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
Share with your friends: |
