An Bord Pleanála
Evidence by Angela Lawton (As Gaielge)
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Statements by observers to EIS
Evidence by Angela Lawton (As Gaielge)(Exhibit B-16/04/07) This appellant wanted to make her submissions in the Irish language, and was facilitated with a translator. This service was confined to the main submission only. The appellant wanted to inform the Board of the difficulties encountered by an Irish citizen in preparing an appeal in the Irish language. Fingal County Council did not make an Irish language version of the Dublin Airport LAP nor the County Development Plan was in Irish. The DAA refused to provide an Irish language version of the non-technical summary of the EIS. She thanked the Board for allowing her to make her presentation in Irish as a right and not as a favour. The appellant questioned the need for such a big expansion of the Dublin Airport. Referring to the PM/SOM study which states that Ireland was the only country without a land link to other areas, asked if it was not the time for such a link to be provided. She referred to suggestions regarding an undersea tunnel connecting Ireland to Wales, and high speed rail bridge between Rosslare and Fishguard. Dublin- London route was the most heavily used and short flights were not efficient. Terminal 2 and the runway were not necessary especially after the Stern report and IPCC. The airport master plan were outdated and the SEA for the LAP did not take account of the carbon emissions from the aircrafts. Aircraft emissions were 2-4 times more damaging any land-based transport. DAA had asked the EPA to increase their carbon emission allowance. The foundation of the planning system must be for the common good, and allowing expansion of the airport would be a bad decision. The aviation industry received huge subsidies and did not pay land costs. It cost the exchequer 1 billion Euro a year in subsidies and land costs. There were no taxes for internal flights in Ireland, while other countries did impose such taxes. Public service obligation subsidies made flying to Cork cheaper than taking the train. If polluter pays principle were to be applied to the aviation industry there would be no demand to fly. The whole master plan hinged on the runway being in place. This was a clear example of project splitting. According to s. 3.5.15 of the EIS the MSCP was to be in place before the terminal which would be in place before the runway. As a result of the terminal the number of flights would be increased from 43 to 86 per hour. Chemical and noise pollution would increase accordingly. The children at Portmarnock Community school were in a chronically disadvantaged environment. Airport authority had increased the flight corridors without consulting local residents. There was no night time curfew on flights. The EIS did not assess the population increase in the surrounding areas. The EU Directive 2002/49/EC required that noise should not be increased at source. T2 would allow larger aircraft which would be noisier. There were serious health implications for the communities arising from fear of crash, sleep disturbance, and chemical pollution arising from de-icing. PM25 and NO2 impeded on blood flow and led to heart attacks. There was no health impact assessment. The proposed expansion of Dublin Airport did not coincide with the government policy on decentralisation and undermined the regional airports, necessitating recently announced financial packages to regional airports. The NRA had objected to IKEA on grounds of congestion. The proposed expansion of the airport would lead to more congestion. majority of the passenger originated from outside Dublin. They should not be put into position to use M50 and contribute to the congestion. In her final comments the appellant stated that the application was based on a master plan, a LAP and a Sea which were outdated and faulty. No consideration was given to environmental changes of the future. No cost benefit analysis as required by the DoF for projects over 30 million was carried out. No studies were carried out regarding alternatives outside the airport box. The EU president had suggested examination of cooperation between airports before expansion of airport infrastructure. Link with Belfast airport should be considered. ICAO conference executive report suggested bilateral cooperation between airports to alleviate the burden on the communities. This was ignored by DAA. The proposed development was not in the interest of the local communities or the country as a whole. She asked the Board to refuse permission as it was not sustainable on environmental grounds, in terms of quality of life issues, on health and education grounds, and in the long term on economic grounds. Statements by observers to EISThe inspector allowed two observers to make short statements, prior to proceeding with the first module. Colm MacEochaigh for Heat stated the there was a necessity for a unified environmental impact statement for the whole of the airport and not just the terminal, as this constituted project splitting. He referred to constitutional justice and the cost and resource implications of attendance to such a lengthy hearing by third parties who did not have the same resources as the applicants. He drew attention to the team of experts assembled by the DAA and asked that copies of witness statements be provided in advance and not just before the presentation to enable other parties to prepare questions. This would allow third parties to attend to some sections of the hearing only. The inspector responded that holding of the hearing on an issue basis would allow people to attend the hearing selectively if they wished to do so. This would also facilitate the invitees who would provide expert advice in certain issues only. In response to the question by the inspector as to whether they would be prepared to provide copies of witness submissions in advance, Mr. O’Donnell for the DAA stated that while they had copies of the statements for the first module they were not yet available for the other modules. He did not agree with Mr. Mc Hookie’s assertion that as matter of law they would be entitled to those statements well in advance. They would be providing them for the convenience of the inspector and the others. Relevant information was already in the public domain through EIS and other documents submitted to the Board. Seanán Oliver Manfred Kerr co-founder of Spurt (stated to be a UK based organisation for aviation growth) read from a submission, similar to the written submission to the Board, at the end of which he regressed to a type of behaviour more appropriate to children’ playground, disrupting the hearing. The hearing was advised that appropriate procedures would be initiated against him. Policy Module (16/04/07-20/04/07) The first module examined the proposed development in the context of various policies and lasted five days. It covered areas such as ‘need for the development’, ‘alternatives’, ‘master planning’, ‘growth forecast’, ‘location options’ and ‘capacity’. The last section of the module included recent history of planning permissions and observations by Trevor Sergeant (Green Party) 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:
|