APPLICATION - Pleanála An Bord Pleanála Home

Document Sample
APPLICATION - Pleanála An Bord Pleanála Home Powered By Docstoc
					                                  An Bord Pleanála




A 10 year planning permission for development at Dublin Airport, east of the existing
terminal building adjoining Pier C. The development will consist of the construction
of: 1) a passenger terminal (which will be built in two phases) of ca. 92,049 sq.m. in 4
no. interconnecting blocks ranging in height from two to four stories with an overall
height of 35m, which partially bridges the access road to the existing passenger
terminal building; 2) a three storey Pier Building with an overall height of 18m (ca.
24,052 sq.m.), complete with 19 no. air bridges and associated fixed links. 3) a two
storey over basement energy centre containing water storage and plant for power
supply, heating and cooling systems (ca. 5,049 sq.m. with total height of 11m and a
chimney stack of 38m); 4) external service yard; 5) realignment of existing internal
access road infrastructure and provision of new access roads, including pedestrian and
cycle routes, all contained within the existing airport campus; 6) Rearrangement of
the existing coach park adjacent to the north of the existing terminal building; 7)
separate car, taxi and bus set-down areas; 8) associated services connections; site
development; and landscaping works, including a feature access area; 9)
refurbishment of the existing Pier C; 10) demolition of the following; Corballis House
a two storey protected structure with an area of ca. 482 sq.m.; a single storey storage
building (ca. 1295 sq.m.); 3 no. single and two storey car hire buildings ca 280 sq.m.,
690 sq.m. and 1925 sq.m.); a single storey boiler house building (ca 373 sq.m.); single
and two storey DAA Maintenance offices (ca 1,290 sq.m.); a mainly single storey
Hanger Building (ca 2,165 sq.m.) and fixed links to Pier C (ca 380 sq.m.). All on an
application site of ca. 32,646 ha. The following will be included within the passenger
terminal and pier; check-in areas including 58 no. manned desks and 24 no. self-
service facilities; passenger services and associated terminal support facilities;
departure lounge; baggage processing hall; baggage reclaim area; ca. 5,813 sq.m. of
retail (ca. 840 sq.m. landside, ca. 4,973 sq.m. airside); ca 2,730 sq.m. of catering
facilities (ca. 643 sq.m. landside, ca. 2,087 sq.m. airside); 2 no. public houses totalling
ca. 1,278 sq.m. (1 no. landside of ca. 491 sq.m., 1 no. airside of ca. 787 sq.m.); airline
security, immigration and customs offices( ca. 4,625 sq.m. airside); links to a future
multi storey car park and the existing passenger terminal; security check-in and arrival
areas; associated plant, circulation and toilet space. An Environmental Impact
Statement will be submitted to the Planning Authority with the application.




                         VOLUME 1 – APPLICATION


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 1 of 308
FILE REFERENCE:                             PL 06F. 220670




APPLICATION


        Applicant                           Dublin Airport Authority


        Planning authority                  Fingal County Council


        P.A. reference                      F06A/1248


        P.A. decision                       To grant permission




APPEAL


        Appeal type                         Third party appeal against decision to grant
                                            permission
                                            First party appeal against conditions,


        Appellants                          (1)      First party -Dublin Airport Authority,


                                            (2)      Third party appellants
                                                         Angela Lawton,
                                                         Teresa Kavanagh,
                                                         Maire O‟Brien,
                                                         Bridget Byrne,
                                                         Portmarnock Community
                                                          Association (UPROAR),
                                                         Ryanair Ltd,
                                                         An Taisce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 2 of 308
        Observers                                    Dublin Transport Office,
                                                     Turnapin Residents Association,
                                                     St. Margaret‟s concerned residents




        Observers to EIS                             Marianne Kennedy (Plane Stupid),
                                                     Spurt,
                                                     Michael Smith (Heat)




INSPECTOR                                            Öznur Yücel-Finn




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 3 of 308
                          CONTENTS


VOLUME 1 PLANNING APPLICATION                                                            5

        1.       INTRODUCTION

        2.       PLANNING APPLICATION


VOLUME 2 APPEAL                                                                          44

        3.       WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS                                                     46

        4.       FURTHER INFORMATION REQUEST

        5.       REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

        6.       RELEVANT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES                                        90

        7.       ORAL HEARING SUMMARY                                                    91



VOLUME 3 ASSESSMENT                                                                      98

        8.       INTRODUCTION /DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION

        9.       ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION                                              101

        10.      ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES ARISING

        11.      FIRST PARTY APPEAL AGAINST CONDITIONS                                 256

        12.      EIS                                                                   257

        13.      LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS                                          268

        14.      CONCLUSIONS                                                           278

        15.      RECOMMENDATION                                                        292


VOLUME 4 PROCEEDINGS                                                                1-223


VOLUME 5 APPENDICES

                 TRANSPORT CONSULTANT‟S REPORT


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 4 of 308
1.0     INTRODUCTION


        This is an appeal by a number of third parties against the decision of Fingal
        County Council to grant permission for the above development.


        There is also an appeal by the First Party against some of the conditions
        imposed by the planning authority. Some of these were withdrawn during
        following discussions during the oral hearing.


        There are a number of observers to the appeal and to the EIS. The list of
        appellants and observers is provided in appendix V. The application is
        accompanied by an EIS.


        The report is presented in five volumes.
                Volume 1          application
                Volume 2          appeal
                Volume 3          assessment
                Volume 4          oral hearing proceedings
                Volume 5          appendices
        All volumes should be read in conjunction with each other.


        I have conducted the oral hearing and inspected the site and its environs on a
        number of occasions.




2.0     PLANNING APPLICATION


2.1     THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT


        The proposed development is described by the first party, in their submission
        to the planning authority, as a major piece of airport infrastructure.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 5 of 308
        The application is for a ten year permission with development in two phases.


        It would comprise principally:
                A new passenger terminal (to be built in two phases) over two and four
                 floors and measuring 92,000m2
                A new aircraft pier (E) accommodating 11 fixed link bridges and 19 air
                 bridges
                Connection of the new Terminal to the existing terminal and to the
                 future multi-storey car park (subject to future planning application)
                An energy centre, a service yard
                Taxi and bus set down areas
                Improvements and additions to the road infrastructure, new access
                 roads incorporating pedestrian and cycle facilities, realignment of
                 existing coach park
                Demolition of Corballis House a Protected Structure
                Demolition of a number of storage and car hire buildings


        It is also stated that the existing Pier C will be incorporated into the new
        building


        In describing the rationale for the proposed development it is submitted by the
        agents for the applicants that the application is made in response to significant
        and substantial increases in passenger numbers, to the high expectations of
        discerning travellers in their interface with the airport, the need for
        competitiveness in the international tourist and business market, and in
        response to government initiatives for the overhaul of the transportation
        network in general and to the airport in particular.


        Incremental development of the critical infrastructure could no longer satisfy
        the growing demand which had an annual growth of 6%, (growing more than
        1 million passengers per annum). At the end of 2005 18 million passengers
        used Dublin Airport. It is estimated that this will reach 30 mppa (million
        passengers per annum) by 2015-2016.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 6 of 308
        Together with other key pieces such as the second runway and Pier E the
        proposed Terminal 2 would take the operating capacity to 35 mppa.


        DAA is stated to be committed to accommodating the Metro North line within
        the airport complex and at a location to ensure connectivity from both
        terminals 1 and 2 and ease of accessibility for passengers.


        The submission accompanying the application describes the development brief
        with specific objectives with respect to the new terminal (T2), new pier (E),
        and the kerbs and road system. It also gives an outline of the                  consultation
        process with stake holders, and consultation with statutory and non-statutory
        consultees (105) inviting comments on the proposed content of the EIS.


        The submission outlines the key principles needed to realise the Master Plan
        vision, and submits that they are consistent with the principles established in
        the LAP.


        All modes of travel except the proposed Metro would use the external public
        road network and internal airport roads network. While a final decision on the
        alignment of Metro North through the airport has not yet been made,
        contingency planning for the location of a station within the internal road
        network area including sufficient space to allow for its construction has been
        co-ordinated in detail with the Railway Procurement Agency.


        The building is stated to be designed to provide a passenger experience in a
        manner reflective of the gateway status of Dublin Airport.


        The proposed building design had three main components. The new terminal
        building, check in hall separated from the former by vehicular route to
        terminal 1, and Pier E attached to the new terminal building.


        The new terminal building would be four storey high and had a curvilinear
        roof profile which continued into the check in hall. The two would connected
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 7 of 308
        by an elevated tube. The facades of the buildings would have full-length
        glazing. The three storey pier also had large expanses of glazing.


        The proposed development is envisaged to be completed in six stages (
        indicated on Figs. 5.1-5.6) to ensure access to T1 during construction.


        Phase 1 of the proposed new terminal (T2) would be opened in 2009, while
        the second phase would be completed in 2015 /2016.




2.2     EIS


        The EIS accompanying the application is presented in four volumes.
        Volume 1          Non- Technical Summary
        Volume 2          Main text of EIS
        Volume 3          A3 Figures
        Volume 4          Appendices
        Also provided is a CD


        The written text is presented in group format under a number of headings
        examining the existing environmental conditions for each element,
        determining the potential impacts associated with the proposal during
        construction and operational basis, and providing mitigation measures.


        Four scenarios were considered in impact assessment based on „do nothing‟
        and „do something‟ scenarios for the years 2012 and 2024. The year 2012 was
        considered to be the worst case scenario.



        Introduction
        The purpose of the EIS is stated to report the findings of an environmental
        impact assessment and to accompany the planning application for the
        development.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 8 of 308
        The proposed development would comprise two phases.
        The first phase would provide a new terminal (Terminal 2), a new Pier (Pier
        E), a new central plant facility and new kerbs and roadways servicing
        Terminal 2.


        Phase 2 would provide for the expansion of terminal facilities to cater for
        growing passenger usage approximately seven years after the opening of the
        initial Terminal 2 facilities, and would include additional check in facilities,
        further security processing, expanded baggage hall, increased passenger
        circulation.




        Background to the project
        Under this section the EIS provided information in relation to the need for the
        project, the Government policy, and development of the proposed scheme.


        The issues of providing airport facilities for the Dublin region at another
        location has been assessed previously and found not preferable to providing
        the required infrastructure at Dublin Airport.




        The need
        Following completion of Terminal 1, extensions and other projects it was
        recognised by the DAA that the continuing growth in demand at Dublin
        Airport could no longer be satisfied. DAA undertook annual aircraft traffic
        forecasting and estimated that annual passenger traffic would reach 30 MPPA
        in about 2015-2016.


        The facilities were significantly overstretched and without major alterations or
        expansion, the airlines would experience worsening conditions and declining
        levels of service.


        The need for the construction of Terminal 2 was outlined by the Department
        of Transport with the approval of the Aviation Action Plan on May 2005,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                             Page 9 of 308
        which include „the building of a Dublin Airport Authority owned new
        Terminal at Dublin Airport to open in 2009‟.


        A significant number of studies have been carried out in relation to master
        planning at Dublin Airport. These included
            Dublin Airport terminal and Piers development study (2004)
            Capacity Enhancement Recommendation report for Dublin Airport Sept
             2005
            Dublin Airport LAP including SEA prepared by Fingal County Council
             adopted in June 2006.


        The      principle      recommendation           of     the     Capacity       enhancement
        Recommendations Report (Sept 2005) was „Enhancement option 3‟ to provide
        for the construction of Terminal 2, Pier E and road way improvements. These
        would meet the 2007 pier and 2009 terminal completion targets set by the
        Government, provide for good utilisation of existing infrastructure and assets,
        provide for ordered and logical arrangement of landside, terminal and airside
        development zones, provide for incremental projects that address and ensure
        supply meets demand whilst maintaining on-going operational integrity


        Together with the parallel runway the Terminal 2 and pier E would take the
        operating capacity to around 35 MPPA.


        In considering the need for a new terminal and pier development analysis of
        the „Air traffic demand forecasts‟              were required. The growth in these
        forecasts together with current levels of congestion in the existing terminal
        and the constrained number of existing aircraft stands were the key factors
        driving the need for the new facility.


        For capacity purposes the DAA produced unconstrained updated passenger
        and aircraft movement demand forecasts, adjusting the previous year‟s
        predictions against actual throughput taking into account of the short and long
        term primary and secondary traffic drivers. The centreline forecast (2006)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 10 of 308
        predicted that the annual traffic at the airport could reach approximately
        30MPPA in the year 2016.


        For capacity planning purposes the DAA also produced „High Growth‟
        forecast to assess the additional requirements (based on specific plans such as
        those by Aer Lingus, indicating fleet acquisition, Ryanair indicating additional
        aircraft at the airport and Open Skies agreement with the United States)


        The peak hour flow figures have been used to derive the primary sizing of the
        kerbside, terminal and pier facilities. It was anticipated that the new terminal
        would provide on opening in 2009, a one-way peak hour capacity of 4200
        passengers per hour. It made provision following construction of second
        phase, for an additional peak departing capacity of 5,500 per hour at around
        2015.




        Alternatives
        When assessing the main alternatives the option of developing airport facilities
        at another location instead of the proposed Terminal 2 was not considered,
        because the proposed development was founded on the Aviation Action Plan
        prepared by the Department of Transport (May 2005), which included for „the
        building of a DAA owned new terminal (Terminal 2 ) at Dublin Airport to
        open in 2009‟. Therefore, the Government policy envisaged that the second
        terminal be built at Dublin Airport.


        The EIS for the northern parallel runway did include an Alternatives Report by
        consultants where alternative options for providing runway capacity (increased
        use of other airports, provision of single runway elsewhere in the GDA, and
        replacement of Dublin Airport on a new site) were examined. Therefore the
        examination of alternatives in this proposal was confined to location of the
        terminal within the airport campus.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 11 of 308
        A significant number of studies had been carried out in relation to master
        planning at Dublin Airport which lead to the recommendation that eastern
        terminal facilities be developed.


        The consultants study identified four development options (east, west,
        east/west, north) which were then critically evaluated, including sensitivity
        analysis under the criteria of functionality (operations, technical and design
        features), deliverability (overall deliverability to 2019, and deliverability of
        20MPPA capacity by 2010), and cost (construction, operation and
        maintenance).


        The recommendation for the preferred option (east for terminal and pier
        facilities) was made on the basis that it rank highest overall for its combination
        of robust functionality and the highest potential to achieve five year capacity
        milestone, with lowest overall capital cost to complete.


        A number of alternative schemes were considered by the design team for the
        specific location, functional layout and architectural treatment of the terminal
        building. Initially seven options were developed fully, which was increased to
        9 following presentation to the DAA Board. The preferred option was option 9
        as it was considered to have achieved appropriate operational performance
        while bringing particular benefits with regard to minimising disturbance to
        passengers and airport users and responding best to the constraints presented
        by the current operation and buildings.


        For the pier building four options were evaluated against a range of criteria,
        which included, passenger and staff experience, environmental performance,
        maintainability and buildability. Option four was chosen.


        A number of alternatives were considered for the treatment of Corballis House
        including its retention within the scheme, its relocation, its deconstruction and
        reconstruction, and its demolition. After careful consideration of the various
        options, conservation assessment and findings of the archaeological impact
        assessment the planning application included demolition of the Protected
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 12 of 308
        Structure. In their view the strategic national importance of the Terminal 2
        project constituted „exceptional circumstances‟ as detailed in the Act.




        The proposed scheme


        Once operational Terminal 2 would allow for access via multiple modes of
        public and private transportation including proposed Metro North, public
        buses, coaches, taxis and private cars and vehicles including bicycles.


        For the pedestrian the design philosophy promoted an ease of movement
        through the campus, impressing in terms of generosity of space and volume
        created and clear signage to direct the passenger to the required destination
        along covered well lit walkways and spaces.


        Within the terminal the passenger experience for the arriving passenger was
        direct and functionally simple from pier E through immigration, baggage
        claim to customs with exit into arrivals hall, all on one level.


        The departing passenger had a variety of check-in modes, with ample queuing
        spaces. From check-in they would ascend to upper levels to the link bridge and
        to security check areas and into departure lounges with duty free at second
        level and bulk of catering at the mezzanine level above departures lounge. The
        journey from departures lounge to the pier by means of escalators descending
        through a glazed tube, offerred mid-distance views of the airfield and Hills
        south of Dublin.


        The design principles were completely consistent with the principles set out in
        the Fingal LAP in terms of urban design character, continuity and enclosure,
        legibility, ease of movement, quality of public realm, diversity, and
        adaptability .




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 13 of 308
        Planning and policy context


        The proposed development was examined in the context of following policy
        documents: European Spatial Development perspective (ESDP), NDP (2000-
        2006), NSS (2002-2020), DTO Strategy 2000-2016: A platform for Change,
        Public Safety Zones: Cork, Dublin and Shannon airports- Draft Report (2002),
        RPG for the Greater Dublin Area (2004-2016).


        Also reviewed were Fingal County Development Plan (2005-2011), The South
        Fingal Planning Study and Dublin Airport LAP.


        The proposed development complimented the County Development Plan
        policies. The use was complimentary to the operation of the airport                         in
        conjunction with future development of public transportation proposals and
        the planning was consistent with the zoning objective. All uses were permitted
        in principle. The South Fingal Planning Study (2004) recognised the need to
        ensure that the airport continued its contribution to the economy of the
        County.


        The proposed development was fully in compliance with the objectives of the
        LAP regarding terminals and piers in the airport. The design of the new
        terminal took full cognisance of the internal access requirements outlined in
        the LAP, including ground Transportation centre and public transportation
        provided within, which will be fully integrated with the new terminal. The
        terminal building would also facilitate link with the western campus.




        Construction Activities


        The works were expected to commence in first half of 2007 and complete in
        the second half of 2009. It was estimated that at the peak the construction
        workforce would be approximately 1800.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 14 of 308
        The working hours would be 0700-1900 (Mon-Fri), and 0800-1630 (Sat &
        Sun), though it may be necessary to work outside these hours at certain stages,
        to minimise disruption when road closures are required.


        The bulk of excavations associated with Terminal 2 would result in
        approximately 45,000 m3 of spoil material to be reused for re-grading, sent to
        a recycling facility or disposed off to a licensed facility.


        A dust minimisation plan would be formulated to lower potential for dust
        generation from the site activities. Construction noise and vibration would be
        kept to a minimum in accordance with BS 5228 (BSI 1993,1999)




        Landside Traffic


        A transport assessment of the potential impacts of Terminal 2 was carried out
        for the years 2012 and 2024, as 2012 represented the worst-case scenario in
        terms of traffic, just prior to opening of the Metro North line. The assessment
        considered both the internal Airport road network and the surrounding public
        road network.


