon by it as justifying (a) location of terminal (b) size of the terminal (c) the cost of the terminal (d) level of service required. He stated there has been innuendo throughout the hearing that Ryanair was trying to obtain schedules of Aer Lingus for some commercial advantage. As far as they were concerned Aer Lingus was so small, it was irrelevant. Although Ryanair had vast knowledge of the industry, they could not understand what DAA was trying to do with 92 000m2 building. If Ryanair with expertise could not make sense of it, it would be very difficult for anybody else including the inspector to understand what is being presented. Without expert help how could the planning authority understand the requirements of the airline industry and what level of service would be required, or what level of service this development would provide. In his view the Council were told this is what we need this for a certain number of people not because this size is needed because the number of people required that size. Fundamental mismatch between what was urged on the County Council and passed in a record time and what was before us. The hearing at least assisted in running to ground the differential between What level and size of what is being provided and what in fact … The basis for the application rested initially in the 2003 terminals and piers study, and 2005 P&W study, and fine tuned by Gateway 1, 2, and 3. The latter 3 appeared specifically in the EIS and was relied upon during the course of the application. Firstly, the analysis of location decided upon in the 2003 Terminal and Piers study was never revisited, and the various weighted options were different to the numbers presented by the DAA at the hearing. Terminal and Piers study had indicated a single building, removing the circular ramps and the energy centre. The consistency of southern location has never been explained. While it is contended that the Government policy was responsible for independent T2, as proposed T2 did not have sufficient pier capacity to deal with passenger throughput, and must therefore use pier B extensively.


The cap identified in the Terminal and Piers study and LAP was 30mppa. LAP was a public document. It was not open without going through an appropriate consultation process to say a different number meant to apply. Accordingly any breach of this figure in the eastern campus was in breach and ultra vires. The conclusions set out in the LAP were drawn from the Terminal and Piers study, and P&W study. There was ambiguity used in the language used by the DAA (peak hour, busy hour used interchangeably) where a peak hour of 4200 was identified. There was no explanation of why the methodology chosen for Terminal and Piers was not adopted. The request was refused. He stressed that the inspector had the jurisdiction to direct an explanation and to furnish underlying information but refuse to do so. What was significant was that the County Council actually had the information contained in Annex 2.This was expressly confirmed at the hearing, and referred to in the LAP as the basis for which LAP both structured as a cap on the eastern campus and the identification of the development on the western campus. In their view the public process of seeking planning permission was circumvented and information available to the planning authority was relied upon but not made available to the public. This has circumvented the public process of seeking planning permission, as the information available to the planning authority was not made available to the public, it would fundamentally undermine and render void the planning permission and was unfair and in breach of constitutional justice. They suggested that DAA had publicly identified that it would not permit more than 31 take-offs per hour and that the planned 28 take-offs for T2 would leave only for T1 used by 40% of the passengers (Ryanair). They further submitted that as disclosed to the CAR the recent improvements at T1 (area 14 and pier D) would bring the capacity to 4,800 per hour (25mppa). They argued that the peak figures in T2 was achieved by grossly under utilising T1, and to justify 50m2 /person to achieve 92,000m2. They reiterated that a much smaller unit would be sufficient to provide required capacity, and that no explanation was provided for increasing the size of the terminal costing 170-200 million to 800 million. Their own interpretation was that this was to provide capacity far in excess of 50mppa in the eastern campus. They suggested independent operation of T2 can be achieved by building exactly beside T1 and providing no doors in between. They argued repeatedly that Gateway 1 and 3 were not provided in full though being referred to in the EIS. They questioned how the redacted versions of chapters 8 and 9 would be commercially sensitive.


