An Bord Pleanála
Questions to planning authority
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Questions to DAA
Questions to planning authority20/4/07 By RyanairIn response to question by Mr. Hayden Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that while 30 million was the driving capacity of the eastern section it was a general guideline, and in the context of the current growth the planning authority had considered it was reasonable to accept 35 million. There was a question of inadequacy of the capacity before T3 kicked in. They considered 35mppa to be absolute limit. Yes the LAP envisaged an eastern and western campus. This was the finding of Terminal and Piers study, but also of the South Fingal Planning study prepared on behalf of the planning authority by consultants of international experience. In response to the question as to whether size of the terminal was a consideration and whether it reflected a capacity of 30-35 million Rachel Kenny referred to objective DS4, and stated that they had started from the point that 35mppa was the upper limit. The size of the terminal was looked at in terms of design and layout to improve level of comfort and passenger experience. They had accepted the submission of the DAA that T1 and T2 together would provide up to 35mppa capacity. No they did not independently look at LOS (level of service) by using an external expert. Mr. Flanagan stated that a lot of work had been done in the LAP in relation to appropriate level of service and the FCC had made a submission to the Regulator stating that the conditions in T1 were not acceptable. Mr. Flanagan wanted to stress that capacity was not put as an issue by Ryanair to the planning authority during the application. They had looked at capacity from a different angle than Mr. Hayden. Balancing, appropriate level of service and passenger experience were main considerations. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that their concern regarding capacity was that (a) it should not go to an extent to frustrate the development of the western campus, (b) facilities in the eastern campus should be worthy of a gateway to the country. There was as such a push and pull. In response to suggestion by Mr. Hayden that the ‘entry’ to the country should be from T1 instead of a new gateway, Ms Kenny stated that they consider both T1 and T2 as gateway, and that there would be improvement to T1 after completion of T2. Mr. Hayden disagreed. In his opinion people used one or the other terminal. In response to Mr. Hayden’s question from the point of view of capacity whether they had looked the level of service, as presented to them by DAA, Ms. Kenny stated that they looked at it from the point of view of generous and well designed spaces. In response to query whether they sought services of an aviation consultant, Mr. Flanagan stated that they had looked at it from the point of view of up to 35 million capacity. A lot of work was done on he LAP which said appropriate level of service. A lot of aviation input had gone into the LAP. Following question as to whether the planners had access to Gateway 2 document, Mr. O’Donnell formally objected to the extent of reliance on a different statutory procedure, which was between the Aviation Regulator and the operators at the airport. Mr. Hayden insisted that it was relevant as a planning issue as the service had to be paid for. What was being built was discussed here, but they were looking at the regulator to pay for it. One could not have a different presentation to the Regulator than what was presented at this hearing. Inspector suggested Mr. Manahan explain the parameters for planning process to Mr. Hayden. In response to request by the inspector to outline the parameters within which the planning authority had made their decision, Mr. Flanagan said before going into that he would like to state that he had no problem with the inspector deciding the relationship between parties, and he had no problem with a lot of issues being discussed, but he had concerns that Ryanair was attempting to bring planning authority into the appeal in a manner…. They had made their decision on the basis of the application made. As a matter of law Ryanair had to set the grounds of appeal. He had read the appeal submission by Manahan consultants on behalf of Ryanair very carefully. Nowhere was there any reference to a cap, or capacity or to the documentation ventilated during the hearing…the extent to which they elaborated on these was causing him difficulty. He referred to s. 1.2.7 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. They had made their decision on capacity, on solid basis. In response to the ruling by the inspector that Mr Hayden was given a lot of latitude to go beyond what was set out in the grounds of appeal, that the issue of the cost of the building was not a matter for this hearing and the capacity and the size of the structure was important only in the context of jeopardising objectives of the planning authority for the development of the airport, Mr. Hayden stated that he would accept the ruling of the inspector that ‘cost’ was not an issue, ‘whatever the consequences rose from that’. He repeated that Ms Congdon had stated that the building had a capacity of 42 million, and the gateway 2 had said there was residual capacity of 20 million in T1. The combined capacity would therefore exceed the cap. In response to the question by the inspector, having regard to the submission during the hearing would they consider the size of the proposed terminal would jeopardise the objectives of the LAP, Ms. Kenny stated that they had assessed the application on the basis that the combine capacity of T1 and T2 would not exceed 35 million. They did not believe it would prejudice the development of the western campus or the overall objectives of the LAP. In response to question by Mr. Hayden what considerations were given in the use of the two buildings if there was excess capacity, Mr. Flanagan stated that as a matter of law they considered the cap to be up to 35 million. All the documentation presented in the application including covering letter and EIS had capped it at 35 million. In response to the question by the inspector, having regard to the information presented at the hearing if they would make any changes to the approach or the decision, Ms. Kenny stated that in terms of size of the building, size per se was not of critical importance to them. They wanted a well designed and generous space. The critical issue was the 35 million cap, in terms of advancement of the western campus. They had inserted condition number 28 to ensure this, but if the Board wanted they could strengthen it. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that Government AAP highlighted the need to start planning for T3 as early as possible. During the preparation of the LAP there was strong interest from the landowners on the western campus, who had hired aviation experts, and made submissions to the LAP. Mr. Flanagan stated that it was the LAP that talked about eastern and western campus. Early deliverability of T2 was an issue. The cap of 35 milion provided flexibility in terms of deliverability. The 30 million figure identified in LAP adopted in June 06 was based on previous data which indicated a figure of 20 million, but the plan allowed a margin as plans usually did. For the LAP deliverability of early T2 was most important. The remainder would be through individual planning applications. In response to the question from Mr. Hayden whether the constraints of the site was an issue in determining the size of a building or the needs of the landowner, Ms. Kenny stated that if there were constraints on the site they would influence and input the assessment of the site. In response to question as to what extent they had looked at site and Corballis House as a constraint, she stated that it was taken into consideration. The conservation officer would have an input into that. That would be discussed in a later module. In response to the question when it came to assess the building in question from the point of view of exceptional circumstances was there a constraint in terms of size, she referred to policy AH2 of the LAP. They would leave it to the heritage officer. Referring to map no 1 if the LAP (which was indicated to be diagrammatic) Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh, agreed everything after this went to west. No, PM/SOM or P&W study were not submitted formally as part of the planning application, but they would feed into the LAP. Mr. Hayden asked since the Board had received it after further information request (parts withheld), he asked whether the planning authority had access to the complete document, in particular to the annexes. The planning authority would check. In response to question by Mr. Hayden (and referring to an earlier point made by Mr. Sweetman) having regard to the size of the project why further information was not requested and why a number of conditions imposed by the planning authority were akin to additional information request, Ms. Kenny stated that there was no request of further information and conditions were devised by the planner. That was the recommendation that went up to the manager. In response to statement that normally one would see a section at the end of a planners report a debate, a process as to how the opinion is reached, and whether the one liner at the end of the document was hers Ms. Kenny stated yes it was, and the report had a series of sub conclusions. She disagreed with the suggestion that the statement at the end of the report effectively said the planning authority accepted that permission be granted as a given by the planning authority. There were 70 sub conclusions and there was no need for a final section to bring them all together. In response to question regarding further information recommendation on page 30, Mr. Flanagan stated that there were ongoing noise monitoring being carried out at the airport. The board would be aware that EHO conditions were standard condition. In response to question whether any ‘scoping’ direction was given to the DAA by the planning authority, Ms. Kenny stated that there was no formal scoping, just pre planning discussions. No, it was not unusual a project of this size. It could happen either way. In response to the question what were the parameters of the EIS agreed by the planning authority and DAA Mr. Flanagan interfered and stated that one needed to be very careful here. S. 2.4.7 of the Act provided for pre planning discussions, and that did not in any way prejudice the planning authority or the Board. It was a matter for the applicant to decide what went into the EIS, and satisfy the planning authority and ultimately the Board. The inspector ruled pre-planning discussions were not relevant to the hearing. In response to the question that as T2 predicated on Pier F, as well as B and E, and there were 9 applications within the last six months and as each piece added on a new impact, if any body asked for an overall EIS, Mr. Flanagan stated that the onus was on the applicant to consider in the EIS all relevant issues. Also the LAP had gone through SEA which informed the pre application stage. Mr. Hayden stated that the EIS dealt simply with the T2 and this constituted project splitting. Cumulative impacts were not discussed. Mr. O’Donnell objected stating that none of these were put to his clients before, inspector ruled the issues of project splitting and cumulative impact were raised. She ruled they would be discussed but at a later stage, as Ms Weston would leave shortly. Questions to DAADirectory: 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:
|