        The design took into account the requirements for bus, taxi and private car set-
        down and pick up areas to ensure efficient utilisation of available kerbs and
        minimise congestion. The design also incorporated connections to a proposed
        Ground Transportation Centre which would be subject to a separate planning
        application and would be the hub for public transport services including metro
        station.


        The main access roads into the airport were redesigned to increase traffic
        capacity, reduce potential for congestion and reduce driver confusion, and
        included a number of additional lanes, improved footpath and off-road cycle
        track provisions.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 15 of 308
        Elevated pedestrian linkages were provided to reduce conflicts between
        pedestrians and vehicles while reducing delays for vehicles at conflict points.


        Future traffic flows were estimated taking into consideration growth in both
        air passengers and employment /business related traffic. It has been assumed
        that without Terminal 2 the Airport would generate around 4,050 two-way car
        trips during morning commuter peak in 2012. With the addition of Terminal 2
        this would rise to 4,640 trips. In 2024 without the Terminal 2 the traffic
        during morning peak would be 3,150 two-way car trips, while it would be
        3,800 with Terminal 2. it is predicted that Metro North would reduce private
        car trips to/from the airport from 70-80% of all trips in 2012 to approximately
        50-60% in 2024.


        Strategic traffic modelling was carried out using the DTO model, where the
        assessment of the wider road networks for 2012 and 2024 were considered
        first without the terminal. This concluded that a significant level of road
        improvement would be required regardless of Terminal 2 to cater anticipated
        future growth. In all cases terminal traffic was found to have relatively minor
        impact on the operation of the overall road network. As expected the traffic
        impact is concentrated immediately adjacent to the airport accesses.


        To mitigate the terminals external road traffic impact the EIS provided a list of
        improvements required, to include upgrading of R132 Swors Road between
        Collinstown Cross          and airport roundabout, upgrading of Swords Road/
        Corballis Road south airport access junction, improvement of Collinstown
        Cross junction, and Harristown junction.


        Significantly an upgrade of the airport roundabout and Airport /M1interchange
        would not be required in 2012, but would be approaching capacity by 2024.


        The traffic modelling results showed the importance of an alternative access
        route to the airport via Ballymun interchange along Collinstown Lane and, the
        R123 Swords Road in terms of accommodating future airport traffic growth


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 16 of 308
        and as an alternative route in case of major traffic accidents on the primary
        M50-M1 route.


        The EIS provides suggestions to reduce traffic impact during construction
        period.
        A Mobility Management Plan (MMP) would be implemented across the
        airport campus under the direction of the DAA. Mitigation measures would
        address the transportation impacts and there would be no residual impacts
        were anticipated.




        Landscape and Visual impact


        The landscape around airport is described as open and low lying primarily
        agricultural landscape with a variety of land uses including clustered and wide
        spread residential development, golf courses and sports grounds and a variety
        of industrial and business uses.


        Much of the landscape in the airport was also open though managed landscape
        with ornamental pond has been established along the internal access road.


        The principle element of the proposed development would be the terminal
        building which is of a contemporary style with complex curving roof
        incorporating extended overhangs to the elevations. The height of the main
        building would be 34m. It would have a limited and generally positive impact
        on views from outside the airport. The contemporary style structure would act
        as a landmark development within the airport.


        The existing environment comprised a robust, and highly developed
        environment and in this context the proposed development would have limited
        potential for adverse impact. The EIS provides photomontages to provide a
        sense of the physical and visual nature of the proposed development within the
        immediate context.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 17 of 308
        During the construction stage removal of Corballis House would make the
        most significant impact.




        Noise and Vibration


        This was assessed in terms of landside and airside. The prevailing „Landside‟
        noise levels were primarily due to local and distant traffic noise and occasional
        aircraft movements.


        The potential noise and vibration was considered in two distinct stages: short
        term construction stage and long term operational phase.
                During the construction stage subject to good working practice noise
                 and vibration would not cause any significant impacts.
                During the operational phase it was predicted that the proposed
                 development would not increase the noise environment sufficiently to
                 cause a significant impact, and would not give rise to vibration that is
                 either significantly obtrusive or capable or giving structural or
                 cosmetic damage.


        In terms of „Airside noise and vibration‟ the study was undertaken to look at
        the noise from increase in passenger aircraft movements directly attributable
        to the provision of the new terminal building. The study used an
        internationally recognised noise modelling program published by the Federal
        Aviation Authority (USA).


        The main consequence of the new terminal building would be „low‟
        annoyance contour affecting a slightly larger area of southern Portmarnock
        and southern Swords than if there was no additional terminal. The majority of
        the conurbations around airport were outside this contour. Similarly no areas
        of dense population fell within moderate annoyance contour with our without
        the terminal scenarios. The high annoyance contour extended mostly over the
        airport and remained virtually unchanged between scenarios.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 18 of 308
        The development plan outer zone was comparable to the low annoyance
        contour, where new residential development within this zone took account of
        noise, but it did not prohibit or adversely restrict such development.


        The development plan inner zone, where residential development was
        considered unsuitable, did not cover any areas of significant population
        density. While it would limit the villages within the contour from growing, it
        would not inhibit growth of the conurbations around the airport.


        Overall there was little variation between scenarios and it was concluded that
        the development of Terminal 2 had no significant impact on daytime noise
        environment around airport in terms of noise from aircraft in flight.


        Similarly in terms of night-time noise there would be no difference between
        any of the future scenarios. Removing runway 11-29 and ending of regular
        flights on Runway 16-34 at night would reduce noise levels from individual
        aircraft flying over locations under the flight path of these runways, and only
        existing runway 10-28 would be used overnight.


        It was concluded that the provision of new terminal building and its associated
        flights would have no significant impact on the night time noise environment
        around airport.




        Air Quality


        Assessment of the existing air quality was carried out based on independent
        surveys undertaken for Dublin Airport in the surrounding area. Air quality
        monitoring was undertaken at 11 locations. The results for 2005 showed that
        the ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, benzene, carbon
        monoxide and particulars PM10 did not exceed the national air quality
        standards.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 19 of 308
        Emission estimates were prepared arising from aircraft operations during
        landing and take off operations for 2012 and 2024 and used in the air
        dispersion model to evaluate likely impact changes based on „do something‟
        and „do minimum‟ Terminal 2 scenarios. The results demonstrated that there
        was no significant difference between the predicted ground level
        concentrations for the two scenarios, and where elevated levels are predicted,
        this was not attributable to Terminal 2 development.


        The results of the modelling study demonstrated that the predicted increase in
        ambient concentrations in 2012 and 2024 due to Terminal 2 would not have
        significant impact within St. Margarets and other local communities near
        airport or on the local environment.




        Flora and Fauna


        The site was of no significant value for flora and fauna, and nature
        conservation in general. Mature trees and shrubs would be used in landscape
        planting to provide habitats for common bird species.




        Soils Geology and Groundwater


        Preliminary ground investigation of the proposed site was underway which
        would supplement previous investigations, which had encountered some
        contamination on the site. The extent of contamination seem to be limited to
        the made ground material, localised and result of isolated incidents.


        Possible impacts from the proposed development included potential
        contamination of soils and ground water during construction and operation,
        dewatering and discharge of potentially contaminated water into groundwater,
        soil erosion and instability of temporary cut slopes, disposal of excavated
        material and dust generation. Providing that the recommended mitigation


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 20 of 308
        measures put in place there would be no negative impacts on the soil,
        geological or hydrological environment.




        Surface Water and Drainage


        The proposed development drained into two of the seven catchments of the
        Dublin Airport campus, Kealy‟s Stream and Cuckoo Stream. Attenuation
        would be provided in accordance with the Greater Dublin Drainage Strategy
        (2005)


        Potential impacts could result from uncontrolled run-off or discharge of water
        and other materials from site during construction including suspended solids,
        fuels, oils, foul water and solid waste. During operation potential impacts
        could result from uncontrolled surface water discharges, pollution incidents
        and continued non-attenuation of surface water drainage.


        Mitigation measures included the installation of full retention and by-pass
        petrol interceptors and re-direction of surface water flow form Kealy‟s Stream
        to the Cuckoo Stream as recommended by the Eastern Regional Fisheries
        Board.




        Material Assets- Utilities


        Design of the Terminal 2 building aimed to conserve the use of both electrical
        and gas energy sources in operation of the building, including minimisation of
        CO2 emissions.


        New central plant facilities would provide heating, air conditioning, lighting,
        power and communications equipment to the building while on-site renewable
        energy were also considered to further reduce energy consumption and CO2
        emissions, to comply with 2006 Regulations on Conservation of Fuel and
        Energy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 21 of 308
        Water supply would be provided through a new reservoir located in central
        plant building.


        For all areas where potentially grease laden water may be discharged into the
        foul water system a grease management strategy would be developed to
        comply with the requirements of FCC.


        Public and private telecommunications network would be provide in the
        proposed Terminal 2.




        Waste management


        Approximately 3,200 tonnes /annum of non-hazardous waste would be
        generated by the proposed development Terminal 2 building. In addition some
        waste oil from catering and household hazardous waste such as fluorescent
        light bulbs would be generated. A number of options were considered for
        disposal and decision would be made based on feasibility study of preferred
        options which would include high level of segregation at source and recycling
        facilities on site.




        Archaeology and cultural heritage


        The application area for the proposed development included an area identified
        by the Record of Monuments and Places map as an arc1 constraint area for a
        „castle site‟(1200-1550). No stray archaeological finds were recorded in the
        townlands of Collinstown and Corballis.


        Corballis House listed as a Protected Structure was located within the
        application area. Exploratory works confirmed that an earlier structure (1600)
        was contained within the later extended 18th / early 19th century house.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 22 of 308
        In order to proceed with the construction of the terminal it was considered
        necessary to demolish Corballis House.


        The construction of the Central Plant facility was likely to involve removal of
        any surviving remains of a castle site.


        The construction of the new Pier E might involve removal of remains of
        Colllinstown House, which might survive under the concrete apron in front of
        pier C.


        It is proposed to excavate and record all archaeological remains at the site with
        the most up-to-date archaeological techniques and compile into a publicly
        available document.




        Architectural Heritage


        There were three protected structures located at Dublin Airport, namely
        Corballis House, the Old Central terminal Building, and the Church of Our
        Lady, Queen of Heaven. Neither of the latter two would be impacted upon by
        the proposed development, but the former was proposed to be demolished.


        Corballis House was listed on the Register of Protected Structure (RPS)
        contained in Fingal County Development Plan. It was also listed on National
        inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH).


        The building, which exists in present, was from the early 19th century. There
        were indications that the house itself was of 17th century origin and gone
        through major reconstruction in mid 18th century, and further remodelling in
        19th century. It was apparent from cartographic history that the context and
        setting of this rural residence has been radically altered and changed and that
        its original context and setting no longer exists.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 23 of 308
        Retention or incorporation of Corballis House in its present location was
        considered by the design team as non-viable in the context of generating an
        optimum, efficient and elegant design.


        Potential relocation has raised further issues. It would be highly intrusive as it
        would involve the demolition of the central hall and relocation of the house in
        two parts. It would involve loss of historic setting and orientation.


        There was no justification for pursuing the option of deconstruction /
        reconstruction as it would not lend itself to reuse of significant quantities of
        the original material.


        Demolition of Corballis House would involve removal of a Protected Structure
        resulting in negative direct and significant impact.


        The EIS provides a number of measures to ensure demolition, recording and
        salvaging of some items in a manner appropriate to architectural heritage.




        Impact on Human Beings


        A socio-economic assessment of the potential impacts the proposed
        development may have on the users of Dublin Airport and communities
        associated with the airport was undertaken as part of the EIS.


        Dublin Airport played an important role in the Irish economy at local,
        regional, and national level as well as Irish Tourism.


        During construction there could be some disruptions to the road users
        including pedestrian and cyclists due to diversions, though the existing
        facilities and access would be maintained. There would be requirements
        placed on the contractor to mitigate disruptions.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 24 of 308
        Overall the Terminal 2 development would have positive socio-economic
        impact directly on the airport users, and on the local community and indirectly
        on the wider community, regionally and nationally.




        Climate


        The operation of Terminal 2 would not have significant impact on the local
        climate. The curved design would help reduce the degree of turbulence
        downwind of the building. Location within existing complex would mean no
        impact outside the boundaries in terms of shadowing or wind.


        The central plant building was designed for use of high efficiency gas and
        pellet boilers. The emissions would contribute less than 0.2% of the total
        current emissions of the energy sector, and would have negligible impact on
        the green house emissions.


        The projected increase in the number of aircraft movements when Terminal 2
        is in operation for both 2012 and 2024 would be less than 3%. Therefore the
        impact of the proposed development on CO2 emissions would be
        imperceptible.




        Sustainability


        The importance of implementing more sustainable design in construction was
        identified as a key part of supporting more sustainable development. Materials
        would be locally sourced where possible, and in their natural state to minimise
        emissions. Spoil material would be reused. Rubble would be crushed and re
        used as hardcore. Timber, glass and metal from demolition would be re
        cycled. It was planned to separate waste streams at source, where possible, so
        as to make recycling and reuse easier.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 25 of 308
2.3     PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION


        Following detailed description of the proposed development the report for the
        planning authority provided the following planning history.


        06F. 217429 (Reg. Ref. F04A/1755) Application for northern runway,
                          (Currently on appeal)


        F06A/ 0379        permission granted for a new inclined walkway in the atrium of
                          multi storey car park, including relocation of the doors and
                          screens on the bridge between the multi storey car park and
                          terminal building
        F06A/0232         permission granted for rationalisation of short term car par, car
                          hire and bus and coach operations
        F06A/1894         permission granted for change of use of lower ground floor of
                          the main terminal building from storage to check-in facility
        F02A/1273         permission granted to construct temporary passenger aircraft
                          pier (4,400m2), and ground level access form corridor from
                          Old Central terminal building


        The report referred to the various policies at National and Regional level
        including Department of Transport investment programme for provision of
        Metro link to Dublin Airport to be implemented in 2012.


        Recommendations of the South Fingal Study, had contributed to the
        formulation of policies and objectives of the Fingal County Development Plan
        2005-2011.


        The LAP adopted in June 2006 concluded that, the development of a second
        terminal and piers on the eastern campus as the most effective way forward to
        provide the necessary capacity for short term requirements up to 30 MPPA.


        With the approval of Aviation Action Plan the Government policy supported
        Terminal 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 26 of 308
        The planning authority accepted the general need for additional terminal
        capacity, both to improve existing conditions and to provide for future
        expansion. The proposal was consistent wit TP4 and TP5 of the LAP.


        The combined operating capacity of the two terminals T1+T2 (with new pier)
        would be 35 MPPA, while the LAP referred to forecasting projection of 38
        MPPA by 2025. After 2015-2018 it was likely that further terminal capacity
        on the western campus would be needed.


        While terminal and runway capacities could effectively limit passenger
        throughput, the planning authority had taken the view that terminal facilities
        and related capacity was the limiting factor. It had been recognised for
        sometime that the existing terminal was overstretched regarding passenger
        facilities for significant periods of the year. Objective TP3 allowed for
        extension of Terminal 1 to the north west of the existing building, while TP4
        allowed for development of Terminal 2 by 2009.


        A new terminal would ease congestion in the existing terminal at a general
        level and allow for re-structuring operations, effective switching of specific
        airlines/ routes from the existing to the new terminal so that business could be
        balanced between two terminals. The planning authority had no objection to
        this.


        The objectives TP 4 and 5 of LAP supported the approach of the EIS to
        critically evaluate the 4 options regarding location against criteria 2.2.3.1.


        The transportation department raised no objections to the Mobility
        Management Plan subject to implementation in full.


        Final route of Metro North was not selected at the time of the application but
        was scheduled for completion by end of 2012. Metro West was scheduled for
        completion by 2014.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 27 of 308
        The report considered that the applicant had adequately allowed for the future
        development of Metro in regard to the roll-out of Transport 21.


        The report repeated bus facilities outlined in the application and considered
        kerb side improvements to be significant. Having regard to the distance of the
        airport from residential areas, it was accepted that numbers of those walking
        would be low. The pedestrian circulation and connectivity within the complex
        itself was more significant.


        There was no objection in terms of traffic impacts subject to upgrading of the
        C-ring motorway between M1 and N2, specified junction improvements,
        implementation of MMP, and requirements in relation to intelligent traffic.
        Similarly there were no objections to car parking, car hire, employee parking
        proposals, though commissioning of an independent study for capping of
        employee car parking was noted.


        Access during an emergency incident was required, and would be included as
        a condition. Similarly full implementation of the MMP would be required,
        with baselines surveys repeated annually.


        The urban design approach was accepted having regard to the proposed
        integration of multi-modal interchange with easy access to terminals 1 and 2
        and short term parking. The EIS did not provide firm proposals for energy use
        and efficiency.


        There was good sense of space in the arrival halls and in the vicinity of the
        central escalators for departing passengers, but the departures route through
        the retail area was circuitous and did not allow for a direct passage from the
        passenger search area to the escalators at the entrance to the pier. This could
        be required by way of a condition.


        Connections to the multi storey car park and ground transportation centre
        though notional, access to these and integration into the airport complex was


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 28 of 308
        adequately considered. A condition would be required for provision of MSCP
        prior to occupation of the terminal.


        The building materials were discussed at pre planning and acceptable. The
        energy centre at 10.8m height with aluminium louver screens and a 39m tall
        flue would not be visually obtrusive when considered in its setting.


        The proposal was consistent with the objectives set out in section 4 of the
        LAP. The proposal was also generally consistent with the commercial
        development objectives CD1-CD8. The fact that a large proportion of retail
        and catering areas would serve passengers who have passed through the
        security checks was seen as a significant improvement on the existing terminal
        facilities.


        The visual impact on the wider area was acceptable. The main impact would
        be on the approach roads. The proposed landscaping would lessen the impact.
        The selection of photomontage locations, were well balanced.


        The building and surrounding works would dramatically effect the existing
        visual environment, but these were not considered negative. As viewed from
        the airside the building was attractive. The views from within the building
        were opened up by the escalators.


        The information in relation to adequacy of water supply was insufficient.
        Surface water systems relied on the facilities proposed and to be completed
        under previous permission (06F.205955), with completion envisaged in May
        2007, as such conditions would be applicable in relation to attenuation.
        Measures were necessary to protect groundwater aquifer. The extension of the
        sewer would be included in the Councils Works programme to be in place by
        2009.


        The approach in relation to telecommunications was acceptable.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 29 of 308
        The conservation officer had no objection to the proposals in relation to built
        heritage, including demolition of Corballis House.


        Proposals for waste management of construction phase were acceptable.