In their view the consequences of non-disclosure of the information fundamentally undermine the validity of the planning application. It would also undermined the validity of requirement for demolition of Corballis House. Referring to further piers in the north side (pier G) indicated in P&W plans (despite arguments by DAA in relation to inadequate kerbside facilities in the northern side), they reiterated that DAA were trying to ensure that they never had to go to the ‘western campus’, whereby they would loose control of terminal facilities. Also (referring to redacted version of the documents provided), they would ask how information in relation to kerbside requirements would be commercially sensitive. In relation to traffic similar points arose. The EIS, traffic flows and sensitivity analysis presupposed a state of affairs that did not exist. It did not explain how there was a modal shift to metro in areas where there was low density, it did not allow for QBC to achieve accessibility, nor did it take into account of demand tolling to manage traffic volumes, as identified in the EIS for M50. There was no explanation of significant differences between the ILTP figures (for the council), and DAA, except that numbers were manipulated to ensure there was no adequate assessment of cumulative impacts. They contended that the entire application was premature in the absence of road improvement measures (only conditioned road upgrade and QBC was on Sword road), or imposition of a graded cap on the use of T2.. no cumulative impacts of the other development in the area have been considered (deliberately). The EIS created a lunchtime peak which existed no where else in the world, and was not likely to occur in Dublin, given the direction of growth for short-haul. They submitted that the EIS was entirely defective. They submitted the capacity of T2 at 5500 passemger per hour would equate to 27mmpa, and 5500 could not be achieved without further pier construction in addition to pier E and extended pier B. No explanation was offered in relation to car parks short or long term. These needed to be part of the EIS and the planning application. Splitting a project into its parts to prevent cumulative impacts constituted project splitting. In particular, the northern runway, car parks, piers lead to failure to address cumulative impacts particularly in traffic generation. As the EIS was defective, it was not up to the Board to grant permission. Referring to a number of court cases, including Arklow Holidays vs An Board Pleánala, he argued that the EIS did not give anything approaching a description of the development proposed by P&W study, a vastly larger complex, maintaining the entire use on the Eastern campus. It was well publicised that if the entire project intended is not in the EIS then it can not be complaint with the Directive. The public have been afforded enhanced participation by the amended Directive (Article 10A).


If Ryanair with expertise in the aviation industry could not make sense of what was being submitted, they could not see how the inspector or the Board would have organisational knowledge base to fill the gaps. If the Board took the view that the project splitting by subdividing a large project is permissible, then it fell foul of the rational in the decision The Commission v Ireland (1999 ECR 5901) where by the Commission successfully argued that Ireland had transposed Article 4(2) incorrectly by setting absolute threshold for Annex 2 projects, as even a small project could have significant effect on the environment. It was all the more so in this large scale project which was vastly in excess of what was considered in the EIS. Referring to other decisions ECR 5613, ECR 1-5403, ECR- 8253 they argued that definition of the project was central and that the national courts should have regard to the purpose of the general scheme of the Directive, and that this was all the more so in the context of An Board Pleánala. They asked what was the big picture. Separate applications for runway, car parks, piers constitute project splitting. There was no examination of cumulative impacts. Existing developments were not subject of the EIS. In the case of Jones v Mansfield District Council (2004) the court of appeal held tha planning authority could ot rely on conditions and undertakings as a surrogate for the EIA process. By parity of that dcision, they would argue that one could not conclude that the development is unlikely to have any greater effects then as stated in the EIS on the environment simply because the greater effects are likely to be eliminated by measures that would be carried out in pursuant to conditions. In the decision of ECRI-5975, it was determined that the screening decision by the national competent authority must contain or be accompanied by all the information that makes it possible to check that it had adequate screening. In this case though the planning authority had Annex 2, the public did not. During the hearing the planning authority had indicated that they had never really considered the size issue, and merely operated on the basis of representations made by DAA that the numbers were going to be as stated. It was not clear whether any engagement occurred between the DAA and planning authority in relation to scope or ambit of the matters to be addressed in the EIS (reference to article 5.2 of the Directive and s.135 of the PDA 2000). The hearing was told there was no written ‘scoping’ but discussions. There was no transparency, and the public was excluded from the process. The entire process was flawed. This made it null and void. It was clear from the conditions imposed that the County Council considered the EIS deficient, but had not acted rationally within its powers in accepting information as presented. (reference to a UK court case where permission was set aside on the absence of sufficient information sought be remedied by condition) In the case of Arklow Holidays judge Clarke had held that if parameters were impermissibly wide, then the public were excluded from the appropriate consultation process


