An Bord Pleanála
Safety zones, and property.values
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mr. Sean O Faircheallaigh
- Discussion of conditions imposed by the planning authority.
- Mr. Sweetman
- Mr. Flanagan
Safety zones, and property.valuesNiamph O’ Sullivan stated DAA had undertaken third party a risk associated with various scenarios of the runway. They looked at six scenarios, based on different modes of operations in the runway. The mode of operation used in Dublin Airport was incldud in that assessment. The result was that no scenario existed to risk to the property individual risk existed above 10-4 for a year. They also looked at the public safety zones. There was a draft public safety zone but, was for the Minister for the environment and Fingal County Council. These were not yet finalised. In relation to property values, they had asked Gunne Residential, which looked at Portmarnock, Swords, Malahide and included rental values. Also looked at a comparable area and concluded there was high values in this area. They concluded that the existence of such major employment centre in the area made a positive impact. In response to question by the inspector she stated the comparable area was Lucan (compared with Swords). Proximity to M50, high density developments, 10-15km distance to city centre, bus services, distance to distance to retail areas, not on train line but in proximity, were similar. Mr. Harley agreed with her valuer, which reinforced what he said before. He repeated that the margin of development in the Dublin Airport would actually reduce the values. Three valuers used by themselves had stated in relation to properties under the flight paths that the value would be less by approximately 1million an acre. He wanted to stress the effect of the expansion of the airport. They maintained they would decline. He asked Mr. Bailey’s opinion on what would he think if he asked the impact of additional 15million passenger with associated aircraft movements, would he still come to the same conclusion. Basically doubling of the passenger numbers as a result of the terminal, as opposed to 2-3%. Mr. Bailey had looked at the aircraft movements given by ARUP. If there was an increase in the passenger numbers or change in aircraft types there could be changes but he could not answer the question. In response to the question by ms. Lawton, Mr. O’Donnell explained the meaning of the risk, referred to earlier, and compared it with risk from road accidents. No the figures were not provided in the EIS because they were not significant. There was an agreement regarding the length of the time since publication of the draft safety zones. Mr. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that the statutory period for an LAP was six years, and wanted to put on record of the appreciation of the huge amount of work put into the County Development Plan by the councillors. In response to invitation by the inspector regarding the condition suggested by the first party, Ms. Lawton stated as community they would prefer monitoring to be done by an independent agency like EPA or An Taisce. She also was worried about quarterly figures. It should be in real time. Mr. O’Donnell stated the monitoring would be conducted by an independent consultant, in this case Bord Na Mona, and the location and calibration would be decided in agreement with the planning authority so it would be independent of the DAA. Discussion of conditions imposed by the planning authority. (01/05/2007) Mr. O’Donnell referred to a number of conditions against which they were withdrawing their appeal. (27, 43) Revisions to condition number 21 as suggested by the planning authority was acceptable to first party. Mr. Sweetman suggested condition number 30 should include otters. Appeal against that condition was withdrawn during ecology module. First party had no difficulty in complying with condition number 22 and 23, subject to minor amendments introduced by the planning authority. Mr. Flanagan stated that the conditions were precautionary. There was nothing in the application to suggest there were problems in this area but as in any construction site they wanted to be sure. Mr. O’Donnell stated that they had done an analysis of the aquifer and were satisfied there was no contaminated soil, and had not problem with complying. Ms. O’Brien wanted the condition to be included, as this was a ‘brownfield’ site and contamination was likely. Mr. Flanagan stated that the condition covered both the construction and development stage, but no they were not trying to complete an EIS by way of a condition. The significant effects have been identified. This was only precautionary and good practice. Protection of the aquifer and contaminated soil was specifically addressed in the EIS. The condition was precautionary. Simone Kelly for Ryanair wanted it on record that they were present in every day of the hearing. They wanted to make a written submission at a later day in relation to condition number 28, but supported the thrust of the condition. Planning authority suggested amalgamation of conditions 32 and 33 and suggested revised wording. In relation to condition number 38 the planning authority were suggesting revisions in relation to materials used. In terms of passenger experience the materials were important. Mr. O’Donnell agreed, as it was a specific objective of the plan. The planning authority suggested slightly more detailed condition for no 39. The first party thought it was an onorous condition but they were prepared to comply with it. Mr. Sweetman wanted to know what ‘substantially’ meant, but thought the condition was appropriate. Mr. O’Donnell referred to a number of cases where the courts outlined what substantial meant. In response to question by the inspector he agreed that completion of planting within the first planting season would indeed be better. The planning authority suggested slight changes to condition number 40 to make it tighter. The first party had no difficulty, though they thought the information was already there. The planning authority thought condition number 4 was an omnibus type condition. There were other more detailed conditions in those areas. Referring to condition number 19 requiring revision of drainage calculations, Mr. Sweetman stated that a lot of information should be there was not there. In relation to 24 he asked if there was no water conservation plan in the EIS. In response to suggestion by Mr. Sweetman the condition required demonstration that there was inadequate supply of water, the planning authority confirmed that there was adequate supply of water, but improvements to the watermain was required. Mr. Flanagan referred to water management plan, and peaks and troughs during construction stage and confirmed there was adequate water supply. Mr. Sweetman concluded the problem had not been dealt with. Mr. Harley noted there were no noise conditions. They would ask for conditions for restricting night time noise, as suggested on page 5 of Mr. Walsh’s earlier submission. Mr. Sweetman suggested use of T2 should be restrained to between 0700-2300. It was within the remit. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the condition suggested (by Mr. Walsh) had no validity. If one applied the principles of conditions, such as being ‘reasonable’, ‘enforceable’, ‘precise’ and ‘related to the development’ as a matter of law total ban of flights over Portmarnock was just not possible. Secondly, in terms ambugity, unenforceability and reasonableness, it would mean the airport could not operate. Within Dublin area 50 dBa max could not operate due to a car passing, bird singing etc. Mr.Sharp stated you could not restrict aircraft movements within an area (Civil Aviation Act 1992). He repeated the WHO figures were guideline values not limits below which effects (sleep disturbance) can be assumed to be negligible. Because they were so low they would already be exceeded in many more properties. In the past they would have been exceeded in a wider area. And they were not enforceable. Mr. Walsh stated that they had produced evidence that they could use different departure procedures (take off in the northerly direction, rather than directly east) which in fact was being used recently, and was reported by residents as being an improvement. Mr. Byrne suggested it could be achieved as in the cases of Cork and Belfast airports, where they were closed over night. He stressed you did not have to take off east, and over Portmarnock. DAA had long term 40 year plan to take off to the west. If the Board did not impose curfew, they could limit take offs to west. They could be qualified in relation to use of T2. In 20 years time there would be curfew and there was need for leadership. In response to Mr. Sweetman that there was no 1992 Act, Mr. Sharp stated it was an International Act. Mr. Sweetman insisted if it was international than the rules which applied to airports where closures were required should also be applied to Dublin Airport. Mr. O’Donnell, said the applicant did not control flights. It was a matter for the aviation authority. The flight paths etc were dealt with during the runway hearing. He agreed with the inspector that the issue was more appropriate to the runway case. Ms. Lawton said under the noise Directive there was a way of doing it. It had stated off- limits were appropriate. Reading from sections she stated local authorities were obliged to prepare plans on how they were going to control noise. Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority was not supporting those conditions. Inspector stated the matter would be brought to Board’s attention. Closing Submissions (04/05/2007) 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:
|