        The proposal was subject of detailed discussions during the preparation of the
        LAP in which an independent Aviation consultant David Stanley had
        participated, and as a result of which, the objective for provision of a second
        terminal on the subject site was included. The consultant was also involved in
        discussions regarding layout of the key terminal facilities, operational
        arrangements, baggage handling and aviation related considerations.


        The proposed development would facilitate a significant increase in the
        intensity of use of the airport generally, and the combined effect of the runway
        and the terminal would have a potential to maximise the capacity to the
        maximum of either (i.e. lesser capacity of the two).


        The principal impacts would be traffic impacts arising from increased intensity
        of use. While it was recognised that there would be significant externalities
        associated with increased aircraft movements, these were examined under the
        second runway application.


        The report examined passenger experience, general circulation , signage and
        way finding, access for mobility impaired.


        As the terminal building would be located within the airport complex the
        proposed development itself would not create significant noise impact on land
        uses outside the complex. Passengers would access the terminal in order to
        access the aircraft. The noise implications of this would relate to aircraft
        movements on the existing runway and possibly the second runway. No
        additional aprons were provided.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 30 of 308
        The independent noise consultant appointed by the planning authority raised
        no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to
        hours of work.


        The report recommended a condition to ensure upper threshold of the EPA be
        adhered to in relation to Green house gas emissions.


        The report considered kerbside lighting inadequate.


        The waste management proposals were acceptable.


        In discussing the adequacy of the EIS the report, considered that description of
        likely significant impacts were adequately addressed. It further stated that the
        inter-relationship between surface water management and human beings was
        not addressed in the EIS, and the cumulative impacts were of particular
        importance relating to traffic arising from increased capacity of terminal
        facilities.


        The report provided a synopsis of interdepartmental reports:
                There were no objections from transportation department subject to
                 conditions.
                Water services department had initially sought additional information
                 but following a meeting, the proposal was considered acceptable
                 subject to conditions. The conditions were reasonable and achievable.
                There were no objections from the Conservation officer, subject to
                 conditions.
                There were no objections from the Heritage officer, subject to
                 conditions.
                There were no objections from Strategic Planning Unit.
                The report from environmental health officer required further
                 information to include a map of all noise sensitive locations, and
                 duration of the construction and demolition phase, and recommended




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 31 of 308
                 adherence to the Guidelines in relation to noise and air pollution during
                 construction and demolition sites.




        The report referred to a list of external consultees.
                There was no report from the aviation Consultant (Mr. David Stanley)
                There was no report from Irish Aviation Authority
                The report of the noise consultant (Mr. Eanna O‟Kelly) raised no
                 objections subject to conditions relating to hours of work
                Meath County Council raised concerns regarding new flight paths on
                 areas of County Meath, and recommended that the drainage study
                 should ensure consideration of surface water impacts downstream with
                 County Meath.
                There was no report from Ballymun Regeneration Ltd
                There was no report from Dublin city Council
                The NRA had no objections but they would rely on the Council to
                 abide by the national policy in relation to frontage development on
                 national roads
                There was a detailed report from the DTO which raised concerns that
                 the increased demand access (landside) would need to be provided in a
                 manner to maximise usage of transport modes other than private car. It
                 recommended the applicant should provide impact assessment on
                 public transport services. DTO anticipated that the AM peak
                 commuting period would show greater impact on the transport network
                 than the EIS suggested. Clarification was needed regarding bus, coach
                 and taxi facilities. A higher target for bus modal share was needed.
                 Ground Transportation Centre should be connected to both terminals
                 from the onset. There were no commitments to DAA funded public
                 transport services for airport employees. The MMP needed to be
                 reviewed on a regular basis.
                There was no report from the Railway Procurement Agency




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 32 of 308
                The report from DoEH&LG (development applications unit)
                 recommended monitoring of ground works. The significance of
                 Corballis House was somewhat unclear as the full extent of the earlier
                 building had not been determined. A programme of plaster stripping
                 should be completed and report submitted to the Department.
                 Discussions were recommended in relation to preservation proposals
                 for the elements of the earlier building.
                There were no reports from the DoEH&LG (Minister‟s office),
                 Department of transport, Department of Marine & Natural Resources,
                 Airport Operator, Dublin Regional Authority.
                The submission by An Taisce stated that the SEA was inadequate in
                 the LAP, direct and indirect effects of the wider airport development
                 were not addressed in the EIS, lodging application was premature
                 pending assessment and mitigation measures to include a targeted link
                 between passenger numbers increase and greenhouse gas emissions,
                 noise, transport and ecology. Consideration of Alternatives was
                 inadequate. Greenhouse gas generation was not quantified and its
                 assessment was inadequate. Mobility strategy was inadequate. EIS was
                 deficient with regard to Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive with regard to
                 alternatives and mitigation measures relating to greenhouse gases,
                 traffic generation and increased aviation.
                The report by Eastern Regional Fisheries Board raised concerns
                 regarding possible contamination of Sluice River (Kealy‟s Stream a
                 salmonid river and otter presence in Sluice Stream) from surface
                 water. They recommended comprehensive surface water management
                 measures at operational an construction stages, and protection of
                 fisheries.
                There was no report from Failte Ireland, Health and safety Authority,
                 of Comhairle Ealaion.




        The planning authority decided to grant permission subject to 43 conditions.
        Of these:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 33 of 308
        Condition number 6 required completion of upgrading of C-ring (between
                                   Ballymun and M1/M50 interchange) prior to operation
                                   of Terminal 2
        Condition number 7 required specified junction and road improvements
        Condition number 12 required provision of additional short term parking
                                   spaces prior to occupation of the development, and
                                   additional long term parking spaces prior to occupation
                                   of phase 2
        Condition number 13 required liaison with RPA so as not to interfere with
                                   timely implementation of Metro North,
        Condition number 36 required consultation with RPA regarding technical
                                   construction requirements on an on-going basis to
                                   safeguard underground Metro route
        Condition number 15 required emergency incident traffic management plan
        Condition number 16 required construction traffic management plan
        Condition number 17 required completion of extension of foul sewer to
                                   Collinstown Cross
        Condition number 21 required resolution of all compliance issues relating to
                                   surface water attenuation facilities and pollution control
                                   measures
        Condition number 26 required monitoring of al ground works at Castle site
                                   and Collinstown House by a qualified archaeologist, a
                                   further investigation programme at Corballis House and
                                   preservation of all medieval fragments in consultation
                                   with DoEH&LG and planning authority
        Condition number 27 required separate permission for the operation of a
                                   remote construction compound
        Condition number 28 required detailed plans for future expansion of the
                                   campus on the year the passenger numbers reach 30
                                   million per annum
        Condition number 29 required a travellator in the pedestrian link bridge
                                   between terminals 1 and 2


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 34 of 308
        Condition number 30 required presence of a qualified bat specialist to be
                                   present during demolition of nay buildings or removal
                                   of     any trees, and notification of DoEH&LG and
                                   heritage officer of the Council if bats are found
        Condition number 33 required energy saving measures in the construction and
                                   operation of Terminal 2 to ensure CO2 missions would
                                   not exceed limits permitted by the EPA
        Condition number 34 required direct passage for passengers from search area
                                   to pier escalators outside the retail area




        The documents forwarded by the planning authority include reports and
        recommendations by
                Conservation Officer (Architect‟s Department),
                Heritage Officer
                Water services Department
                Environmental Health Office air and noise pollution control unit
                Noise consultant for the planning authority.


        It further includes submissions by outside agencies, by NRA, DoEH&LG,
        Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, DTO. I shall refer to detailed points of these
        when necessary in my assessment.




        The planning authority received objections by a number of individuals, and
        groups, as well as by An Taisce, Ryanair, and Huntstown Airpark ltd. These
        raise concerns regarding (amongst others) the rationale for the proposed
        development, compliance with SEA Directive, adequacy of the EIS, location
        of the proposed Terminal 2 within airport campus, compliance with LAP,
        building design, traffic and transport impacts, mobility strategy, measures for
        surface water attenuation, assessment of greenhouse gas generation, impact on
        residential properties and demolition of a Protected Structure.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 35 of 308
2.4     DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS


        County Development Plan


        The statutory plan for the area is Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011.


        Acknowledging that Dublin Airport is the most significant single economic
        entity and the largest employer both within Fingal County and the region as a
        whole, and the principal gateway to Dublin, the County Development Plan
        seeks to facilitate its development potential within the policies and objectives
        of the plan.


        Section 4.2 of the County Development Plan relates specifically to Dublin
        Airport and south Fingal Fringe. The plan provides for four over reaching
        strategic polices under DAS1-DAS4.


        DAS1- To safeguard the current and future operational, safety, technical and
                 developmental requirements of the airport within a sustainable
                 development framework, being mindful of its environmental impact on
                 local communities


        DAS2- To promote continued sustainable and well planned physical and
                 economic development of the airport within the Designated Airport
                 Area,


        DAS3- To promote appropriate land uses in the vicinity of the airport and
                 optimal land uses around the airport and of the flight paths serving the
                 airport, having regard to the existing and anticipated noise, safety, and
                 environmental impacts of aircraft movements


        DAS4- To realise the optimal use of lands around the airport, including green
                 belts and employment creation uses, subject to provision of an
                 adequate integrated transport network adequate to serve any such uses
                 while protecting surface access to the airport
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 36 of 308
        It also provides for objectives DA01-DA06. Of these, most relevant are:


        DA01 to prepare an agreed Airport action plan within the designated airport
                 area to serve the basis for planning control within that zone.


        DA04 to facilitate the on-going augmentation and improvement of terminal
                 facilities at Dublin Airport


        DA06 To require that an urban design statement accompany each
                 application for development within DAA, to ensure architectural
                 coherence and quality in the airport area


        Another important policy is


         DAP4 To encourage and facilitate the provision of an integrated public
                 transport network to serve the airport


        The plan has a specific zoning for the airport. DA “Designated Airport Area”,
        with the objective
                 To ensure the efficient and effective operation of the airport in
                 accordance with Airport Action Plan (Master Plan)


        Under this zoning objective the plan provides for a vision for the designated
        airport area and states:
                 Within this area, only airport-related uses (i.e. those uses that need to
                 be on or near the airport) should normally be permitted. The airport‟s
                 detailed development should be planned via an agreed „Airport Action
                 Plan‟ for the land within the Designated Airport Area. All development
                 within the DAA should be of a high standard of design, to reflect the
                 prestigious nature of an international gateway airport, and its location
                 adjacent to Dublin City….




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 37 of 308
        Specific policies include:
        DAP12             to ensure that every aircraft related development in the airport
                          takes account of the impact of noise on residential communities
        DAP13             to ensure every proposal in the environs of the Airport take
                          into account of predicted changes in air quality and local
                          environmental conditions, together with the impact on water
                          quality and flooding of local streams. This should form part of
                          the EIS where an EIA is required and of the health impact
                          assessment


        Under these policies there are two objectives


        DA09          Establish an Airport Consultative Committee to provide a forum
                      for discussion of environmental and other issues
        DA010         Prepare a strategy for St.Margaret‟s involving consultation
                      between the local community, Fingal County Council, and Dublin
                      Airport Authority




        In part VI the County Development Plan provides public transport objectives
        under TP7-TP14. These support demand management measures to reduce car
        travel, prioritise public transport, promote METRO, and other rail facilities,
        and public transport interchange facilities in co-operation with DTO and
        public transport providers.


        The transport objectives under TP15 –T21 repeat and expand on DAS1-DAS4,
        while objectives TO20-TO26 refer to developments within designated area.


        Objective TO23 is of particular relevance:


                 To facilitate the on-going augmentation and improvement of terminal
                 facilities at Dublin Airport




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 38 of 308
        The policies and objectives for water and drainage are contained in section
        6.2, with specific policies for surface water quality under UTP18-UTP23,
        policies for flood protection under UTP24-UTP27.


        Under Heritage (chapter 8) the policies HP1-HP5 and objectives HO2- HO13
        relate to archaeological heritage, while policies HP8-HP17 and objectives
        HO14-HO26 relates to architectural heritage, including architectural
        conservation areas.


        The plan refers to statutory requirements under Planning and Development
        Act, 2000, and outline headings under which structures can be added to the
        record of protected structure (RPS) if they are deemed of special interest
        (architectural, artistic, historical, archaeological, cultural, scientific, social and
        technical).


        Addition or deletion of the structures to/from the list is stated to be a reserved
        function of the Council.


        Under natural heritage the plan provides for policies HP24-HP26 and
        objective HO30.


        I shall refer to these policies in more detail where relevant in the assessment
        section of my report.




        South Fingal Planning Study 2004


        The study was undertaken by an international team of consultants on behalf of
        the Council to provide an overall vision for South Fingal, and aimed at
        providing an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable
        development of South Fingal.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 39 of 308
        The study states that the forecast growth from 14 million passengers to 20
        million in 2011 and 30 million in 2020) must be catered for as a national
        priority


        The study envisages a major expansion of the airport from the current 1
        runway / 1 terminal configuration (with minor cross runway), to 2-runway / 2
        terminal (with minor cross runway), where a second terminal is located to the
        west of the cross wind runway. It proposes designation of a Designated
        Airport Area and preparation of a plan.


        The plan identifies the need to maintain and enhance access to the airport as a
        key concern and supports provision of a north-south rail spine connecting city
        centre to Sword via Airport. It also recommends a spur from the N2 in order to
        access the western side of the airport zone.


        In not agreeing with Aer Rianta proposal for a cargo centre to the south of the
        existing runway, the study states that this runs counter to the long term logic
        of expanded facilities / a second terminal between the two parallel runways,
        and tends to continue focussing all airport activity and traffic towards the
        increasingly busy and congested M1/N1 spine and its junction with M50 at
        Turnapin, rather than moving towards a more balanced configuration with 2
        runways / 2 terminals an 2 motorway /trunk road accesses (M1 and N2)




        Dublin Airport Local Area Plan


        Adopted by the Council in June 2006, the LAP states that the findings of the
        South Fingal Study contributed to the formulation of policies and objectives of
        the Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011, which in turn has provided a
        specific zoning for the airport lands. The area subject of LAP is 1084 Ha.


        Dublin Airport is considered to be one of the fastest growing airports in
        Europe with passenger numbers increasing from 5.8m in 1990 to 18.5m in


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 40 of 308
        2005. With passenger growth of 1 million per annum, it is forecasted that the
        figures would reach to 38 million by 2025 and 44m by 2030.


        The plan refers to exciting future of Dublin Airport as a „new gateway‟ to the
        Middle East and Far East and the difficulties experienced by London, Paris
        and Amsterdam in developing additional capacity to service projected
        increased demands for physical and environmental reasons.


        The primary role of the LAP is stated to provide the optimal future
        development strategy for the designated Airport Area whilst ensuring the
        efficient and effective operation of the airport.


        Six general zonings are provided. It is stated that having regard to the
        complexity of the interface between terminal /apron and Core aviation
        development zones the boundary between these zones would be only
        indicative.


        The LAP divides the designated airport area in to two strategic development
        zones on either side of the cross runway, namely „Eastern Campus‟ and
        „Western Campus‟.


        The studies particularly by Pascall and Watson „Capacity Enhancement Study‟
        had concluded that the development of a second terminal and piers on the
        „Eastern‟ Campus was the most effective way forward in the short term to
        provide the necessary capacity for short term requirements.


        Under terminals and Piers it is stated:
                 To maximise the potential of existing infrastructure and to satisfy the
                 needs of airlines and other users, the LAP makes provision for a new
                 terminal T2 and pier E to be located to the south-east of the existing 14
                 bay terminal T1. This will allow for integration with the existing pier
                 C.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 41 of 308
        Development of any further terminal capacity would be on the Western
        Campus mirroring the developments on the Eastern Campus. As the need for
        passenger stands on the Eastern Campus increases, separate apron areas and
        other facilities would need to be provided in the Western Campus area for
        cargo aircraft, aircraft going under maintenance, and general aviation aircraft.
        Cargo development in the west would benefit from proximity to the upgraded
        N2.


        Central to the design of the terminal would be provision of passenger links to
        short term car parking and any future ground transportation centre in
        accordance with best practice for mobility access.


        The plan provides for 10 Objectives for Terminal and Piers. These include
        extension of T1 to the north west of the existing building, review of operation
        of pier A and its enlargement as appropriate, and reservation of lands to the
        west of the cross runway between the two parallel runways for future
        expansion of the airport.




        The plan refers to enhanced kerbside facilities for pick-up/ set-down for public
        transport and taxis, provision of interchange facilities between the surface
        access and the terminal processing facilities.


        To promote public transport a Ground Transportation Centre (GTC) would be
        provided to accommodate bus and coach operations. The proposed Metro
        station would be integrated with Ground Transportation Centre to form an
        inter-modal interchange. These would be integrated with the terminals with
        high quality pedestrian environment and connections aligned to suit passenger
        desire lines.


        Greatly enhanced public transport provision would be paramount to the
        success and sustainability of Dublin Airport.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 42 of 308
        The main public transport measures proposed in the LAP include:
                Metro North, Orbital Metro West
                Improved bus infrastructure, bus links to the new Dart station at
                 Baldoyle
                Link between eastern and western campuses, link between intermodal
                 interchange an commercial area


        Employee car parking would be provided in a number of discreet locations on
        the periphery of the airport site, with good access from external road network
        and frequent shuttle connections to the terminal buildings. Growth of
        employee parking would be strictly controlled, and a MMP would be
        formulated and implemented for the LAP lands. Short term parking spaces
        would be provided in a multi storey car park (MSCP) structures in proximity
        to the terminal buildings.


        The plan provides for an extensive programme of upgrades to the external
        road network, including:
                     A dual carriage box surrounding the airport
                     Blanchardstown / Baldoyle Airport road to dual carriageway
                      standard ( for traffic that does not need to use M1/M50 to access
                      areas to east and wast)
                     High grade link to N2
                     Upgrade of R108 to South
                     Upgrading of M50
                     Connection to a possible Western by-pass to Swords


        The plan also provides proposals for water services, utilities and heritage
        protection.


