An Bord Pleanála
Planning authority evidence
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Marie O’Brien
- Mr. Manahan
- Ms. Lawton
- Mr. Alan Lamond
Planning authority evidenceReading 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. 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:
|