An Bord Pleanála
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mr. Byrne
- Mr. Harley
- Questions and clarifications
Ms. O’BrienShe 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. ByrneStated 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 clarificationsMr. 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. 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:
|