        The plan promotes quality of design as a core principle, and realisation of
        visual coherence that would facilitate most effective use and enjoyment of the
        facility. The Council would seek to improve qualitative standards of
        sustainable design in all developments on the airport campus.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 43 of 308
                                  An Bord Pleanála




A 10 year planning permission for development at Dublin Airport, east of the existing
terminal building adjoining Pier C. The development will consist of the construction
of: 1) a passenger terminal (which will be built in two phases) of ca. 92,049 sq.m. in 4
no. interconnecting blocks ranging in height from two to four stories with an overall
height of 35m, which partially bridges the access road to the existing passenger
terminal building; 2) a three storey Pier Building with an overall height of 18m (ca.
24,052 sq.m.), complete with 19 no. air bridges and associated fixed links. 3) a two
storey over basement energy centre containing water storage and plant for power
supply, heating and cooling systems (ca. 5,049 sq.m. with total height of 11m and a
chimney stack of 38m); 4) external service yard; 5) realignment of existing internal
access road infrastructure and provision of new access roads, including pedestrian and
cycle routes, all contained within the existing airport campus; 6) Rearrangement of
the existing coach park adjacent to the north of the existing terminal building; 7)
separate car, taxi and bus set-down areas; 8) associated services connections; site
development; and landscaping works, including a feature access area; 9)
refurbishment of the existing Pier C; 10) demolition of the following; Corballis House
a two storey protected structure with an area of ca. 482 sq.m.; a single storey storage
building (ca. 1295 sq.m.); 3 no. single and two storey car hire buildings ca 280 sq.m.,
690 sq.m. and 1925 sq.m.); a single storey boiler house building (ca 373 sq.m.); single
and two storey DAA Maintenance offices (ca 1,290 sq.m.); a mainly single storey
Hanger Building (ca 2,165 sq.m.) and fixed links to Pier C (ca 380 sq.m.). All on an
application site of ca. 32,646 ha. The following will be included within the passenger
terminal and pier; check-in areas including 58 no. manned desks and 24 no. self-
service facilities; passenger services and associated terminal support facilities;
departure lounge; baggage processing hall; baggage reclaim area; ca. 5,813 sq.m. of
retail (ca. 840 sq.m. landside, ca. 4,973 sq.m. airside); ca 2,730 sq.m. of catering
facilities (ca. 643 sq.m. landside, ca. 2,087 sq.m. airside); 2 no. public houses totalling
ca. 1,278 sq.m. (1 no. landside of ca. 491 sq.m., 1 no. airside of ca. 787 sq.m.); airline
security, immigration and customs offices( ca. 4,625 sq.m. airside); links to a future
multi storey car park and the existing passenger terminal; security check-in and arrival
areas; associated plant, circulation and toilet space. An Environmental Impact
Statement will be submitted to the Planning Authority with the application.




                               VOLUME 2 – APPEAL


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 44 of 308
                 CONTENTS


3.      WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

3.1     Grounds of appeal

                 By first Party
                 By third parties

                 Angela Lawton
                 Teresa Kavanagh
                 Marie O‟Brien
                 Bridget Byrne
                 Ryanair Ltd
                 An Taisce
                 Portmarnock Community Association

3.2     Observations to appeal

                 By Dublin Transport Office
                 By Turnapin Residents Association

3.3     Responses to Grounds of appeal

                 By Fingal County Council
                 By first party

3.4     Observations to EIS

                 By Heat
                 By Plane Stupid
                 By Spurt


4.      FURTHER INFORMATION REQUEST


5.      REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS


6.      RELEVANT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES


7.      ORAL HEARING SUMMARY




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 45 of 308
3.      WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

3.1     GROUNDS OF APPEAL
        Grounds of appeal by the First party (Dublin Airport Authority)


        The appeal by the first party is against condition numbers 6, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34
        and 43


        Welcoming the decision to grant permission by the planning authority it is
        submitted by the first party consultants that they are appealing the above
        conditions under section 139 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
        condition number 43 under section 48(10)(b) of the Planning and
        Development Act, 2000.


        The main points of the grounds of appeal include:


        Condition no 6
        In their view the condition will lead to congestion at Dublin Airport and the
        condition is not required in traffic terms as:
                The works programme envisages awarding of the contract in June
                 2007, construction programme of three years leading to a completion
                 date of 2010 (or even later in case of slippage). This could mean the
                 Terminal 2 could be built and ready for operation but unable to open
                 for 12 months or more
                Following completion of terminal 1 extension the DAA recognised that
                 continuing growth in demand at Dublin Airport could no longer be
                 satisfied by incremental development of infrastructure
                The strong growth rate in the number of passengers about 6% in 2000-
                 2005 and traffic growing at more than 1 MPPA (million passengers per
                 annum) for every year for the lasts ten years. At the end of 2005, 18
                 million passenger use Dublin Airport.
                DAA estimates that the annual passenger traffic will reach 30 million
                 MPPA in about 2015-2016


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 46 of 308
                By 2009 when the terminal 2 is due to open the passenger numbers
                 will be in the order of 24 million.
                This growth will continue regardless of opening of Terminal 2 and
                 will not abate due to non-completion of M50 works. It is in the best
                 interests of the travelling public that the Terminal 2 is opened as soon
                 as possible.
                The traffic models show that 20-30% of the Airport traffic uses the
                 section of M50 between Ballymun and the M1 to access and 40% to
                 exit the airport
                The forecasts show that            the amount of additional traffic die to
                 Terminal 2 on this section of the motorway is equivalent to less than
                 2% of existing traffic levels during commuter periods and marginal.
                 Therefore it would not have significant impact on the operation of M50
                 whether or not the M50 upgrade is completed or not


        Condition number 27


                The condition requiring separate permission for a remote construction
                 compound is unnecessary and fails to offer flexibility.
                The remote construction compound was developed to provide offices
                 for the design team, facilities for construction workers and marshalling
                 yard.
                The first two can be located within an existing building in the airport,
                 while the latter can be located on site or in an existing industrial
                 building in the vicinity of the airport.


        Condition no 29
        They ask the board to remove the condition as:
                The travel distance and projected use is such that a travellator between
                 terminals 1 and 2 is not warranted. IATA manual recommends a
                 threshold of 300m, the landside distance between the terminals is
                 150m



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 47 of 308
                The volume of people at 500-1000 people per day is relatively small,
                 and would involve staff, or passengers who alighted at the wrong
                 terminal /car park
                The provision of a travellator would require significant design changes
                 and necessitate doubling of the link in width. The curved profile will
                 need be replaced by straight runs and angular changes of direction
                Additional travellators are not required at any other locations.
                 Provisions have been made for major departure and arrival routes
                 along pier E and the design has safeguarded future travellators in phase
                 2 in a link to pier F




        Condition number 30


        They consider the condition unnecessary and ask the condition to be removed
                The site was inspected by a specialist in May 2006. no evidence of bat
                 roots were found and it was considered that high levels of lighting
                 throughout renders the potential rooting sites unusable for bats.
                 Corballis House was thoroughly examined and no evidence of bats was
                 found
                restriction of time of removal of trees is unnecessary as the planted tree
                 lines are used by bird species which are common in all urban habitats
                 and could quickly re-colonise elsewhere




        Condition no 31
        They ask the Bord to remove the condition.
                The condition restricting hours of construction is appropriate in
                 residential areas to protect amenities.
                The site is very isolated form residential development. Some of the
                 work will need to take place outside peak flying times and outside the
                 hours specified in the condition.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 48 of 308
        Condition number 34
        They ask the Board to omit the condition as the condition fails to understand
        the design of the retail layout and the rationale for „circuitous‟ route through
        the retail area.
                The corridor to the rear of retail area is critical form an operational and
                 security perspective and can not be removed (they refer to
                 ICAO/ECAC requirements, for searching standards requiring searches
                 be conducted out of view of general public) Opening the retail into
                 search comb would this requirement and allow public to linger in the
                 area. As the combs nearest the retail would be opened first only under
                 peak conditions passengers would have to walk further distances
                The retail area operates as a departure lounge and allows passengers to
                 dwell before proceeding to the gate. It also operates as an orientation
                 space, as it provides passengers information at key decision making
                 points on their journey and to correct destination at new pier E or the
                 existing pier B. the passenger split between the piers is 25%-75%.




        Condition number 43


        They appeal under S. 48(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000
        and believe the planning authority has failed to take into account the
        expenditure by the applicant on infrastructure that benefits the wider
        community and as required by other conditions
                Condition number 7 requires design an completion of a number of
                 identified road and junction improvements
                Condition number 14 requires implementation of a number of
                 intelligent traffic management measures by the applicant, an a
                 contribution of €100,000 to the Council for areas outside the control of
                 applicant
                Condition number 17 requires extension of the 900 dia branch foul
                 sewer from the hotel at Kittyhawks to Collistown Cross




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 49 of 308
        They ask the Board to offset at least a portion of the cost these against
        condition number 43




        Grounds of appeal by third parties


        By Angela Lawton
        The main points of the submission (which has been submitted in Irish and
        translated by Michael Walsh DPO, An Bord Pleanála) include:
                There is no National Aviation Policy currently in effect (requested by
                 the chairperson of Fingal Development Board, and discussed in the
                 Stakeholders Forum). In the absence f such a policy a large expansion
                 and enormous expenditure on Dublin Airport should not be permitted
                The proposed terminal will add to regional inequalities with a
                 reduction in the number of tourists going to the regions
                No study has been made of alternatives
                Traffic congestion will be increased as a result of T2 and the new
                 runway. Additional 35000 car movements will be added to the roads in
                 2025 even with the Metro
                No evaluation of the costs has been made as required in the Guidelines
                 by the Department of Finance for projects costing 50 million
                No additional post will be provided, all that is in question is changing
                 of posts
                Terminal 2 will increase the emissions of CO2, NO2 in particular.
                 Construction of further car parks will contribute to the increase in
                 emissions even though the Metro is nominally coming into being
                No study has been made on the effect of Terminal 2 on public health,
                 even though there will be increase in NOx, benzene, PM10 and
                 numerous other chemicals
                No measurements have been made of the noise baseline at the airport
                The proposal does not allow for increase in noise form the terminal
                 until 2012 though the terminal is intended to open in 2009



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 50 of 308
                The terminal will be constructed in an unsuitable location which will
                 contribute to congestion on the apron and increase safety hazards (see
                 report ETSC 1999)
                To extend a Seveso site and to increase numbers of trucks loaded with
                 fuel on congested roads as well as in Port Tunnel is a source of concern
                No SEA has been carried out in relation to the terminal
                It is a great shame to demolish Corballis House, an archaeological
                 treasure, which gave a distinctive identity to Dublin Airport
                DAA did no provide an Irish version of the EIS or even the non-
                 technical summary, though requested by the appellant




        By Teresa Kavanagh


        Project splitting-         Three major construction projects (northern parallel
                                   runway, metro north and Terminal 2) are to be
                                   undertaken at the same site (airport box) at the same
                                   time. This amounts to project splitting
        Traffic congestion         Already Dublin Airport generates unacceptably high
                                   levels of traffic on the M1, M50 and through Dublin
                                   City, and north County Dublin. Fingal County Council
                                   accepted that the terminal and not the runway would
                                   impact on the road traffic in the environs of the airport.
                                   This development would generate extra 35000 cars
        IKEA factor                The NRA appealed the Fingal County Council‟s
                                   decision re permission for IKEA store at Ballymun on
                                   grounds of traffic generation on the M50. Expansion of
                                   the Dublin Airport threatens gridlock on the M50 and
                                   M1 much more than IKEA does. Airport traffic is a
                                   causative factor in gridlock and congestion
        Intensification            The combined effect of an additional terminal and the
                                   super sized runway intensifies the use of the airport to a




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 51 of 308
                                   level of un sustainability, turning an asset for north Co
                                   Dublin to a liability
        Flooding                   By creating another large concreted area at the airport,
                                   DAA restrict the amount of „soakage‟ available putting
                                   excessive strain on the small streams that run into the
                                   estuary at Pormarnock, increasing the likelihood of
                                   flooding in their neighbourhood. Proposed attenuation
                                   measures will not solve the problem (more car parking
                                   etc)
        Interactions               No assessment of the interaction between the surface
                                   water and human beings has been made. There are no
                                   pollution control requirements in place with regard to
                                   surface water system. There is a lack of compliance
                                   with greater Dublin Strategic Drainage study
        Alternatives               No consideration was given in the EIS to the option of
                                   developing Airport facilities at another location. This is
                                   required by the Directive
        Health Impact              No health impact assessment has been carried out either
                                   on the sole effect of the new terminal or the combined
                                   cumulative effect of terminal, runway and metro north
        Cost- benefit              DAA is required to carry out a cost benefit analysis of
                                   projects of 30 million Euro. No such analysis was done.




        By Máire O’Brien


        Unsustainable              A second terminal is unnecessary as it will encourage
                                   unsustainable       expansion in Dublin Airport to the
                                   detriment of regional airports


        Wrong location             The terminal is being built in the wrong location. Any
                                   expansion should be to the west of the airport to spread
                                   traffic into the airport over two entrances


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 52 of 308
        Mobility in airport        Notwithstanding the travellators, the distances to be
                                   travelled by passengers would preclude its use by
                                   mobility impaired travellers who do not use wheelchairs


        Flooding                   despite the requirement by FCC that attenuation of
                                   surface water from surrounding car parking to be
                                   addressed before development take place the ditches
                                   around the airport can not cope with the existing run
                                   off and frequently floods rods and fields             Provision
                                   of an underground piped system for storm event is
                                   inadequate and will adversely affect the properties
                                   downstream


                                   The existing British standards may provide inadequate
                                   controls given the fact that the Cuckoo stream is
                                   operating over capacity and flooding downstream of
                                   airport on lands that do not belong to the airport


        Noise /vibration           It is disingenuous to state that there will be no
                                   significant noise or vibration impact will occur.
                                   Increased number of passengers will lead Tipperary
                                   increased number of aircraft movements, and increased
                                   noise generation near their homes in Portmarnock. This
                                   will happen with or without the parallel runway


        Premature                  The development is premature as curtailment and
                                   taxation of CO2 emissions to prevent climate change
                                   will render air travel too expensive and reduce
                                   passenger numbers


        By Bridget Byrne


                The decision of the FCC is premature in the absence of a decision by
                 An Bord Pleanála in relation to the new runway
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 53 of 308
                The FCC has agreed that the new terminal will negatively impact on
                 road traffic. The existing congestion on M50 will be worsened by the
                 port tunnel, IKEA, population growth of 1 million and uncontrolled
                 development of the airport to a level of 60 million passengers as
                 promised by the chief executive
                Alternatives to the proposal have not been adequately assessed (within
                 airport site or throughout the country). Surplus capacity exists at
                 Shannon and Cork airports, and deflection of traffic to these airports
                 will bring substantial benefits to these regions and ease the pressure on
                 the eastern region
                No national aviation strategy exists to guide An Bord Pleanála in their
                 assessment of the appeal
                Government policies on NSS, decentralisation and rural development
                 highlight the inconsistency of this proposal with the stated government
                 objectives
                The Board must seek clarification from the Government in relation to
                 provision of national airport infrastructure
                A health impact assessment needs to be carried out on the effects
                 which the total airport activities have on surrounding communities.
                 Based on recent studies airport operations appear to generate deposits
                 of 1 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. An individual
                 project assessment is inadequate and misleading ( what studies-
                 documentary evidence-) how will project assessment be misleading




        By Ryanair Ltd


        Submitted by the consultants for the appellant the main points of the grounds
        of appeal include:
        1.       The siting of Terminal 2 is inconsistent with the policies and objectives
                 of Local Area Plan for Dublin Airport as laid out by FCC
        2.       The siting is incompatible with the overall strategy for the airport as set
                 out in the Master Plan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 54 of 308
        3.       The proposed siting will not achieve the basic principles outlined in the
                 LAP
        4.       Terminal 2 is ill conceived, poorly located, badly designed and
                 inconsistent with principles of airport efficiency
        5.       The proposed Terminal 2 will lead to greater traffic congestion,
                 difficult circulation patterns on the road systems and makes no
                 provision for car parking facilities




        More detailed points include criticism of the LAP as well as the proposed
        development


        Location
                LAPs is a statutory document which sets out the parameters against
                 which the Council must adjudicate on planning applications
                It is a broad strategic document which sets put the general criteria for
                 development and delimits the general land uses in a dynamic format
                The LAP does not and should not set out the exact location, siting or
                 quantitative standards
                It would be within the remits of individual planning applications to
                 make a case for specific locations and specific buildings
                They consider the rationale for siting Terminal 2 south of existing
                 terminal facility T1 (S.4.2 of the LAP) to be inconsistent with the
                 policies and aims of the plan itself, and one that would not ensure the
                 most efficient and effective operation of the airport
                They believe the most effective location for the siting of Terminal 2 is
                 to the northern section of the eastern campus with access to the new
                 northern runway
                Submission by Aer Lingus (to commission of Aviation regulation) in
                 relation to charges noted that with northern location of Pier D, a
                 southern location of Terminal 2 would exacerbate the inefficiencies
                 and costs



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 55 of 308
            An analysis of the zoning map shows over concentration of development
             in the southern most eastern portion. This in their view is not the most
             effective and optimal use of the land in the designated area
            The new terminal (comprising of two separate buildings and a new pier E)
             is proposed in a cul-de-sac part of the apron between T1 and the main
             runway with only one means of ingress and egress of r aircraft operating
             to /from Terminal 2 , and as such is the worst possible location for a
             second terminal in terms of access to the new northern run way. the
             aircraft taxiing between Terminal 2 and northern runway will have to cross
             over all aircraft taxiing from T1 and southern runway
            Location of Terminal 2 on the north side of airport and adjoining pier D
             will allow aircraft from pier D direct access to the northern runway while
             allowing traffic from the existing terminal to access the southern runway
            A northside terminal will facilitate passengers arriving by car, coach, taxi
             or metro with separate access routes to two terminals, sharing car parking
             facilities with linkage options
            Location of Terminal 2 on the southside of the airport would undermine
             the operation of a mixed mode on the runways (because of crossing over
             as above). Mixed mode is optimal for capacity




        Design


        The proposed terminal is generally poorly designed and does not comply with
        the LAP criteria to facilitate a barrierless ease of use with minimal level
        changes and travel distances, and eliminate queuing and waiting




        Circulation
                The proposed terminal is poorly served in terms of road access, forcing
                 passengers using T1 and T2 to use the same access road, which will
                 lead to greater traffic congestion




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 56 of 308
                The application is seriously deficient as there is no application for a
                 „future multi storey car park‟. no adequate means of accessing
                 Terminal 2 to the existing facility which is already operating at
                 capacity is provided
                If a separate multi storey car park is built to serve the new terminal,
                 parking in the wrong car park will cause further confusion and
                 congestion in terms of getting to the appropriate terminal
                Lack of connectivity between the terminals and their car parks will
                 necessitate devising two alternative circulation routes on the road
                 system approaching the airport
                Passenger safety in seeking access to terminals on foot at ground floor
                 level from the proposed car park has not been adequately addressed
                There is inadequate access between terminals as the power
                 infrastructure is located in between.
                FCC approach to require in time a separate terminal and entrance from
                 the west of the airport in order to spread traffic, reduce congestion and
                 improve circulation. Location of the new terminal on the north side
                 with access to the northern runway will spread traffic movements both
                 on the landside and airside. Such a terminal can be joined to the
                 existing road network around and outside the airport and provide an
                 alternative access to the airport
                The EIS also supports alternative route into the airport via Ballymun
                 interchange along Collinstown Lane and R132 Swords Road in case of
                 major accidents and traffic capacity.
                The proposed terminal will create difficult circulation pattern in the
                 road systems approaching and within the airport, and will be
                 inconsistent with the FCC development plan




        Inappropriate building


                The building proposed by the DAA is inappropriately large and ill-
                 suited to its intended purpose


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 57 of 308
                It is essentially two buildings linked by a bridge over the roadway. The
                 first building adjacent to future unspecified multi storey car park
                 devoted to queuing /check-in does not make allowance for the current
                 trend towards on-line check-in, or the current use of check-in kiosks.
                 The need for future is for baggage drops and not check-in
                The second building with passport control at one edge is essentially a
                 large shopping centre. Passengers are forced to endure excessive
                 walking distances in a zig-zag fashion through the shopping area
                 before arriving at the pier itself
                Combined walk from the car park and through shopping area involve
                 inordinately lengthy walk for passengers to their departure gate,
                 particularly problematic for those with impaired mobility
                The design is grossly inefficient in terms of use of available space, and
                 inflates the costs including the redundancy of the existing pier C
                The proposed development is inconsistent with the LAP as there will
                 be no integration with pier C which will be demolished, there will be
                 no enhanced capacity for pick up or set down, access for passengers is
                 highly inconvenient, no short term parking is proposed although it is
                 meant to be central to the proposal, no links provided to short term
                 parking, no mention of mobility access, and no kerbside integration of
                 T2 with T1




    Demolition of Protected Structure


                The proposed development involves demolition of Corballis House a
                 Protected Structure and a Recorded Monument.
                S. 57 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 does not allow
                 demolition of such a structure save in „exceptional‟ circumstances.
                The applicant does not clearly spell out what the exceptional
                 circumstances are, and why they are exceptional




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 58 of 308
                In their view the circumstances are not exceptional as the DAA owns a
                 significant amount of alternative land upon which the terminal could
                 be built
                The design process should have recognised the presence of a protected
                 structure and ensure its protection
                Both Aer Lingus and Ryanair (with based aircraft at the airport) called
                 for development of the new terminal to be on the north side
                A protected structure can be deleted from the Record (as outlined in
                 S.55) if it is considered that the protection is no longer warranted. They
                 are not aware of such a process having being carried out, or initiated.