Referring to the role and function of the inspector and An Board Pleánala and an unreported judgement (O’Mahony v An Board Pleánala, HC, 18th Feb 2005) where the judge held that the duty to carry out assessment lied solely on the members of An Board Pleánala and not the inspector, and must be recorded as its decision. There was an obligation and duty both on the inspector and the Board to carry out their function. The inspector had he entitlement to enforce and request delivery of appropriate information to form a valid, full and considered view. As could be seen in the cases Mc Bride v Galway Corporation (1998) and ECJ decision on World Wildlife Fund v Autonome , it was now beyond doubt that Directives were directly effective. In conclusion they would argue that the planning permission ought to be refused based on a complete failure of the EIS to deal with the cumulative effect and conscious effort at project splitting to reduce cumulative impact. Availability of additional to the planning authority but not to the public made the entire process fatally flawed. The inspector failed to exercise powers to furnish the appropriate information to remedy the defects (he noted that this was not a criticism of me, but wanted to point out that I had more powers than I thought I had). The Council had acknowledged the deficiency in the EIS and sought to remedy the defects by conditioning which was an impermissible act. He thanked the inspector for her patience, and courtesy in a difficult situation. The closing submission of An Taisce was read by Mr. Sweetman on behalf of Mr. Lumley, who could not be at the hearing ( BX-04/05/07) The submission was grouped under three headings, namely, National Law, SEA Directive and EIA Directive. The public notice did not comply with Article 22 (1) of Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, with regard to the area of land to which the application related. Additional work in relation to removal of hard /paved surfaces, new and improved road access, waste treatment storage and pumping facilities have not been identified The application should have been declared invalid by FCC and the Board did not have legal entitlement to respectively validate the application by way of revised public notice. The Board is asked to dismiss the application. The FCC failed to resolve the legal compliance of the LAP because of the inadequacy of the SEA accompanying it, particularly in relation to evaluation of information on Climate Change as required under article 5 of the Directive. If the council claim to have carried out a compliant SEA as they claimed at the hearing, they should have been actively monitoring the LAP area particularly in


relation to human health and climate as required by Article 10. The Council failed to provide evidence of the active monitoring The evidence and the response has failed to resolve the deficiency of information supplied by the developer under Article 5 and Annex 4 of the EIA Directive. The assessment carried out by FCC does not comply with Article 3 of the Directive to address European Court judgements or European Commission or Irish Government Guidelines on EIA Directive implementation, in particular to roads and transportation including impact of road works outside the application site, identification of contaminated soils on site and appropriate remediation, water supply capacity and waste water instalment methodology, location and disposal, assessment of climatic impacts including failure to quantify by CO2 equivalent tonnage and current emission from land based transport and aviation On this basis it is submitted that An Board Pleánala has sufficient grounds to refuse permission as the level of information deficiency is such that it renders environmental impact assessment in accordance with article 3 of the Directive to be impossible. The information submitted during the hearing is insufficient to allow an adequate EIA under Article 3 of the Directive, and consequently insufficient to allow conditions or mitigation measures to be attached. Submission be Planning authority Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority had a written submission (C H-04/05/07). He would not read from it but asked that it be considered in its entirety. He would also add a few points arising from the closing submissions of the third parties particularly in relation to some case law. At the outset he asked the Board to note the range of submissions /observations by the third parties in the first instance and the wider range of issues raised in the grounds of appeal and in particular the elaboration of the issues and new issues raised during the oral hearing. There was now a substantial body of information before the Board gathered in the context of the appeal which constituted part of the information for the purposes of EIA. He noted the comprehensive contribution by the third parties to this gathering of information and dissemination. He drew attention to sections 15 and 18 of the Act and to a new element in section 143 ( 17th October 2006), which imposed an obligation on An Board Pleánala to have regard to certain policy and objectives, and stated that S.143 (1) (b) “ the national interest and any effect the performance of the Board’s functions may have on issues of strategic economic or social importance to the state “ was of particular significance in this case. The County Development Plan and LAP were entirely consistent with each other and assessment of a development plan or LAP had to be done in context (reference to an English case law). It was the position of FCC that the proper planning and sustainable development of the area overwhelmingly favored the proposed development and the policies and objectives (noted-not a single objective, but all of the objectives)


enshrined in the LAP affirmed the appropriateness of the proposed development. It was not appropriate to seek to rely on a single objective. In relation to EIA he referred to the preamble of the Directive and in particular to prior assessment of likely significant effects conducted on the basis of appropriate information supplied by the developer which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the people who may be concerned by the project in question, he submitted this was precisely what was done in this case, by the amount of elaboration. He pointed out that in ‘Berkeley’ case, EIA was not done. Having regard to Article 94 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 the EIS was a document provided at the start of the application process, the relationship with the mandatory information and amplification of the mandatory information. In the case of case of the ‘Glen of the Downs’ (he was involved) again the court affirmed that the EIS did not require detailed design. In the case of ‘Ipswich town’ judge O’Sullivan stated what was important was community wide effect (while there may be concern for a particular individual it was the community effect that was important). In fact one could loose the wood for the trees, if one examined all conceivable effects. In the High Court Miss Justice Finlay Geoghan (Friends of the Curragh v An Board Pleánala, Dec, 2006) separated the legal relationship between EIA and SEA. Secondly, EIA was about a planning application. He quoted from the judgement: It appears that there is nothing in the Directive which makes it clear that a planning application must address not only the impact on the environment for which planning permission is sought but also the impact on the environment of future or proposed related development for which permission is not yet sought. This gave the parameters, but that was not to say that one would be blind to cumulative effects. The term ‘project splitting’ appeared to be used in more than one context which gives rise to confusion. She (Justice Finlay Geoghan) affirmed in her decision that 2003 Directive was not of Direct effect, and the EIA directive required an environmental assessment of a project or development which is the subject matter of the planning application and not of any related projects which may be subject of future or proposed application. He referred to a further number of cases and stated that it was a function of An Board Pleánala to assess the adequacy of the EIS as part of the EIA process subject to the limited right of review by the Courts on the grounds of unreasonableness / irrationality.


