An Bord Pleanála
Presentation of evidence by Rachel Kenny
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
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:
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:
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 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,
The third parties then posed a series of questions to Ms. Kenny, in relation to contents of her report for the planning authority. Directory: news news -> Nonprofit grant application news -> Bulletin 4 Monday July 8, 2002 Backgammon news -> Last year four of the best Afrikaans Christian singers joined forces to tour Down Under with the production ‘Manne wat Glo’ news -> Management and Marketing news -> World Computer-Chess Championship news -> World Computer-Chess Championship news -> World Computer-Chess Championship Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|