        Destruction of a Recorded Monument


                In addition there is a Recorded Monument (Castle site) in the vicinity
                 of the proposed terminal. The EIS states that the construction works
                 will require its destruction. While structures or remains may be below
                 the ground level, they submit impact of T2 on the Castle site or
                 environs of the castle site have not been properly addressed in the
                 reports.


                It is an objective of the Fingal Development Plan to ensure the
                 protection from demolition of those structures listed in the Record of
                 Protected Structures. The proposed development will set an
                 unwelcome precedence for demolition of such structures.




        Inadequacy of the EIS


                The EIS did not adequately consider the options or alternative sites for
                 locating the development




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 59 of 308
                Only two principle locations were considered namely a southern option
                 adjacent to Pier C and a northern option near hangar 1. Scant attention
                 was given to locating the terminal to the north.
                No proper analysis was offered either by way of cost-benefit analysis,
                 passenger access, linkages to adjacent facilities or access to the new
                 runway etc.
                North terminal is dismissed mainly because it is proximate to the old
                 terminal building (a protected structure). However, a number of
                 protected structures / Recorded Monuments will destroyed in the
                 chosen location
                The EIS was inadequate as the proposed terminal was not considered
                 as part of the overall development of the airport, which is in turn linked
                 to the north runway (under appeal)
                Carrying out two separate EISs would constitute project splitting
                The scope of the EIS “to examine the potential significance of direct
                 and indirect environment impacts, given the mitigation measures,
                 associated with the development of Terminal 2, pier E and Phase 2
                 expansion of Terminal 2” is an unduly narrow scope for the assessment
                Failure to carry out an integrated EIS renders the EIS for Terminal 2
                 deficient and unreliable
                While the planning authority report concede the importance of
                 assessing the cumulative impacts of all aspects of development at the
                 airport (including the relationship between terminal and runway
                 capacities) they appear to suggest that the second runway was not
                 considered in terms of impact
                The EIS states that the option of developing airport facilities at another
                 location instead of constructing Terminal 2 was not considered, as the
                 proposed development is founded on the Aviation Action Plan (May
                 2005) which outlined Government Policy in relation to provision of
                 Terminal 2.
                In relation to options within the Airport the EIS states that the issue
                 was considered by a previous study The Terminal and Piers
                 Development Study finalised in Dec 2004, which following evaluation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 60 of 308
                 of four options, recommended option 1. The Said study appears to
                 have paid no attention to the presence of a Protected Structure and a
                 National Monument in the location proposed for the new terminal
                The Fingal Master Plan LAP accepted uncritically the recommendation
                 of the study. The planning authority should have given due weight to
                 the existence of a protected structure and a National Monument




        By An Taisce


        Deficient SEA


                The proposal is part of a larger project to facilitate the expansion of
                 Dublin Airport, which is being put forward without adequate SEA
                The SEA attached to the 2006 LAP does not meet the requirements of
                 the Directive, and fails to refer to climate or climate impacts




        Lack of integrated assessment with concurrent development


                Terminal 2 is part of a larger airport development linked to the North
                 Runway proposal under consideration, direct and indirect effects of
                 which are not addressed in the EIA
                The proposal is part of an overall project to double the capacity to 38
                 million by 205, with a target of 30 million for 2015
                Lodging of consent applications for individual elements of an airport
                 expansion to cater for 38 million passengers is premature unless an
                 appropriate assessment is carried out and mitigation measures are put
                 in place, including phased timetable, and targeted link between
                 passenger numbers increase and mitigation measures with regard to
                 greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transport generation, and ecology
                There are other private sector proposals for car parking and other
                 developments which also need to be addressed


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 61 of 308
        Inadequate consideration of Alternatives required by the EIA Directive


                The EIS fails to address the requirement of alternatives including
                 alternatives to reduce the unsustainable need for and demand for air
                 travel and the need for the scheme




        Inadequate assessment of Greenhouse Gas Generation


                The EIS fails to quantify the greenhouse gases generated by the
                 proposed development both by aviation generated use of the terminal
                 and land transport access and the terminal itself
                The argument that greenhouse gas generation will be mitigated by
                 future fuel efficiency and vehicle emission improvements has not
                 occurred in other areas such as motorways, and there is no evidence
                 whatsoever that total aviation emissions will be reduced if aviation
                 growth continues at current levels
                None of the available scientific evidence validates the claims by the
                 aviation industry
                Stern report reinforces concerns about the global impact of aviation
                 emissions
                The EIS is deficient in not proposing mitigation measures for the
                 additional CO2 emissions from transport demand to serve the proposed
                 additional capacity at Dublin Airport
                The EIS is deficient in assessing and mitigating energy consumption of
                 the actual terminal building




    Inadequate mobility strategy
                In the absence of metro proposal being implemented within immediate
                 achievable time frame, any consideration of airport expansion is
                 untenable



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 62 of 308
                Metro is one of a range of measures and must be part of an overall
                 integrated transport strategy for the greater Dublin Area linked towards
                 enhanced rail access from the surrounding regions
                As Dublin Airport is the largest single origin and destination point in
                 the State an effective mobility strategy is needed to maximise efficient
                 movements for passengers and staff, minimise use of private cars and
                 taxis, congestion mitigation, efficient use of land and resources and
                 mitigation of greenhouse gas and air pollution particles
                The Mobility Strategy which seeks to achieve 30% public transport
                 access ration by 2012 (40% by 2020) is at variance with DTO Platform
                 for change, and with Regional Planning Guidelines which endorse
                 DTO objectives




        Loss of Corballis House Protected Structure


                Circumstances warranting the demolition of Corballis House have not
                 been demonstrated




        By Portmarnock Community Association
        (UPROAR)


        The submission is very long and detailed and includes a number of
        attachments some of which are copies of the submissions for the new runway.
        The main points of the summary of the grounds of appeal as provided by the
        appellants include:


            The proposed development is in contravention of National Spatial
             Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines , Fingal County Development Plan
             and the Government‟s seminal paper on Land Use and Sustainable
             Development




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 63 of 308
            The proposed development is inconsistent with NRA, DTO and EU
             transport policy Guidelines
            In terms of EIS preparation the requirements with regard to project
             splitting have not been adhered to as the proposed terminal and related
             developments are inseparable from the proposed new parallel runway
            The proposed development together with the proposed runway constitutes
             gross over- development and over-concentration of airport services in one
             small area of the Dublin Region, and would result in congestion on a large
             scale to the detriment of residents and transport users in the general area
            The scale and location of the proposed terminal area inconsistent with the
             sustainable development of Dublin Airport. Its location relative to the
             proposed runway will lead to huge ground congestion for taxiing aircraft
             and reduce operational efficiency of the whole airport
            The proposed development will have serious negative impact on the
             surrounding residential communities due to more noise and emissions, and
             greater crash danger
            The EIS is deficient as no assessment was made of material assets in terms
             of price of land and residential properties in surrounding lands
            Taken together with other proposed developments such as IKEA, the north
             fringe and the Port Tunnel, the proposed development will seriously
             impact on the strategic road network surrounding the airport, particularly
             the M1-M50
            The proposed development will undermine the investment (1.1billion) on
             the M50 upgrade
            The applicants failed to subject the proposal to proper evaluation as
             required by various government guidelines, including EU development
             evaluation guidelines, department of Finance Guidelines for the appraisal
             of capital expenditure proposals
            The proposal is a disproportionate and unsustainable development when
             evaluated on a preliminary basis using the methodology specified in those
             guidelines




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 64 of 308
            The need for the proposed development is predicated on capacity growth
             estimates that are driven by a hidden subsidy, and optimistic assumptions
             about future aviation fuel prices and taxes
            No proper assessment was made of alternatives such as development of
             Cork and Shannon airports or a second airport for the GDA (in their
             preliminary assessment these would likely to prove to be socially and
             economically justified, proportionate and sustainable)
            The proposed T2 is merely an extension of T1 and will lead to chaos on
             the airside with taxiing aircraft as well as chaos on the landside on access
             roads and will reduce the efficiency of the airport
            The EIS socio-economic assessment borrowed from the runway EIS is
             fundamentally flawed in terms of additional jobs and economic benefits
            The proposed development is premature in the absence of a clear National
             Aviation Policy
            The proposed development is premature pending a full traffic impact
             analysis of the South Fingal are as identified by the NRA in IKEA appeal
            The proposed development is premature in light of uncertainties regarding
             future development of metro and other public transport infrastructure
             likely to affect the airport area
            The proposed development is premature pending the decision on the
             proposed new runway
            The EIS is deficient in the area of health impacts including aircraft noise
             on children‟s education
            The EIS is deficient as noise, health and climate change impact analysis
             are based on project splitting which argues that the impact of the new
             terminal is not related to the proposed runway




        The enclosures include copies of Legal Submission on behalf of Matt Harley,
        health impact assessment by Dr. Anthony Staines, Planning appeal report by
        O‟Neill town Planning Consultants, and The Economics of the Proposed
        Runway by Matthew Harley



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 65 of 308
3.2     OBSERVATIONS TO APPEAL
        By Dublin Transport Office


        The submission by the DTO is a copy of their submission to the planning
        authority during the planning application.


        The lengthy submission provides for description of the proposed development,
        and policy context in relation to National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning
        Guidelines, and describes the DTO strategy as being complementary to the
        achievement of the policies of the RPG, containing the interdependent
        elements of Infrastructural              & Service Improvements and Demand
        Management.


        The specific comments of the DTO in relation to the proposed development
        include:


            The Expansion of the airport was assumed in the development of DTO
             strategy, who acknowledge that provision needs to be made for the
             upgrading of existing capacity to reflect current and projected levels of
             demand
            DTO „s is that any expansion of the airport and associated increase in the
             demand for landside access be provided for in a manner which seeks to
             maximise usage of modes other than private car both by employees and
             passengers
            Infrastructure provision by the applicant should complement the objectives
             of RPG and DTO Strategy and transport infrastructure projects proposed
             under Transport 21.
            The DTO recommends that the applicant provide an assessment of the
             impact of Terminal 2 on public transport services to include
                 o Identification of appropriate remedial measures to protect buses
                      from rod congestion within and in the environs of the airport




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 66 of 308
                 o Identification of additional services required to cater for the
                      anticipated major growth in passengers and employees using public
                      transport
                 o Provision of AM peak passenger demand based on sensitivity test
                      (which they consider would show a greater impact on the transport
                      network for the AM peak hour than the EIS base case suggests)
            The proposed bus, coach and taxi facilities are unclear.
                 o The revised access arrangements to premium bus services to t1 is
                      unclear
                 o They would also suggest scheduled buses exiting coach and bus
                      park should be given grater priority over cars exiting and entering
                      the short term car park
                 o Supervision of the bus and coach services is important to ensure
                      stop and layover space is available as required
                 o The taxi access arrangements for T1 are unclear
                 o Provision of direct covered footbridges and covered footpaths
                      between terminals and bus / coach/ taxi ranks would enhance the
                      attractiveness of these modes


            DTO welcomes the aims and objectives of the Mobility Management
             Framework Plan
             o proposed in the MMFP there is a risk that investment in public
                 infrastructure will not have sufficiently beneficial impact on car
                 journeys
             o A commitment in the MMFP to limit the number of passenger car
                 parking spaces under the control of DAA should be considered which
                 should reflect a limit on airport passenger parking, by any parking
                 provider
             o They note that GTC (Ground Transportation Centre) is proposed to be
                 in operation only once the Airport Metro is built, and that it would be
                 connected to T1 and T2s by a series of footbridges and covered paths.
                 They recommend that these facilities be provide in advance of the
                 provision of full GTC


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 67 of 308
             o They note no proposals or commitments by the DAA supported public
                 transport services for airport passengers
             o The DTO suggest that the MMFP should examine means in which
                 information on public transport service options to/ form the airport can
                 be made readily available and marketed to passengers both in advance
                 f the trip and once at the airport. Consideration should be given to a
                 public transport information help desk in the airport arrivals hall
             o DTO considers there is considerable scope for an increase in public
                 transport use by the employees and suggests that MMFP should
                 include a commitment to provide no additional employee car parking
                 within the airport campus
             o DTO considers that a commitment in the MMFP to set up an employee
                 commuter centre and DAA funded public transport services for Airport
                 employees would be appropriate
             o While there is an indication in the MMFP that cycling facilities within
                 the airport would be improved, cycling facilities from residential areas
                 to the airport itself also needs to be examined, identified for
                 improvement where possible
             o DTO recommends that DAA should publish ad report on progress
                 against targets set out on the MMFP each year, and that MMFP be
                 reviewed on a regular basis (every 2-3 years) with a view to proposing
                 measures to improve targets over time
             o DTO also recommends that a more comprehensive MMFP be prepared
                 and that implementation should commence in advance of the
                 construction of the terminal




        By Turnapin Residents Association


        They are located at the back of Woodford Industrial Estate opposite the
        Airways Industrial Estate, between the Old Airport Road and the M1




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 68 of 308
        The fact that the proposed development together with another at the Airport
        and the upgrade of the M50 will run concurrently and that the proposed
        development will take up to 2009 to complete would have serious impact on
        their day-to-day lives with serious traffic congestion, poor air and poor quality
        of life for the residents of the area


        Traffic
                 They are the nearest housing estate to the airport, and tolerate on a
                  daily basis large volumes of air and car traffic
                 Their main concern is that they will be surrounded by new
                  development over the next eight years
                 The proposed development will add significantly to the traffic
                  congestion in the area
                 The traffic will spill out to their immediate area as a result of the works
                  for the proposed development as well as improvement works to M50.
                  They had suffered for six years during construction of Port Tunnel,
                  they area being asked to do so eight more years


        Surface Water Drainage and Water Supply
                 The inadequacy of the surface water disposal system in the area has
                  caused persistent localised flooding on the Old Airport Road outside
                  Dimpco, Santry Woods and entrance to Santry Close
                 The proposed development will have a deteriorating effect on the
                  already problematic water pressure system


        Noise and air Pollution
                 The proposed development will have enormous disruption to the
                  surrounding area during construction phase (road closures, traffic
                  hazards , dust, dirt and noise pollution)




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 69 of 308
3.3     RESPONSES TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL


        By Fingal County Council


        The planning authority considers the majority of issues raised by the
        appellants have been examined during the course of the planning assessment.


        The planning authority do not agree with the first party in relation to
        conditions and maintain that they should apply in their entirety in the event of
        a decision to grant by the Board. in particular condition number 6 and 27
        would assist greatly in mitigating traffic construction impacts, while condition
        number s 29 and 34 would result in improved routes of access for passengers
        through the building.




        By the First party


        Stating that the proposed development has correctly assessed all the issues that
        pertain to the terminal including the cumulative impacts of other development
        proposals at the airport, the response by the first party is grouped under
        various headings:


        Alternative locations of new terminal within Airport


        Landside analysis


                The location of Terminal 2 has been considered in great depth over
                 many studies. The conclusions of the Masterplan studies (2002-2004)
                 undertaken by PM/SOM?TPS clearly identified after consultation with
                 the airport community that the most beneficial proposition would be a
                 new terminal adjacent to T1.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 70 of 308
                Based on criteria of functionality, deliverability and cost, it was
                 concluded       that   concentration       of   the    most     advantages      new
                 developments in and around the eastern campus would deliver the
                 necessary increased capacity in an expeditious time frame and benefit
                 fully from the investment in existing infrastructure
                The review of potential location by Pascall + Watson (2005)
                 unambiguously concluded that the southern location adjacent to Pier C
                 was the most appropriate in terms of flexibility (in passenger
                 processing functions, passenger demands and flexibility of a conjoined
                 airside system, planned expansion of aprons and taxiways, and ability
                 to accommodate narrow or wide bodied aircraft through Mars Stands
                 in piers E and B), deliverability in the shortest time frame, problems
                 with northern option (vehicular access, distance to T1, relocation of a
                 multitude of parties and operations including those in hangars 1-5, and
                 ancillary accommodation to address provision of additional capacity)
                 and location without impact on the T1 forecourt.




