An Bord Pleanála


Questions by Mr. Flanagan to Mr. Manahan of Ryanair



Download 0.92 Mb.
Page10/30
Date19.10.2016
Size0.92 Mb.
#4432
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   30

Questions by Mr. Flanagan to Mr. Manahan of Ryanair

In response to suggestion that the term material contravention was not used by Mr. Manahan in their submission to the Council, and not until the hearing, Mr. Manahan responded that while they made their submission on the basis of the amount of material available at the counter of the planning authority and within the very limited time available for making a submission, more information became available at the appeal stage, through documents circulated prior to the hearing and during the hearing, which deepen his understanding of the issues and the development and his views have become hardened that the proposed development would contravene the LAP.


Following discussion at the hearing in his view while T2 was planned to have 15 million it could accommodate up to 25 million. Similarly T1 would have 25 million capacity though it was planned to bring it back to 15 million. As a result 50 million would be in the eastern campus which would materially contravene the LAP.
In response to the suggestion by Mr. Flanagan that nowhere in the LAP a cap was provided as suggested by Ms. Congdon and Ms. Callaghan of Ryanair, there was long discussion as to how many times the figure 30 million appeared in the LAP and whether it was up to 30 million (1st page) or approximately 30 million in other pages.

Mr. Hayden stated that the planning authority was now imposing a cap at 35 million, though they had said no cap was imposed.

Referring to 2000 Act, and page 3 of Mr. Manahan’s written statement that demolition of Corballis House would contravene the provisions of the LAP, Mr. Flanagan drew attention to objectives AH1 and then AH2, and AH4, and stated that while there was absolute imperative for protection of OCTB as stated in AH1, protection of others such as Corballis House would required to be consistent with development of airport facilities.
Mr. Manahan stated that while the LAP seemed to refer to OCTB in a more favourable manner, there was no such distinction between structures in the County Development Plan, and they were equally listed. He disagreed with Mr. Flanagan in the manner one looked at County Development Plan then LAP.
Referring to proposed 7 of the planners report, Mr. Flanagan argued that the document contained an appropriate assessment of the development, and drew attention to 70 conclusions. Mr. Manahan stated that in his view a section at the end was necessary to tie all the strands together and contain an explanation as to why the planner was going with the development despite material contravention such as demolition of Corballis House.

Mr. O’Donnell wanted to remind to Mr. Manahan that one could not elaborate on the grounds of appeal once the appeal was lodged.


He wanted to clarify that there were a number of matters Mr. Manahan was not aware of but as the hearing progressed formed additional views, and those were what he aired in the submission to the hearing. He agreed whole heartedly that time limits and procedures which the people had to operate when lodging and objection or appeal was putting too much pressure onto people.
Mr. Manahan responded by stating that there were two choices, either to read out the original submission or shape it for the hearing especially in case like this where there were different modules.
The inspector stated that one of the purposes of the hearing was to provide a deeper understanding of the development and the issues, and latitude was given to parties for that reason.
At the request of Mr. O’Donnell for DAA), Ms. Kenny of FCC confirmed that LAP both in terms of policies and objectives required design of a building to a particularly high standard. She confirmed that objective DS4 required a generous, well designed building, suitable as entry to the country and to give pride…both internal and externally. The critical issue was not capacity but, throughput of passengers. Higher level of comfort, service, quality of space were more in accordance with DS4. Design criteria reflected the importance of Dublin Airport as the most important entry point to the country.
Regarding level of service the development was assessed in terms of passenger experience and planners perspective. It was considered to be providing good level of service in accordance with the objectives of LAP.
Mr. Hayden asked again if the County Council had access to an aviation expert during the 8 weeks period of adjudicating on the development, did anybody understand whether IATA level of service meant flag carrier level of service C or low cost model. Ms. Kenny responded that it was not assessed against IATA levels.
Jerry Barnes (transport consultant for the Board) requested the overall capacity when both runways are in place, noting that the information was already available to the Board through the runway hearing. The DAA would provide the figures.

Planning history

(20/04/07)

In response to a previous request by the inspector planning history of developments at the airport (in the form of a list and map indicating locations) was presented to the hearing. (exhibit C-19/04/07)

Observations by Trevor Sergeant, Green party (20/04/07)
Mr. Sergeant stated that while he was the leader of the green party this was his constituency and therefore he was interested in the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. He had looked at the Dublin Airport master plan and had not seen any note being taken of the Climate Change issue. There was a reference in page 89 as a heading but to mean anything it needed to be backed up.
The best strategy in his view was to put this development on hold to determine first the optimum size for Dublin Airport. There was need to look at the western sea board where much less development taking place and to provide a balance, rather than laise- faire addition of capacity to Dublin Airport.
As a public representative he had responsibility in how the resources of the state were being utilised,. The cost not just in money terms, but in other areas such as land cost did not seem to have been examined. It seemed it was taken as a given that the land was in the ownership of DAA. It was not. It was state land and was not free. He felt the decision would be made without full knowledge of the real cost.
He was concerned that the development if permitted could be seen as another impediment on the road for the country for being ‘carbon neutral’ (He was not talking about aviation industry being under the radar in Kyoto agreement, which would be revisited soon). An uninformed decision could come back to haunt us. It would be more difficult to comply with our responsibilities at international level morally and cost wise, if proper assessment was not made. It was important that the decision sought to address the regional imbalance.
He suggested the issue be re-visited byway of questions being put to the developer. It was important to determine the optimum size for the airport. The residents of Portmarnock and St. Margaret and those travelling along these roads certainly felt it has been reached.
The inspector informed Mr. Sergeant that climate change would be discussed as a separate module and he was welcomed to attend.



Download 0.92 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   30



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