An Bord Pleanála


By Mr. Harley (for Portmarnock residents Association)



Download 0.92 Mb.
Page9/30
Date19.10.2016
Size0.92 Mb.
#4432
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   30

By Mr. Harley (for Portmarnock residents Association)

Referring to the table / graph presented in a previous session Mr. Harley stated that they showed 20.4 million for 2006, though we know now that the actual figure is 21.4 million, and that unless there was a dramatic down turn in the economy the high growth scenario would continue. He asked how do you get back into the centre line.


Ms. Coveney referring to additional aircraft purchases since the data was gathered and announcement for further purchases, stated that in the short term they did not only look at the GDP but market and airline plans in the short term.
Mr. Harley suggested looking at the figures one could argue that the passenger traffic was understated by 10-12 percent and that perhaps a bigger terminal was necessary. He suggested it was flawed. In response to question by the inspector whether they would change their forecast on the basis of the recent figures, Ms. Coveney said she would not.
In response to question by Mr. Harley if increase in airport charges as a result of this development was included as a separate component in aviation charges, Ms. Coveney referred to GDP elasticity and airfare elasticity and stated that as airport charges included a small percentage of airfare (4-8%) they were not included as a separate component.
Following further discussions on demand elasticity, in response to question whether carbon tax was included in the model, Ms. Coveney stated that 2011 was for introduction of emission trading scheme for airlines, and not carbon tax. It was not clear what was going to happen, and while she predicted that fuel prices would remain relatively stable, if substantial changes occurred, that would be covered by the low growth scenario.
In response to question that as 32 ha land was involved, how much value was attached to the cost of the land, or whether they included value of land in their analysis Mr. Foley responded that they had not. Mr. Harley referred to Government guidelines requiring that state lands be valued at opportunity cost.
Referring to Mr. Moran’s presentation (Terminal and Piers study) and the three tests (functionality, deliverability and cost) he questioned would the results not be different if the value of land was included. Noting that the preferred option was an extension to T1 (which would be much less costly) then the present separate one, he argued as the proposed separate terminal would be more costly then a simple extension, the result of the analysis would be different. He concluded that any outcome could be achieved if different weightings were attached to the analysis, and the methodology was not adequate in meeting the guidelines for public projects.
In response to question by Mr. Lumley in relation to percentage of transfer passengers and how much of the passengers originated from north of Ireland Ms. Coveney stated that the transfer passenger constituted only 5% of the total, and 75% had origin or destination from Dublin area. They would make Bob Laird aviation analysis available.
In response to suggestion by Mr. Sweetman that the value of the land should be calculated on the basis of the price recently paid for locating prison in the area, Mr. O’Donnell referred to his expertise on the matter and stated if this was arbitration or CPO it would be relevant but it had no relevance in the planning context. Mr. Sweetman stated that land value, economics, and sustainable were interlinked and if something was not economic it would not be sustainable. He referred to final section of an inspector’s report making a recommendation in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of the area.


Questions by Marie O’Brien to DAA

In response to question by Marie O’Brien as to what would happen to T2 if R2 was not built, Mr. Foley stated that he believed the board of DAA would go ahead with building it as it was required to relieve the existing congestion


In response to statement that all the drawings submitted showed R2 in place, Mr. O’Donnell stated that it was an objective of the development plan and had to be taken into account in their studies.
In response to capacity of T1 Mr. Foley stated that when T2 is operational it will remove enough passengers out of T1 to provide sufficient headroom for the improvements. They had promised to the operators remaining in T1 that it would be brought to the same level of service as T2.
In response to question whether they were planning to fly all night long as a result of increased capacity, Ms. Coveney stated that forecasting demand did not indicate such a scenario. The modus operandii of carriers was to fly during day time
In response to question whether it was Government policy to development Dublin Airport exclusion of regional airports, Ms. Coveney stated that they were mandated by the Government to develop Dublin Airport but the others would not be excluded as development of regional airports was also Government policy.
The question of how soon T3 would be required would be more appropriate for the Government and FCC
In response to question if the retail facilities were removed how much space would be available for processing, Ms. Weston responded that retrofitting was appropriate for T1 rather than planning the space from start. She referred to divertiture space (space used for security and processing). They had carried out a number of simulation studies to see how long does it take a person to go through various areas (take off laptop, and other items put on tray, put items back on at the other end etc) to come up with good design practices. Once some traffic is taken out of T1 there would be improvements. Mr. Foley added that they have been removing retail but they also depended on commercial revenue.
In response to question if DAA reduced level of service, would it increase capacity Ms. Weston said the busy hour demand (in this case 4144) defined capacity, while processing (check-in and boarding) was determined by the airlines. The airport authority had only agreement on level of service to be provided. Reduced standards could not increase demand.


Statement by Ms. Weston

In a short statement prior to her departure for Canada Ms. Weston stated that the question of whether Aer Lingus did or did not purchase additional aircraft was not material as Aer Lingus already had 28 based aircraft.