        Airside analysis


                While in theory the location of a terminal and its aircraft parking
                 stands would ideally provide for equal taxiing distances to all runway
                 thresholds, this is not always achievable particularly when expanding
                 existing airports
                The proposed Terminal 2 provides a number of operational benefits as
                 it gives short taxi distances, and short taxi times form Pier E to runway
                 28 for departures
                The two Dublin based carriers (Ryanair and AerLingus) can be
                 assigned to separate runways and terminals for efficient utilisation of
                 facilities
                The ground delays are not attributable to the efficiency of the taxiing
                 system, but to the capacity of the runway and its ability to service the
                 demand


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 71 of 308
                The assertion that the location of Terminal 2 will result in inefficiency,
                 crossing movements and severe congestion is not supported by the
                 analysis and simulation exercises carried out
                A second runway together with infrastructure enhancements (prior to
                 and post delivery of the second runway), and modification of Runway
                 16/34 would lead to operation of the airside system efficiently and
                 within levels of delays that are significantly better than those being
                 experienced in other airports




    Fingal County Development Plan / Dublin Airport LAP


                The proposed development is in accordance with the Objective T4 of
                 the LAP
                The LAP identifies as a first step that the development of eastern
                 campus should be progressed first prior to future expansion of the
                 western campus
                Commitment to further infrastructure investment in and around eastern
                 campus demonstrates that next investments in airport facilities should
                 be focused around the fulcrum of a new public transport interchange
                 (metro) located between T1 and the proposed T2.




        Alternative locations External to Airport


                The company operates within a policy framework set out by the
                 Government in the Aviation Action Plan (May 2005) whereby the
                 Government laid down an objective for DAA to build a new terminal
                 to be operated by 2009
                Not withstanding the clear mandate to build a new terminal as opposed
                 to a new airport, the issue of providing airport facilities at an
                 alternative location was previously assessed by Scott Wilson



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 72 of 308
                 Kirkpatrick & Co. ltd and found not to represent sustainable
                 development (a copy of the report is provided with the submission)
                     The other options considered were
                          o increased use of other civil airports in Ireland (80% of
                               passengers had origin or destination in GDA),
                          o single runway elsewhere in GDA (substantial investment in
                               the runway as well as supporting infrastructure needed,
                               environmental impacts would increase as a result of
                               increased total area, and increased travel distances as the
                               site would be further away from the central Dublin),
                          o a new site in the GDA ( similar impact on the surrounding
                               communities as the existing airport, sites away from
                               developed areas would have high ecological value)


             and it was concluded that the increased total costs of these options would
             not bring significant environmental gain overall.




        Additional Airport in the Dublin Region


                While under current legislation there is no barrier to the construction of
                 another airport in the GDA such a relocation would shift the costs form
                 one area to another
                Specific land use policies which have safeguarded the potential
                 development Dublin Airport has prevented encroachment by
                 residential and business development
                There is no blank space in the centre of Ireland in which a new airport
                 could be created without having any local pollution or congestion
                 costs. Adequate rod and transportation infrastructure would need to be
                 put in place to accommodate the development of another airport




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 73 of 308
                Land prices in the environs of Dublin Airport take much of their value
                 form their proximity to the Airport, if a decision to move the airport to
                 another location was reached there would be land price increase
                 reflecting the new found proximity to the airport
                Shifting even part of the single most important economic unit in the
                 country would have effect on the economy of the region it is being
                 transferred as well as the region it is leaving
                The demands of a new development (in a different location) on the
                 supporting infrastructure needs, on the local environment would be
                 considerable
                Development of a second airport within GDA has two aspects-
                      o On the supply side the airlines would not be willing to serve
                          two airports because of the advantages arising from economies
                          of scale and network density, and disadvantages arising from
                          switching costs, cost duplication, competitive risks / risk
                          shifting
                      o On the demand side there are significant airport costs in
                          provision of extremely expensive infrastructure both airport
                          infrastructure and supporting infrastructure (road, rail, public
                          transport, metro).
                     In other jurisdictions new second airports have not been a success,
                      because of inability to reach a significant critical mass and
                      competition with each other, unless the population levels in the
                      catchment area are very high
                     They interpret sunk costs as costs required to set up an airport (
                      runway, terminal, infrastructure etc)
                     The studies by DAA on the feasibility of opening another airport
                      either as a replacement or as an additional airport indicate that such
                      a proposal will not ensure that future traffic growth can be
                      accommodated effectively




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 74 of 308
        Accessibility and car parking


        External accessibility
                Modelling of Terminal 2 was based on the DTO „s GDA strategic
                 model for the years 2012-2024, and took into account the effects of
                 planned road infrastructure, including Port Tunnel, and significant
                 increase in commercial and residential development
                2012 was selected as it represents the worst case scenario prior to
                 opening of the Metro North
                modelling indicated that the impact of Terminal 2 on the M50 and M1
                 would be 3% increase in traffic flows during weekday AM period ( in
                 comparison to a situation without Terminal 2)
                upgrading of M50 due for completion on 2010 would increase capacity
                 on the M50 by at least 50%
                there will be continued passenger growth at the Dublin Airport
                 regardless of construction of Terminal 2.
                Terminal facilities would relieve pressure at the existing terminal
                 facilities rather and not caused congestion on the M50 even if opened
                 prior to completion of the M50 upgrade Scheme




        Internal accessibility
                Comprehensive road signage             strategy will make access and way-
                 finding will help avoid confusion in accessing the terminals
                The road system is designed to allow easy circulation
                The access road was assessed under worst case scenario and showed
                 both T1 and T2 traffic can be accommodated
                Location of Terminal 2 on the north side of the airport could not
                 facilitate better access for surface traffic as it would still need to share
                 the T1 access road
                Availability of space between the multi storey car park and T1 presents
                 a major constraint to road capacity



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 75 of 308
                A connection directly to the northern section of the airport box would
                 not be possible as the Northern run way would prevent such
                 connection
                Western location while identified in the Master plan for long term
                 expansion of the airport, it would necessitate significant infrastructure
                 including road infrastructure which could not be completed in the time
                 scale envisaged
                Construction of Terminal 2 at the western campus would be remote
                 from the planned Metro North line undermining the potential use of the
                 important public transport project
                The traffic assessment showed that the predicted flows at the airport
                 could be adequately accommodated as proposed and there is no
                 requirement to spread the ground traffic between two separate
                 entrances at this stage


        Car parking


                The car parking strategy includes a commitment to provide a new
                 multi-storey car park structure adjacent to Terminal 2 linked via foot
                 bridge to Terminal 2, the future ground transportation centre and the
                 existing multi storey car park
                High quality pedestrian links would be provided between terminals 1
                 and 2 and the existing and proposed multi storey car parks
                Clear pedestrian network will also be provided at grade linking all
                 major elements of the airport


        Travel patterns to Airport
                The DAA will be putting into practice a wide range of measures to
                 encourage and support sustainable transport
                Introduction of Metro has the potential to increase the public transport
                 mode split significantly of airport employees and airport business
                 related trips (EIS showed significant proportion of car trips resulting
                 from employee and business traffic)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 76 of 308
                Targets for the        Dublin Airport to achieve 30% and 40% public
                 transport mode splits is in line with the best practice




        Design


                The proposed Terminal 2 is an efficient building and it is not oversized
                 with ratio of less than 25m2/one way peak hour passenger it is
                 approximately 50% of the industry norm
                It is a tailored response to site specific circumstances allowing
                 conventional layouts baggage claim, customs and arrival halls in a
                 manner to minimise walking distances for passengers
                For departing passengers it provides familiar functional layouts along
                 simple and short journey. It accommodates self-service, internet check-
                 in and conventional check-in (long haul)
                The departure lounge contains appropriate degree of retail, which at
                 750m2 per mppa is not at the upper end. The income generated has
                 been great benefit in suppressing landing charges
                The linkages between the two terminals and to the other airport
                 facilities have been designed as part of the master plan
                Pier C has been incorporated into the design with minimum
                 modifications required to accommodate vertical circulation patterns
                The design objective has been to make the terminal a compact as
                 possible to reduce travel distances and to minimise level changes.
                 Wherever there area inherent significant distances such as along Pier
                 E, travellators are provided
                The building has been designed with a number of energy efficiency
                 measures, and an on-site renewable energy option (combined heat and
                 power machine) is adopted into the design of the building
                Overall kerbside capacity is enhanced for set down and pick up, with
                 particular attention to public transport users




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 77 of 308
        Heritage and conservation


                Following consideration of alternatives, the unambiguous conclusion
                 was that the new terminal should be developed to the rear of pier C
                The strategic national importance of Dublin Airport, the significance
                 of the new terminal and the expansion of Dublin Airport can be viewed
                 as the single most important strategic infrastructure development in the
                 early 21st century and constitute exceptional circumstances which
                 warrant demolition of a Protected Structure
                Of the various options of retention, relocation, deconstruction and
                 controlled demolition the latter was deemed the optimal approach
                The legislative process of removal of Corballis House from the record
                 of Protected Structures would require planning authority to make a
                 decision in isolation of detailed proposals for Terminal 2
                No trace of the recorded monument „castle site‟ were identified in test
                 trenching undertaken after completion of the EIS, and notwithstanding
                 the fact that the trenching may not have been fully comprehensive at
                 the site, the evidence strongly indicates that no substantial remains of a
                 monument exists on the site preservation of which could be of
                 „national importance‟
                The results of appraisal of Corballis House were provided in the EIS.
                 An additional programme of investigative works indicated four stages
                 of construction. The building was significantly modified in the last
                 stage with replacement of original windows and addition of an early
                 20th century fireplace removing elements of the earliest phase




        Emissions


                Atmospheric emissions form aircraft are excluded from 1997 Kyoto
                 Protocol on Climate change
                EPA estimates for emissions from civil aviation accounts only for
                 0.16% of the national total emissions, which are projected to reach


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 78 of 308
                 0.2% by 2012 (based on aviation fuel sales and therefore includes
                 emissions beyond Irish airspace)
                Resolution adopted by the EU parliament in July 2006, seek reduction
                 of climate change impact of aviation, and identifies the need to control
                 and reduce projected growth in CO2 emissions, through fiscal,
                 technical measures and use of alternative fuels, and air traffic
                 management measures reducing stacking of aircraft. These measures
                 together with fuel tax on flights will encourage airlines to operate their
                 fleets at higher fuel efficiency, and replace old engines with more
                 efficient engines
                The emissions from the terminal will include emissions from the
                 heating plant, road transport and aviation
                Without the development of Dublin Airport travellers will use
                 alternative transport including other airports and generate green house
                 emissions
                The impact of green house emissions from road transport associated
                 with Terminal 2 will be minimal compared to the projected traffic
                 flows on the M50, M1 and other roads in the surrounding area
                DAA has been issued with a permit by the EPA for emissions by the
                 energy generating plant at Dublin Airport
                Condition number 33 of the planning authority requires energy saving
                 measures for the existing boiler plant




        Surface Water


                Interaction between surface water and human beings was considered in
                 the EIS, and flooding was considered through the process of re-
                 apportioning the surface water run off between catchments
                A portion of Kealy‟s Stream catchment has been directed towards the
                 Cuckoo Stream sub catchment, reducing the flood risk in the former




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 79 of 308
                Provision has been made for attenuation facilities to store runoff for all
                 new hardstand areas and existing redeveloped brown field areas within
                 the application boundary
                Airport wide surface water drainage strategy is being developed by the
                 DAA in accordance with the relevant policies set out in the LAP
                The requirements of Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study and
                 standards of Fingal County Council are complied with through the
                 design methodologies, designs, including attenuation facilities, and
                 discharge at green field run off rates




        Noise
                Baseline noise measures were taken at six locations surrounding the
                 airport
                Noise assessment has shown that the terminal will not result in a
                 change that would have impact in terms of day time annoyance, or
                 night time sleep disturbance




        Health Impact


                There is no legal or policy requirement to undertake any sort of
                 assessment regarding perceived health impacts of the development
                The health impacts in relation to future air quality through dispersion
                 modelling was based on emissions from road transport, aviation
                 emissions, and emissions from the airport complex
                The results of the air quality impact study for the 2nd terminal indicate
                 predicted impact of emissions associated with the development will not
                 have significant impact n the local air quality




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 80 of 308
Project Splitting /cumulative impacts


                Through environmental impact assessment                        methodology and
                 development assessment             scenarios the EIS for the Terminal 2
                 considered other projects proposed by DAA
                Four scenarios were development for impact assessment for the years
                 2012 and 2024
                Do minimum scenario of 2012 made the assumption that the runway,
                 short term car park adjacent to Terminal 2 and coach facilities were
                 already operational (and included projected road and air traffic for
                 these)
                Scenario 2012 was selected as it provides the most likely greatest
                 potential impact scenario in terms of air and road traffic movements
                 and prior to opening of Metro, which is assumed to change the modal
                 splits
                Selection of this scenario addresses the requirements of the Directives,
                 legislation, and EPA guidance with regard to likelihood of impacts
                The year 2024 was selected as it was 15 years after opening of
                 Terminal 2 (typically selected time for assessment of infrastructure
                 projects). It builds on the 2012 „Do minimum‟ scenario of 2012, but
                 includes the Metro
                Do something scenarios for both 2012 and 2024 bring in additional
                 elements
                Construction of Terminal 2 and Pier E would provide an improved
                 level of service to the airport terminal operations with no specific
                 runway usage by any particular runway




        Regional Balance


                The proposed development will not contribute to any regional
                 imbalance



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 81 of 308
                The purpose of the proposed development is to cater for projected
                 growth patterns in Dublin Airport and to provide passenger experience
                 appropriate to an international airport of a capital city
                The proposed development complies with both the NDP and NSS as
                 detailed in s.4.4 of the EIS, including the requirement for good quality
                 links via nationally strategic airports
                Both national policy documents highlight the importance of the south
                 and east region and the GDA in particular having a pivotal role in
                 national economic success (various quotes provided)




        Prematurity


                Terminal 2 can be constructed independent of the second runway. The
                 two projects are patently independent of each other.
                The Board should note the urgency of the need to relieve existing
                 terminal congestion for all passengers




        Cost Benefit analysis


                Cost benefit analysis is not a planning issue (s. 34(2) (a))
                The DAA application precedes the release of the 2005 DoF
                 (Department of Finance) Guidelines
                DAA can confirm that as a semi-state company the board of DAA
                 operates as both the sponsoring agency and the Sanctioning Agency,
                 subject to shareholder policy directives, statutory obligations, and price
                 cap set by the Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR)
                DAA can confirm that it s methodologies include approaches outlined
                 in the DoF Guidelines. DAA‟s financial projections submission to
                 CAR is predicated on internal rates of return that are consistent with
                 CAR‟s allowances



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 82 of 308
                Whilst DAA‟s business plan document is commercially sensitive, the
                 Capex component submitted to CAR in Oct 2006 is a public domain
                 document
                DAA can confirm that multi-criteria analysis was deployed in the
                 exercise to ascertain most efficient and cost effective option for
                 delivering increased capacity
                DAA has deployed the most rigorous and robust appraisal
                 methodologies in relation to DAA‟s capital investment programme for
                 Dublin Airport and will do so in the next phase subject to grant of
                 permission




        Land and property values


                It is submitted that the proposed development will have no significant
                 effect on local land or property values


        Passenger and aircraft movement forecasts


                The DAA forecast methodology has been extensively reviewed by
                 independent forecast analysts on behalf of CAR
                DAA also produces low growth scenarios which may be considered to
                 be proxies for higher oil price scenarios
                The „land use subsidy‟ referred to by the third party is in fact the
                 decision by CAR not to use current market values in setting of the
                 airport charges cap for Dublin Airport. DAA has no control over this
                 decision.
                The approach adopted by DAA has been to assume that fuel prices
                 would remain stable as there is no unanimity about what will happen
                 over the course of next 20 years in the absence of clear and
                 unequivocal information as to what is likely to happen (regarding
                 amount of oil reserves and its impact on air traffic, inelasticity in



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 83 of 308
                 relation to fuel surcharges and its impact on traffic volumes, increasing
                 fuel efficiency of aircrafts, and possibility of use of alternative fuels)




    Socio economic assessment


                The key argument in support of the continued development of Dublin
                 Airport is not about employment and income impacts but the wider
                 benefits stemming from the enhanced connectivity provided by
                 developing the airport
                Dublin Airport has been a key element in underpinning the past
                 success of Ireland in the inward investment and inbound tourism
                 markets
                The passenger and freight services provided by the Airport require
                 continued development in order for Ireland to build on its past success
                Dublin is still a relatively small player on the European economic
                 scene, and enhanced connectivity by air is a key factor if the city is to
                 compete effectively wit other European business centres
                Ireland currently has „infrastructure deficit‟ mostly evident in
                 transport, housing and utilities. Failure to invest in the proposed
                 development would lead to Dublin Airport becoming part of this
                 deficit




    Sustainable Development strategy for Ireland


                The fact that the airport is located just over ten miles form the city
                 centre is precisely the reason why the proposed development complies
                 with the sustainable development strategy for Ireland
                Encouraging high movement activities to locate areas of maximum
                 accessibility to public transport can help reduce growth in transport
                 demand



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 84 of 308
                The proposed development will help this by providing enhanced
                 facilities in an existing facility (which is more sustainable than
                 building a new facility elsewhere), and with improved public
                 transportation links including Metro and QBC‟s a high proportion of
                 future passengers and employees will be capable of travelling to the
                 airport via mass transport systems




        There are also further observations by two of the third parties (By Angela
        Lawton, and Ryanair) on the grounds of appeal by the first party and other
        third parties). I shall refer to these if and when necessary during the
        assessment.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 85 of 308
3.4     OBSERVATIONS TO THE EIS


        Following publication of the notice by the Board, three observations were
        received from third parties. The main points of the submissions include:


        By Heat


                Under the SEA and EIA Directives assessment of projects such as the
                 instant one must be carried out under a range of headings
                The project is part of a larger project to double the capacity of Dublin
                 Airport by 2020 (runway application and private sector proposals for
                 car parking) All of these projects should have been considered together
                 under the SEA Directive. Otherwise the assessment loses its Strategic
                 element.
                Such an assessment should have considered the impact of Dublin
                 Airport on climate change
                The SEA for the Dublin Airport master plan neglects the issue of
                 climate change
                Submitting separate applications for individual elements of an
                 enormous       airport    expansion      programme        is   illegal    unless    a
                 comprehensive assessment is carried out and mitigation measures are
                 put in place
                Article 5 of the EIA directive requires an outline of the main
                 alternatives to be provided in relation to a transportation proposal
                No consideration has been given to the alternative which would avert
                 most aviation travel. No consideration is given to alternative transport
                 modes which would avoid the need for airport expansion
                Mitigation should include strategic linking of passenger number
                 increase and mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions
                No assessment is effected of the impact of the additional aircraft
                 movements that attend upon the construction of a new terminal
                The EIS notes exclusion of aviation emissions form Kyoto protocol,
                 but this does not undermine the requirement to consider the

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 86 of 308
                 environmental impact of greenhouse gas generation for any airport
                 development
                Aviation is currently responsible for 4-9% of the climate change of
                 global human activity
                According to Tyndall Centre on Climate change aviation emissions
                 will amount to at least 40% of the total emissions by 2050
                They ask the Board to address the issue in a way that is compliant with
                 the EIA Directive




        By Plane Stupid (Marianne Kennedy)


        The writer of this submission states that they are an environmental NGO, and
        requests that the Board cancel the oral hearing, or that if proceed, the hearing
        be located to another venue, the format be changed, and a video link be
        provided.


