An Bord Pleanála
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Questions and clarifications
- First party evidence
- Evidence by planning authority
- Third party submissions
Third party submissionsMs. 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.
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 clarificationsAt 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 evidenceMr. 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
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.
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.
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:
|