The arguments regarding additional wide bodied aircraft (as a result of new improved bilateral agreements between US and EU) would only indicate further growth, these were taken into account in the high growth scenario. In any event the demand by wide bodied aircraft would be later in the day.
Questions were raised regarding aircraft gating requirements and necessity to use additional piers (Gateway 2 document). The number one requirement in this regard would be coordination of aircraft parking requirements with passenger processing. There would be good utilisation of Pier E because of its design to accommodate either narrow or wide bodied aircraft. Reading from Gateway 2 document which stated that Pier B extension was not programmed beyond completion of T2, she said they had looked at if the existing facilities could accommodate full day demand and did not undermine the processing of 4144 passengers. If necessary, though not desirable bussing was completely feasible.
The suggestion that check-in hall did not take into account latest trends was incorrect. The assumption was that 70% of the passengers would check-in online leaving on 30% for conventional check-in. Presently only 5% of Ryanair passengers were checking in on-line, while 55% of Aer Lingus were using kiosk and online check-in.

Counters were required for bag drop in even tough they had boarding pass.


There was a lot of reference to IATA airport development manual, but there were others such as FAA (US Federal Aviation Administration), which was in the process of being updated, to which she had submitted papers. She firmly believed that no one should not rely on ratios in airport planning (ratio of passengers to stands). For example if the JFK was used as an example there would be a requirement of 250 more stands.
She had been involved in over 50 terminal projects over 5 continents, including (In Europe), such as Manchester, Glaskow, Edinburgh, Gatwick, Heathrow, Paris Charles De Gaulle. Every airport had something special and for that reason she preferred using real data and not ratios.
Dublin was very unique in that it had two very strong home based carriers. There was nowhere else comparable. You needed to plan using these as basis. Even if you used all of the other carriers it did not give head room in T1.
She had calculated the figure of 4144 herself (Mr. Hayden interjected stating that she was given the data to make the calculation). He argued that despite stating that 70% of the passengers would be using kiosks/ online check-in they were planning deep queuing.
Ms. Weston responded by saying that demand for number of counters and queuing depth was calculated on the basis of long haul passengers (1345-1444hrs), not short haul passengers.
She also wanted to stress that the she was the author of chapter 8 of gateway 2 document.
In response to question by Mr. Lumley if contribution of global aviation and in particular Irish aviation were taken into account, she responded that her speciality was on calculation of internal arrangements such as checking counters.
In response to the question by Ms. O’Brien whether it was envisaged that low cost airlines used air-bridges or stairs, Mr. Foley sated Pier E had the capability of air bridges and would be provided in agreement with airlines. Pier D did not have air bridge capability because the airlines did not want at the time.
In response to the question what was meant by independent operation of T2, Mr. Foley stated that they had to provide a solution for T2 which could be operated (commercially) by a third party. The proposal before the Board was endorsed by the verifier, as meeting this criteria..
In response to question as to how it could operate independently if it had to use pier B as well as pier E, Mr. Foley stated that there was airside connectivity between the two terminals.
In response to question as to whether there was public consultation and ‘scoping’ exercise, Niamh O’Sullivan for ARUP said yes there was, letters were sent to residents associations and two day long consultation process was attended by members of the public and DAA design team. Alan Lamond stated that the focus groups were chosen by a market research company at arms length from DAA and included two main groups, frequent fliers and families with children. Their views were fed back to the design team.
In response to request by Ms. O’Brien to make noise monitoring referred to by the planning authority earlier available, Mr. O’ Donnell agreed to make what ever data there to is available.
During discussion regarding health and safety of passengers at T1 which could reach to 25 million prior to completion of T2 (what would happen in the case of a fire), and whether health and safety were under another code and not under planning acts, Mr. Sweetman stated that human beings and flora /fauna were not included in the planning Acts though they were the first two items in the EIA Directive. The hearing had to take into account of human beings. Mr. O’Donnell stated that he was referring to matters when dealing with a planning application and referred to inclusion of EIA regulations in the 2000 Act.


Questions by Mr. Byrne

In response to question by Mr. Byrne what considerations planning authority gave to locating a second airport outside the site Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that it was assessed within the context of LAP which was based on objectives of the County Development Plan. No there was no consideration regarding location somewhere else such as Co.Laois.


Mr. Byrne maintained that the assessment of the planning authority was fundamentally flawed because they had considered alternatives only within lands in the ownership of DAA. They had narrowly interpreted what the NSS, NDP stated. There was no national aviation policy. AAP was not a policy. There was no study to examine alternative locations within the country as a whole. He agreed with other speakers that the decision had already been made to locate a second terminal (and runway) without examination of nationwide alternatives.
Mr Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that they had assessed whether the proposed development complied with policies at national and regional level.
Mr. Sweetman following a long discussion of where the alternative locations were examined stated the South Fingal study did not constitute a proper examination of alternatives as required by the Directive.

Questions by Mr. Mr. Harley


Mr. Harley stressed that there were references to a number of Government policies the planning authority and DAA had to take cognisance of. The fundamental policy underlying all was the policy ‘value for money’. All public projects must pass this test. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh was aware but it was not planning authority function to examine such matters. It was between the Government and DAA. Mr. Harley pointed out that the Government action plan did not state build this terminal at this location.


In response to question by Mr. Harley to quantify the temporary measures in terms of area and how much of the same would continue to be used after opening of T2, Mr. Foley stated that the temporary boarding facilities to south of pier D would be removed after its opening as the permission was temporary. The others such as whether area 14 would be returned to storage would depend on the circumstances.

Mr. Harley maintained that the capacity at T1 would remain higher.






Download 0.92 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   30



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
general format
access road