        Some of the points raised in the submission are identical to the previous
        observer. Other points include:


                An Board Pleánala has a legal responsibility to ensure that the
                 application complies with both the SEA and EIA Directives (as
                 amended)
                The proposed development is part of a larger project doubling in
                 capacity of Dublin Airport
                The larger project requires SEA under the SEA Directive
                Examination of the relevant SEA accompanying Dublin Airport Master
                 Plan 2006 they found that it is deficient in complying with the
                 requirements of the Directive as no assessment of climate or climatic
                 impacts is considered. This renders the SEA legally void
                They request suspension of the determination of the project until
                 Fingal County Council carries out a proper SEA



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 87 of 308
                As none of the arguments (Government Policy, Airport Master
                 planning and passenger growth) used to justify the development under
                 s. 2.2.1 have been subject to an SEA, no tenable argument for the need
                 for the terminal development has been put forward
                No consideration has been given to alternative transport modes which
                 would obviate the need for development (zero carbon rail /sea link
                 between Dublin and London connecting with UK rail system and
                 Eurostar
                S 6.2.4 of the EIS relies on out of date traffic data referring to
                 18.5million passengers in use in 2005. it fails to identify staff and other
                 demand
                They do not consider the applicant have addressed the sustainability
                 and impact of existing traffic levels let alone level of increased traffic
                 demand that will be generated
                The noise and vibration assessment is typical of the data attached to
                 airport development proposals submitted by consultants in the UK, and
                 gives the impression that noise is being addressed
                The analysis of climate is in appropriately limited to the construction
                 and operational phase of the proposed Terminal 2 and does not address
                 the main impact, namely the additional aircraft emissions generated




        By SPURT


        The main argument submitted by this person (who states that he represents a
        lobby group), is that the proposed development is inadequate in terms of size
        of the terminal facilities and parking provisions to meet the requirements of
        the general public and that the EIS fails to address the security risk posed by
        terrorist attacks.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 88 of 308
4.      FURTHER INFORMATION REQUEST BY THE BOARD


        The applicants were required under S. 132 of the Planning and Development
        Act, 2000 to provide following further information:

                 1.   Strategic transport assessment and junction capacity analysis of the
                      proposed development with the „do minimum‟ transportation
                      improvements, but without Phase 2 of the M50 upgrade in place,
                      for the forecast year of 2012.
                 2.   Details of the strategic modelling outputs or modelling reports on
                      which Section 6.5 of the EIS is based.
                 3.   Details of the preferred Metro North route announced in October
                      2006 illustrating its alignment through the airport (scale of
                      1:25,000) and its relationship with the proposed structures (scale of
                      1:3,000).
                 4.   An assessment of the cumulative impacts of construction traffic
                      associated with the proposed “Terminal 2 ” and the Northern
                      parallel runway proposed under F04A/1755, if the two projects are
                      constructed at the same time.


        The first party response is attached to the file and referred to in detail in the
        report of the transport consultant.




5.      REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS


        From the planning authority
                Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS)
                South Fingal Planning Study
                Local Area Plan (LAP)
                Strategic Environmental Assessment for the LAP




        From the applicants
                Terminal and Piers study by PM/SOM,
                Capacity Enhancement Report by P&W




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 89 of 308
6.      RELEVANT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES


        The main policies and guidelines applicable to this case include:


                National Development Plan 2007-2013
                 (I note that while at the time of making the application, the NDP 2001-
                 2006 was in force, the new NDP has come into effect since Jan 2007).


                National Spatial Strategy (2002-2020)


                Regional Planning Guidelines (for gda) 2004-2006


                Transport 21 –Department of Transport investment programme


                DTO strategy-platform for change (2000-2016)


                Aviation Action Plan


                National Climate Strategy 2007-2013


        I shall refer to the specific provisions of these during my assessment of the
        proposed development.


        In addition, the provisions of Sections 57 and 143 of the Planning and
        Development Act 2000 have specific relevance to this case.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 90 of 308
7.      ORAL HEARING SUMMARY


        The oral hearing was held at the Great Southern Hotel (Radisson SAS) over a
        three-week period commencing on 16/04/2007 and finishing on 04/05/2007.
        The hearing continued well into the evening on most days.


        At the written invitation of the inspector, three experts from DoEH&LG,
        namely Dr. Frederic O‟Dwyer, (Architectural Heritage Advisory Service),
        Brian Duffy, (Chief archaeologist) and Dr. Aiken, (ecologist), attended to
        relevant modules of the hearing.


        Other invitees who attended the transport module were representatives from
        Railway Procurement Agency, National Roads Authority, Dublin bus, and
        Dublin Transport Office.


        Jerry    Barnes      (traffic   and    transport     consultant)     whose      report    and
        recommendations are included in appendix A also attended some of the
        sessions. The brief for the consultant is also attached.


        A translator facility was provided on the first day only for one of the
        appellants (Ms. Lawton) to enable her to make her main statement „As
        Gaeilge‟.


        The hearing was conducted on an „issue‟ basis (determined from the contents
        of the written submissions). The issues and the format of the hearing were
        circulated to the parties in advance of the hearing.


        The issues were identified as
                Policy related issues including the „need‟ for the proposed
                 development and „alternatives‟
                Location and layout
                Building design, passenger experience and visual impact
                Traffic and transport related issues


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 91 of 308
                Built heritage, cultural heritage
                natural heritage,
                Air quality and emissions
                Noise
                Drainage
                Impact on amenities of residential communities
                Climate change


        The parties were advised that compliance with relevant EU Directives,
        including cumulative impact would be discussed within each module. The
        discussion of relevant conditions imposed by the planning authority would
        also be discussed under each module.


        During the hearing the order of modules was changed to accommodate the
        needs of those attending.


        A considerable number of documents /statements were circulated by various
        parties, during the hearing. These are provided in date orders in two boxes
        accompanying this report.


        A more detailed account of the hearing is included in Volume 4.




        The main thesis put forward by the first party (DAA) was that as a result of the
        unprecedented growth in passenger numbers and under investment there was
        serious congestion and service deficit at Dublin Airport. DAA was mandated
        by Government Aviation Action Plan (May 2005) to build a second terminal
        (which would be capable of being operated independently), and to increase
        airside capacity by building new piers.


        A number of studies carried out by consultants provided a master plan for the
        development of the airport and set out objectives in relation to location of
        terminal and piers, internal road layout, and transport interchange. DAA


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 92 of 308
        submitted that the proposed development represented an optimum solution to
        meet the need in the time frame specified. They also stressed that the proposal
        was endorsed by the independent verifier‟s report.




        Over the years the planning authority had carried out studies for the County
        Development Plan including South Fingal Area Study, and had adopted a LAP
        for Dublin Airport, which provided detailed policies and objectives regarding
        airport development and zoning objectives.


        The planning authority considered the EIS submitted with the application
        adequate and were satisfied that together with the conditions imposed, the
        proposed development would comply with policies at national, regional level,
        would accord with the policy and objectives of the County Development Plan
        and would not jeopardise the objectives of the LAP.


        They stressed that the EIS formed the starting point of the EIA process, and it
        was now up to the inspector and ultimately, to the Board, to adjudicate on the
        matter.


        They also noted that this was a project for consideration under S. 143 of the
        Planning and Development Act, 2000.




        The arguments put forward by third party appellants and observers could be
        grouped in three categories: quality of life and health issues for the affected
        communities, excessive capacity and size issues for an airline operator, and
        compliance with national law and EU Directives for An Taisce. An
        overarching issue raised by most was related to project splitting, adequacy of
        the EIS and compliance with EIA Directive.


        Those living in communities affected by development at the airport argued
        that the development at Dublin Airport had reached an optimum level, the
        expansion of the airport would lead to increased noise and associated
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 93 of 308
        disturbance, increased emissions, and would pose serious risk to health and
        safety. They drew attention to flooding and discharge of pollutants into the
        rivers. They argued that DAA would benefit from the proposed development
        at the expense of the surrounding communities. They were not asking for
        Dublin Airport to stop functioning but, were arguing that the continuous
        expansion was effecting their quality of life significantly, including sleep
        deprivation, worries in relation to safety, educational and health matters,
        emissions to air and discharges to water.


        They submitted that Fingal County Council, which was appointed as the
        guardian of their community and had a contract with the community to protect
        their health and well being through the citizen‟s charter, was not meeting this
        responsibility. Rather it was facilitating the DAA in their expansion
        programme without much cognisance of the community concerns.


        In their view, consideration of alternatives was seriously inadequate both in
        terms of alternative location for the airport development and in terms of
        alternatives to aviation based transport. They argued that the proposed
        development was in conflict with NSS and would lead to further development
        of the Eastern Seaboard at the expense of other regions.


        They argued that, as the lands owned by DAA were in fact owned by the state,
        the real cost of the project did not constitute „value for money‟. As „value for
        money‟ was a fundamental Government policy in relation to any public
        project it had to be taken into consideration. DAA was acting as a private
        enterprise, unlike previous times, and what was good for DAA was no longer
        good for the country. The project was being forwarded not only at a
        considerable monetary cost to the community (lower than expected
        appreciation of property values and health (€1/2 million) but was also costing
        the nation (€4 billion).


        An Taisce raised the concern that, having regard to the pressing issue of
        climate change, further intensification of aviation-based transport would not
        be sustainable. The SEA for the LAP, on which the proposed development
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 94 of 308
        was based, did not comply with the provisions of the SEA Directive as it did
        not include climate change as a specific consideration.


        They argued further that the public notice was inadequate, and the assessment
        carried out by FCC did not constitute a proper assessment under the EIA
        Directive.




        The team       for Ryanair       maintained that the proposed T2 would provide
        significant excess capacity and terminal size and would not constitute an
        efficient and cost effective development. The excessive size would necessitate
        demolition of a protected structure.


        They maintained what was being sought was far greater than presented at the
        application. The proposed development, together with T1 would provide
        capacity well beyond what was specified in the LAP for the eastern campus,
        and would lead to demands for raising the limits set in the LAP for the eastern
        campus at the expense of development of the western campus.                           Excess
        capacity provision would also have significant adverse impact on landside
        transport and lead to congestion.


        Their fundamental objection was that, the information upon which the
        proposed development was based had not been provided. What was provided
        was not transparent, and did not comply with the statutory obligations to make
        available to the public all information and documents relied upon.




        A number of issues raised by third parties were related to procedural matters.
        They challenged the validity of the public notice (thus the application), and the
        conditions imposed by the planning authority. These conditions in relation to
        works to infrastructure (road, sewer, water) were necessary to facilitate the
        proposed development but would be carried out on lands outside the
        ownership of the applicant. It was also highlighted that these works were not
        identified in the EIS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 95 of 308
        They challenged the role of ARUP consultants to act both for the first party
        and for the DAA, drawing attention to possible conflict of interest.


        They raised serious concerns regarding availability of experts to the first party,
        and the cost to third parties to provide experts even in a limited form. They
        asked that their costs be met by the first party.


        They drew attention to the continuous stream of applications on DAA lands
        (for car parks, roads, extensions etc), and the difficulties for the residents
        arising from the necessity to take part in the oral hearing for one of the
        applications (runway) while trying to meet the deadlines to submit grounds of
        appeal for another application (terminal).


        They all argued these stream of applications constituted a more subtle form of
        „project splitting‟ to avoid examination of all impacts and in particular,
        cumulative impacts.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 96 of 308
                                  An Bord Pleanála




A 10 year planning permission for development at Dublin Airport, east of the existing
terminal building adjoining Pier C. The development will consist of the construction
of: 1) a passenger terminal (which will be built in two phases) of ca. 92,049 sq.m. in 4
no. interconnecting blocks ranging in height from two to four stories with an overall
height of 35m, which partially bridges the access road to the existing passenger
terminal building; 2) a three storey Pier Building with an overall height of 18m (ca.
24,052 sq.m.), complete with 19 no. air bridges and associated fixed links. 3) a two
storey over basement energy centre containing water storage and plant for power
supply, heating and cooling systems (ca. 5,049 sq.m. with total height of 11m and a
chimney stack of 38m); 4) external service yard; 5) realignment of existing internal
access road infrastructure and provision of new access roads, including pedestrian and
cycle routes, all contained within the existing airport campus; 6) Rearrangement of
the existing coach park adjacent to the north of the existing terminal building; 7)
separate car, taxi and bus set-down areas; 8) associated services connections; site
development; and landscaping works, including a feature access area; 9)
refurbishment of the existing Pier C; 10) demolition of the following; Corballis House
a two storey protected structure with an area of ca. 482 sq.m.; a single storey storage
building (ca. 1295 sq.m.); 3 no. single and two storey car hire buildings ca 280 sq.m.,
690 sq.m. and 1925 sq.m.); a single storey boiler house building (ca 373 sq.m.); single
and two storey DAA Maintenance offices (ca 1,290 sq.m.); a mainly single storey
Hanger Building (ca 2,165 sq.m.) and fixed links to Pier C (ca 380 sq.m.). All on an
application site of ca. 32,646 ha. The following will be included within the passenger
terminal and pier; check-in areas including 58 no. manned desks and 24 no. self-
service facilities; passenger services and associated terminal support facilities;
departure lounge; baggage processing hall; baggage reclaim area; ca. 5,813 sq.m. of
retail (ca. 840 sq.m. landside, ca. 4,973 sq.m. airside); ca 2,730 sq.m. of catering
facilities (ca. 643 sq.m. landside, ca. 2,087 sq.m. airside); 2 no. public houses totalling
ca. 1,278 sq.m. (1 no. landside of ca. 491 sq.m., 1 no. airside of ca. 787 sq.m.); airline
security, immigration and customs offices( ca. 4,625 sq.m. airside); links to a future
multi storey car park and the existing passenger terminal; security check-in and arrival
areas; associated plant, circulation and toilet space. An Environmental Impact
Statement will be submitted to the Planning Authority with the application.




                         VOLUME 3 – ASSESSMENT


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 97 of 308
                          VOLUME 3 ASSESSMENT




        8.       INTRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION


        9.       ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION


        10.      ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES ARISING
                         Assessment of need
                         Examination of alternatives
                         Compliance with policies at national regional and local levels
                         Capacity provision
                         Location of terminal and pier facilities and site layout
                         Building design, urban design, and passenger experience
                         Architectural, archaeological and cultural heritage
                         Traffic and transport
                         Drainage
                         Natural heritage
                         Noise
                         Air quality
                         Climate change
                         Impact on residential communities


        11.      FIRST PARTY APPEAL AGAINST CONDITIONS


        12       ADEQUACY OF EIS and COMPLIANCE WITH EIA DIRECTIVE


                         Project splitting
                         Cumulative impacts
                         Adequacy of EIS
                         Requirement for health impact assessment




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 98 of 308
        13.      LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS


                         Conflict of interest
                         Validity of application
                         Availability of information
                         Application for costs
                         Adequacy of public notice
                         Planning authority obligations under EIA Directive




        14.      CONCLUSIONS


        15       RECOMMENDATION




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                            Page 99 of 308
8.      INTRODUCTION


        The proposed development does, in effect, determine the main parameters for
        the future and overall development of the eastern campus at Dublin Airport.


        The most important elements of the proposal consist of
                A new terminal building to be completed in two phases (with overall
                 areas of 74,082 m2 and 92,049m2 and overall height of 35m)
                A three storey pier building to accommodate 19 air bridges with
                 24,052m2 floor area and 18m in height
                A two-storey over basement energy centre (5049m2)
                Re-configuration of the road layout in the eastern campus to provide
                 separate access to the new terminal, and re-configuration of the taxi
                 /bus pick-up and drop off areas,
                Provision of a public transport interchange with the Ground
                 Transportation Centre (GTC) within the coach parking area, with direct
                 access to the future Metro station located below
                Provision for a future multi-storey car park
                Demolition of Corballis House, a protected structure




        The proposed new terminal structure (T2) is located to the south east of the
        existing terminal building. It has two separate elements located on either side
        of the access road to T1. These are designed as two curvelinear back-to-back
        elements with centrally located illuminated way-finding spine extending to the
        full depth of the building, which becomes a high level bridge connecting the
        two elements.


        Pier E continues onward to airside to provide contact stands on both sides, for
        aircraft of varying sizes. The existing Pier C is incorporated into the design.
        While Pier C no longer functions as a pier, it provides airside connection
        between the two terminals (T1 and T2) which share airside facilities.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 100 of 308
        Although not included in the application, provision is made for a high level
        walkway to connect the Terminal 2 to the future Multi Storey Car Park
        (MSCP) on the other side of the structure.


        The Ground Transportation Centre (GTC) is located behind the two car park
        buildings (existing and future) with access to both terminals through the car
        parks and a direct link to the future metro station below ground, to form a
        public transport hub.


        The proposed Terminal 2 would be constructed in two phases to cater for
        12mppa (million passengers per annum) in the first phase and 15mppa in the
        second. Together with Terminal 1 it would take the operating capacity of the
        airport to around 32mppa.


        The application is accompanied by an EIS for a capacity of 35mppa.


        The information submitted with the application and with the EIS was greatly
        expanded through submissions of background studies before and during the
        three weeks of oral hearing.


        Specific information was also provided in response to further information
        requested on traffic and transport issues.




9.      ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION


        Following my review of the file and relevant documents, my inspections of
        site and its environs, and from conducting the oral hearing I consider the main
        issues for consideration in this appeal to be:


                Whether the proposed development is in accordance with the policies
                 at National, regional and local levels and acceptable in principle. In
                 particular,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 101 of 308
                      o Whether there is a need for the proposed expansion of terminal
                          and pier facilities
                      o Whether the proposed development represents a reasonable
                          response to meet such a need having regard to various
                          alternatives
                      o Whether the proposed development would provide a reasonable
                          capacity response to meet the demand.


                Whether the proposed development is acceptable in terms of location
                 of the proposed new terminal and the overall layout of the eastern
                 campus.