He repeated that EIS initiated a process of information gathering /dissemination which includes the making of submissions/ observations at first instance, the setting out of grounds of appeal in the instant case the conduct of a oral hearing in which evidence in relation to the likely effects on the environment may be heard and the seeking where deemed necessary further information by An Board Pleánala in assessing the adequacy of the EIS in the context of EIA. In relation to details to be agreed he referred to Arklow Holiday homes decision (a recent Irish case-law). Looking at details to be agreed and its compliance with EIA, it was clear that there was nothing to prevent detailes being agreed subject to effects being ventilated, considered and of course mitigation considered Referring to the decision on Boland v An Board Pleánala (J. Clarke) he stated that the test for the Board was has it imposed sufficiently detailed criteria as a result of a process involving public engagement. In his respectful submission there was very substantial amount of information to enable An Board Pleánala to consider all these maters and enable the Board to impose conditions. In response to some points raised by Mr. Hayden he would make a few observations. In his view the conditions did not identify further necessary information to consider the significance of the impact. In his view the significance of the impact had already been identified in the EIS. In relation to Protected Structure he stated that it was in the County Development Plan not the LAP that the structure was listed. Under s.57 under exceptional circumstance it could be demolished. Exceptional circumstances were accepted by Dr. O’Dwyer. In their opinion this was a development of strategic importance. One which the proper planning and sustainable development of the area favoured. The County Development Plan and LAP had affirmed its importance. A lot of planning consideration was involved in the adoption of the LAP. Compared to other LAPs this was a very detailed LAP significantly over and above the norm. There was now a substantial body of information before the Board. He noted that in relation to Condition numbers 7 and 43 there was no disagreement between the planning authority and applicant. He repeated some of the cases referred to by Mr. Hayden Berkeley case – there was no EIA Mansfield case-there was no EIA There was no request for ‘scoping’ in this case. Hardy case- bat survey was different than this case one was scientific the other was to check whether bats were present In the case of Heredfort waste watchers- the judgement established some principles:


• The decision on whether a development would have significant effect was a matter for the planning authority (or the Board),

• It was for the planning authority or the Board to decide whether it had sufficient information to make a decision (in this case there was nothing to prevent the Board to seek further information)

• In making that decision the planning authority would have regard to mitigation measures provided they are sufficiently specific that they are available and that there is no real doubt about their effectiveness. He submitted the conditions imposed by the planning authority don’t give rise to controversy. They were of technical nature

• If the authority was not certain it could seek further information (The planning authority handed in copies of the referred Judgements) Submission by First Party Mr. O’Donnell for the DAA was going to be brief as we had detailed examination during the hearing running in some days 12 hours a day. In the manner the inspector had conducted the hearing and the detail in which the modules were examined gave a clear indication that the inspector had a good grasp of the critical issues involved. The big picture was that the existing terminal was difficult to operate because it was beyond its capacity. All the parties had accepted that there was a need for this terminal. It was intolerable for the members of the public. There was no question that the situation was intolerable. It was critical to understand that this was a ‘national airport’ a critical piece of infrastructure operating this intolerable manner. It was also critical to understand that Dublin Airport was unique in that you had two major carriers. In developing a new terminal one operator had to move and there had to be a balancing between the two terminals These matters have been seriously considered in a series of reports. There had been many studies, he was not aware of any other case where there was so many exhaustive analysis, some as a result of change in the Board (airport Board). The impact of all these was that there has been a vast amount of information in public domain. He noted that of all the operators of the users of the airport, there was only one objector. He thought the objections from outsiders were not really about the terminal. The board should have regard to almost universal view that this is an appropriate response. In so far as the third party objector within the airport is concerned, the matters related to competition. Price or cost were not a matter for consideration under the Planning Acts


He stated that the reputation of the experts relied upon the integrity of the evidence they presented. In the planning context the proposed development was consistent with all the National plans, NSS, Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006), County Development Plan etc. In terms of broad picture there was agreement, though there may be disagreement in detail. Economic analysis perfectly appropriate in another forum, was not a mater for this one. The project had to go through another forum such as Regulator, and those economic arguments would be appropriate for that forum. The methodology, the principles were accepted as correct, but the issue was whether the forecasting methods by DAA was appropriate. These were peer reviewed and confirmed by an independent analysis. Even if it was big, the development plan required generous spaces to be provided. This was a critical requirement. Also externally it had to be a building reflecting the importance of the national airport. This too was a critically important requirement. The proposed development complied with the broad parameters of the plan and did not contradict the same. They had accepted the condition regarding overall throughput. In respect of traffic there was again no real issue and the consensus among all the experts was that this was capable of being accommodated traffic wise. Car park while not included in the application was included in the EIS. In so far as the Government decision of may 2005, procurement procedures had to comply with European requirements. The applicant had taken air emissions seriously and had engaged its own monitoring though not required to do so, and has been able to demonstrate that the existing air quality at the airport was to a high standard. He hoped the people were assured that there would be no adverse health effects. It was fair to say that the proposed development by itself or cumulatively give rise to very little impact on Climate Change. These type of issues could only be considered and adequately addressed in an ‘international’ dimension. Evidence had been given that showed no evidence of adverse significant effect on nature.


There would be significant planning gain from the proposals to separate clean and contaminated water. He agreed with the Planning Authority view regarding the Protected Structure. This was a type of development that permitted the Board to allow demolition of a Protected Structure, having regard to the various options considered (as in the case of Landsdowne Road). There was analysis of soils and no evidence of contamination was found. The act of participation of the third parties and the planning authority they have been given The level of information that has been provided in this hearing was of a scale unprecedented. The amount of copying had caused a lot of environmental damage. The third parties were not prejudiced in any way regarding information provided, they were able to construct models and make submissions. They had me their obligations. The matters to have regard to (by the inspector and the Board) were clearly outlined in section 34 (2). Validity of the documents were not challenged and had to be accepted as being valid. He agreed with planning authority that this was a project for consideration under S.143. Project splitting was examined thoroughly before. It arose from a desire to avoid an EIA that simply was not the case in here. There was no obligation to prepare a ‘statement’, an EIS was not a requirement under European law. It was a requirement under Irish law. The statement had to be judged under Irish law. The assessment had to be considered under Irish /European law, and essentially under Irish law because its implementation has not been challenged. Therefore they were the primary document. In any event it did not matter as EIA was a process. The process which we were engaged would identify any inadequacies as part of the environmental impact process, so they could be corrected. With regard to conditions he asked that the recent judgement in Arklow case be taken into consideration. The high court approved examination of the bed rock etc to be investigated as part of the condition. There was no contention of the condition. With regard to development occurring outside the lands outlined in red, he again referred to the same judgement, where same argument was unsuccessful (he was on the loosing side). The pipe was going through outside the site on lands but also on lands within the ownership of the applicant. Again in the same case, the High Court refused leave on grounds that once people were aware of the nature and extent of the development, it was acceptable.


He referred to the importance of OCTB, not just ‘national’ but on ‘international’ level and the efforts in trying to protect its integrity. This had formed part of the rationale in locating the building where it is. In his view the proposed new terminal was of a scale comparable to that. It was an important piece of architecture and more importantly a critical piece of infrastructure. It was of critical importance not just to Dublin area but to the nation as a whole. It has been assessed in an exhaustive manner through this hearing but also during planning permission, and all the concerns have been addressed. He asked that permission be granted. He thanked the third parties in the manner in which they conducted themselves, their knowledge and the issues they raised. They have been extremely helpful to the first party in clarifying points that are real concern to them. The planning authority had done no favours but acted objectively. He noted the hearing was very intensive sometimes requiring 12 hour days. He thanked the inspector and her team in the manner the hearing was conducted noting that the inspector was strict but fair. Mr. Sweetman congratulated inspector for the manner in which the inspector held the hearing noting that it has been a particularly long hearing. Mr. Flanagan joined to express his thanks to the inspector and the team, this was followed by Mr. Hayden. The inspector thanked the administrative assistant and the sound engineer, and in particular the parties in the way they expressed their views and concerns. Stating that the Board would make their decision following completion of her report and recommendation, the inspector closed the hearing.

an bord pleanála · the development will consist of the construction of: 1) a passenger terminal...

Documents