                Whether the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to
                 specific development plan provisions, in relation to
                      o Building design, urban design and passenger experience,
                      o Visual impact.


                Whether the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of
                 impact on the architectural, archaeological and cultural heritage


                Whether the proposed development is acceptable in terms of impact on
                 the traffic and transport for the area, having regard to policies at
                 national, regional and local levels, and existing and planned
                 infrastructure


                Whether the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to
                 specific development plan provisions and environmental legislation in
                 relation to


                      o Drainage, in particular, surface water drainage
                      o Protection of the natural heritage




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 102 of 308
                Whether the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to
                 specific development plan provisions and environmental legislation, in
                 relation to


                      o Noise
                      o Air quality and emissions


                Whether the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to the
                 recent developments in relation to accelerating onset of climate change


                Whether the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact
                 on the residential communities in the vicinity,


                First party appeal against conditions


                Compliance with requirements of EIA Directive and adequacy of the
                 EIS having regard to
                      o Project splitting
                      o Cumulative impacts
                      o HIA


                Legal and procedural issues




        In assessing issues under these headings the format I intend to follow will
        open with        a brief description of the relevant aspects of the proposed
        development and arising issues, followed by views put forward by the parties.
        I will refer to specific policies relevant to the issue, prior to reaching my
        conclusions where I will also refer to conditions, where appropriate. I will also
        discuss the adequacy of the relevant section of the EIS where necessary.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 103 of 308
10.     ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES ARISING


        The first area of consideration is whether a need for the proposed development
        exists, whether there has been adequate consideration of alternatives, and
        whether the proposed development is in accordance with various policies at
        national regional and local level.




        Need for the proposed development


        The main points of the argument put forward by the DAA in presenting their
        case for the proposed development are as follows:


                There has been an unprecedented increase in the number of passengers
                 at Dublin Airport from 2.5mppa in 1991 to 15mppa in 2001, and to
                 18mppa in 2005, growing at approximately 9-10 % (compound) in the
                 latter years.


                Over the last decade the investment in Dublin Airport was only 10% of
                 that in other European airports. This under investment, coupled with
                 passenger growth has resulted in serious congestion and passenger
                 services are at unacceptable levels.


                Ireland‟s present connection to the rest of the world is mostly by air.
                 Dublin Airport, described as the „main gateway‟ to Ireland, caters for
                 75%-80% of the passenger travel to/from Ireland, despite significant
                 growth in regional airports (Shannon 38%, Cork 21%, Knock 42% and
                 Kerry 20%).


        The key factors driving the need for the new facility are growth in air traffic
        demand, the current level of congestion in the existing terminal, and the
        constrained number of aircraft stands.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 104 of 308
        The Government, following an extended period of consideration                         on the
        infrastructure for Dublin Airport and how it can be financed, had issued its
        decision through Aviation Action Plan of May 2005. This specifically referred
        to “the building of a DAA owned new terminal (terminal 2) at Dublin
        Airport”.


        The Terminal 2 project was one of DAA „s response to the Aviation Action
        Plan (Aviation Action Plan).




        They noted that there was a strong link between „demand‟ and „need‟. In an
        effort to predict future demand, each year DAA would prepare a market driven
        and unconstrained, passenger and aircraft movements demand forecasts. Using
        the historical data as an input, each forecast would adjust the previous year‟s
        predictions against the actual throughput and taking into account short and
        long term primary and secondary traffic drivers.


        The projections would envisage three growth scenarios (high, low and centre
        line). The primary drivers for each scenario would be economic growth (real
        GDP) and airfare trends. The factors such as fuel prices, exchange rates,
        population and demographic changes, tourism, market fragmentation, airline
        route mix and airline strategies would be secondary drivers. The latest 2006
        centreline forecast predicted 30mppa in 2016


        On the basis of the information on GDP (including GDP elasticity) and using
        figures provided by the ESRI, a „high growth‟ scenario was predicted in the
        next few years (for up to 2010) with centreline growth forecast in subsequent
        years (using lower growth figures).


        It was also pointed out that the passenger numbers for 2005 and 2006 had
        already exceeded the forecast figures. The result was that while forecast of
        2004 had predicted 28.8mppa for the year 2015, based on actual 2005 figures,
        growth would be 29.4mppa for the same year..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 105 of 308
        Details of these are provided in the document “Dublin Airport passenger &
        aircraft Movement Demand Forecast Report – DAPF 06/01” (issued in April
        2006, updated in Aug 2006) (Exhibit J-16/04/2007)


        It was stated at the hearing that the current levels have already reached
        22mppa, thus well exceeding the predictions, and the growth was presently
        following the „high growth‟ scenario. It was noted by one of the appellants
        (an accomplished economist) that bringing passenger growth down to even the
        centre line forecast would require a serious down turn in the domestic
        economy or some serious external pressure.




        The third parties firstly argued against the necessity for expansion of Dublin
        Airport maintaining that the „need‟ will not arise due to reduced levels of
        aviation traffic. In particular,


                Measures to curtail CO2 emissions would reduce air travel. (In their
                 view, while the aviation sector have been excluded from compliance
                 with Kyoto requirements, this is likely to change in the near future).
                Application of polluter pays principle and withdrawal of government
                 subsidies would reduce the demand for air travel, (and therefore the
                 need for the proposed development).




        It was stated by a number of people that while currently the aviation sector
        remains outside the requirements of Kyoto agreement, this does not seem
        likely to remain so in the near future, as evidenced by the resolution adopted
        by the European Parliament in July 2006 to reduce the climate change impact
        of aviation. This would have impact on the demand for air travel.


        In response to this argument it was stated by the first party that there has been
        no decrease in demand despite recent increases for charges (such as baggage


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 106 of 308
        charges or seat charges), and that there is no evidence to suggest that increased
        prices would have a significant impact on demand. It was also stressed that the
        aviation industry was in the process of increasing fuel efficiency through
        engine design and other technological advances, which would reduce CO2
        emissions.




        The measures, including increases in taxes and fuel charges, to combat
        accelerated onset of climate change may indeed have impact on the aviation
        sector. It is, however, likely that such measures would be imposed as a result
        of international agreements or EU Directives, rather than unilateral measures
        imposed on the Irish Aviation sector.




        Indeed the recent National Climate Strategy (2007-2012) which provides for
        extensive measures aimed at curbing the growth of Ireland‟s greenhouse gas
        emissions, states in relation to the aviation industry (p.24):


                 The Government supports, in principle having regard to Ireland‟s
                 peripheral status, the inclusion of aviation and maritime emissions in
                 future restructuring of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).




        I also refer to the recently published NDP (2007-2013) which states that
        climate change by a considerable margin, is the most pressing international
        environmental issue that we face, and the investment policy of the plan is fully
        informed of the policy imperative to play a part domestically and as part of the
        European Union to address this vital issue.




        Therefore, it is my considered opinion that while various policy initiatives and
        measures including demand management of air travel (through taxation and
        additional charges) could take place, and indeed could have a significant effect
        on air travel, in the absence of any measures to date it would be unreasonable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 107 of 308
        to refuse permission on grounds of future reductions in aviation activity as a
        result of measures which may be introduced.


        During the hearing there was discussion regarding the forecast methodology.
        It was explained that the methodology was reviewed on a yearly basis, and
        represented a robust approach. I have no reason to conclude otherwise.


        Therefore, and having regard to the predicted future growth in air traffic, it
        would be reasonable to conclude that the demand in air traffic is likely to rise
        in the short to medium term, regardless of whether it is met at Dublin Airport
        or elsewhere in the country.


        This increased demand is likely to exacerbate the present level of congestion
        at Dublin Airport.



        Alternatives


        I will now look at alternative propositions to meet the demand.


        The third parties argued that if such a „need‟ is accepted, it can be addressed
        by way of alternative modes of transport or by way of alternative location of
        facilities.


        For the former they suggested a tunnel under the Irish Sea would provide a
        link to the rest of Europe through Britain, which would facilitate more
        sustainable forms of transport such as high-speed rail. While this is
        reasonable, planning and construction of major infrastructure in the form of a
        tunnel under the Irish Sea would take a considerable time to plan and
        construct. A decision on such a major development would need to be made at
        a strategic national level.


        In the absence of such plans to date, it would be reasonable to conclude that a
        tunnel could not be considered as realistic alternative that would have any

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 108 of 308
        significant impact on reducing demand for air travel to/from Ireland at present
        or in the near future.


        I also note that during the hearing Dr. Coveney for the DAA stated that the
        Demand Forecast Report (DAPF 06/01) provided for a negatively adjusted
        elasticity for UK and decrease in London‟s elasticity. In other words, the
        increase in passenger traffic at Dublin Airport would not be driven by UK
        originated /bound traffic, but by other destinations.


        Those who did not question the need but argued against expansion of Dublin
        Airport, submitted that the increase in demand should be catered for through
        second or alternative airports at alternative locations either within the Dublin
        region or elsewhere in the country (through expansion of regional airports, or
        new airports).


        They argued that the proposed expansion did not coincide with Government‟s
        decentralisation policy, or the provisions of the NSS and would undermine the
        latter. Some argued that the expansion of Dublin Airport was being pushed
        forward as there was no National Aviation Policy. The proposed development
        was premature in the absence of a strategic national policy regarding where
        airport infrastructure should be located. Some argued that a connection to
        Belfast was not explored as an option.


        In their response the first party team strongly argued that the Aviation Action
        Plan (May 2005) represented Government policy, giving DAA a clear
        mandate to build a second terminal at the airport.


        I enclose a copy of the Aviation Action Plan (18th May, 2005). It refers to the
        Government decision on aviation matters including
                The building of a DAA owned new terminal (Terminal 2) to open in
                 2009
                The building of a new pier for aircraft parking stands to be available
                 from 2007


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 109 of 308
                A triple safeguard to ensure maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness
                 of the building of T2,


        It also requires identifying and making necessary changes to facilitate a third
        terminal when passenger volumes determine the need for additional capacity
        beyond that offered by T1 and T2. It requires that Terminal 3 will be delivered
        in the most efficient and timely way underpinned by an open competitive
        process.


        In view of the above I would conclude that AAP does provide clear direction
        for growth of Dublin Airport, and in particular, provision of new terminal
        facilities.




        The EIS states (in S. 2.1) that when assessing the main alternatives, the option
        of developing airport facilities at another location instead of constructing T2
        was not considered because the development is founded on the Aviation
        Action Plan.


        It does however refer to Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick –Dublin Airport –Runway
        10L/28R Alternatives Report, and states that the contents of this study was
        examined.


        During the hearing the DAA stated that, not withstanding the clear mandate
        from the Government to build a new terminal as opposed to a new airport, a
        number of options in providing airport capacity (runway, terminal and other
        airport infrastructure) were previously examined by the said study.


        The options studied included
             a. Increased use of other airports
             b. Provision of a single runway airport elsewhere in the GDA (Greater
                 Dublin Area) either at an existing airfield or on a completely new site,
                 and either in the form of a new single runway airport or change of use
                 of an existing airfield
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 110 of 308
             c. Replacement of Dublin Airport on a new site.


        These had to satisfy the requirement to travel to /from a variety of
        destinations. The study found:


                Use of regional airports was not satisfactory as it would not be able to
                 satisfy the demand where it arose. The DTO study of 2001 found that
                 80% of the passengers using Dublin Airport had origin and
                 destinations within GDA. Use of regional airports to serve the GDA
                 would necessitate increased surface access provision.


                The option to develop other airports at either existing airfields (such as
                 Baldonnel or Gormanstown) or a new airfield in the GDA was
                 considered. The assessment of these alternatives included accessibility
                 and environmental considerations. Zones of opportunity were
                 considered       where      catchment       and     accessibility     were     main
                 considerations.


                Development of existing airfields would be costly in terms of
                 development of facilities and necessary infrastructure including surface
                 access, and displacement of existing military facilities and without
                 significant environmental benefit. Neither were the airfields in the
                 ownership of DAA.


                The option to replace Dublin Airport on a new site would seek to
                 substitute the environmental impacts of the existing airport to another
                 site. The study had used constraint mapping to identify characteristics
                 of potential airport sites in the vicinity of Dublin identifying zones of
                 opportunity where such a development might be possible. These
                 indicated that any site sufficiently close to Dublin to offset increase
                 access impacts would likely have similar effect on the surrounding
                 communities as Dublin Airport. Sites away from developed areas
                 would have high ecological value.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 111 of 308
                In addition, the work to develop a replacement airport and associated
                 infrastructure would take many years to plan and implement and the
                 new airport would not be available to meet the demand in the near
                 future. Therefore this option was not considered preferable as it
                 brought no significant environmental benefits, though it would have
                 higher total costs.


        In relation to the argument that the development of a second Dublin Airport
        would be preferable to expanding the existing one, and that all cities where
        flights go from Dublin have a second airport, the DAA responded that there
        has never been a barrier to the development of a second commercial airport for
        Dublin, but that no one had chosen to built a facility elsewhere.


        They argued that experiences elsewhere of second airports showed that this
        option did not work. Montreal‟s second airport opened in 1975 but was closed
        recently as anticipated traffic shift never materialised. The EU Commission
        following complaints from carriers, prohibited the Italian government from
        forcing mandatory transfer to a second airport at Milan as it would
        disadvantage the carriers. Belfast had two airports, but this effected both
        airports negatively. The only time a second airport was successful was when
        the old one was closed. They submitted that only large conurbations such as
        London and Paris with 8-9 million population could support multiple airports.


        They also argued that the argument for provision of a second airport would
        need to be examined in the context of its impact on demand, and how it would
        be received by the airlines, and by the passengers. For the first group there
        would be switching costs. These would be market share costs (high risk of
        losing market share without all competitors moving), stranded assets (loss of
        investments made at the existing airport), sunk costs (additional costs of
        replacement facilities), elimination of economies of scale, elimination of
        economies of network density (splitting over two airports would effect transfer
        passengers adversely).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 112 of 308
        For passengers, the level of connectivity would be effected, and the cost would
        ultimately be paid by the passengers. There were also other costs to the
        taxpayer in terms of provision of public infrastructure (roads, rail etc) as well
        as aeronautical infrastructure.


        This view was strongly contested by the third parties. They submitted in
        particular that the argument in relation to duplication of services and
        associated costs were flawed. Such duplication was necessary for competition.
        The argument that two Belfast airports competed to their mutual detriment
        was flawed. It may be detrimental to the airport authorities, but not to the
        consumer.


        They submitted that the reason another airport was not being built elsewhere
        was because of the subsidies at several hundred million per annum and in
        particular, the absence of land costs to DAA. Nobody could compete with
        such a high level of subsidy. Referring to Chapter 12 of the NDP, entitled
        „value for money‟ they submitted that Government policy had to be taken into
        consideration.


        The issues raised by the DAA in relation to competition and impact of
        multiple airports on the service providers (switching costs, market share costs,
        stranded assets costs etc) do not constitute „issues for consideration‟ under the
        Planning Acts.


        This also applies to the cost of the lands, or the cost of the airport to the
        taxpayer. While they are important, assessment of the proposed development
        in such areas is a matter for other bodies specifically authorised under other
        legislation, and outside the scope of this appeal. I refer particularly to Chapter
        12 of NDP entitled „Value for Money‟, where it is stated


               „Assessment and Management of value for money for all expenditure
               under this Plan will build on recent experiences, and the recently
               established      Central      expenditure      evaluation      unit    would      have


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 113 of 308
               responsibility for implementation of the value for money framework, and
               NDP Programme evaluation‟.


        In relation to development of other airports, I consider the argument that the
        development of other airports with the necessary airport infrastructure as well
        as landside infrastructure to provide adequate access would take considerable
        time to plan and implement and would not be ready to meet demand in the
        short term, to be reasonable.


        While there was some disagreement in relation to origin / destination of those
        using Dublin Airport, (whether it was Dublin City /County, or included other
        counties), it was generally accepted that approximately 70% were within a
        radius of 50 miles of Dublin Airport.


        Therefore, I consider the argument that increased use of the existing regional
        airports would not serve the needs of the demand arising in the GDA and
        would necessitate significant requirement for surface access to be also
        plausible.


        Ultimately, the decision to locate an airport anywhere in the country is a
        strategic decision to be made by the Government at national level. There is no
        documentary evidence before me to indicate that such a policy decision has
        been taken.


        In terms of alternative locations, I would conclude that the EIS has provided a
        reasonable study of alternative locations outside Dublin Airport, and is
        therefore adequate.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 114 of 308
        Alternative Scenarios for Development of Dublin Airport


        It is submitted by DAA that they have concluded that the previously adopted
        approach of expansion on an incremental basis was no longer feasible to
        address the problems of congestion, and the low-level service arising from
        infrastructure deficit. A significant step change was needed to plan for the
        growth of the airport to its full potential as a whole, and to cater for 30mppa,
        whilst maximising the use of land and facilities (airside and landside facilities)
        in coordination with ground access.


        I refer the Board to:


                Terminals and Piers Study (2003) carried out by three consultants
                 firms (PM/SOM/PM) on behalf Aer Rianta,


                Capacity enhancement Study (2005) carried out by Pascal & Watson
                 (the designers of the proposed terminal building)


        The first of these, Terminal and Piers Study outlined four options to bring the
        capacity at the airport to 30mppa.


        Option 1-East              Terminal facilities to be located to east to be used by
                                   existing landside and airside facilities
        Option 2-West              New terminal facilities of 30mppa to be constructed
                                   west of the cross wind runway
        Option 3- East/West One terminal facility on either side of the Cross wind
                                   runway (15mppa each)
        Option 4- North            Develop existing terminal capacity further (18mppa)
                                   and a smaller terminal to the northern side to cater for
                                   12mppa




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 115 of 308
        Testing the options against the criteria of „functionality, deliverability and
        cost‟ the study concluded that the expansion of terminal facilities should take
        place in the eastern campus in the short to medium term that is Option 1.


        The study further recommended that the expansion should be provided to the
        south east of the existing terminal. The drawings indicated a single linear
        building.


        The final study by Pascal &Watson re-examined the Terminal and Piers study
        for the new board and agreed with its conclusions.


        During this period the planning authority also carried out studies regarding the
        expansion of Dublin Airport.


        In particular „The South Fingal Study‟ which was carried out by independent
        consultants on behalf of FCC referred to the three key roles of the area
        expressed in the Draft County Development Plan 2005-2011 (Gateway to
        Ireland, hub of sub-regional economy, green lung of north side). With an aim
        to provide a vision for the development of Dublin Airport in a balanced way, it
        suggested two runways and two terminals facilities located on either side of
        the cross wind runway. Each of the terminal facilities would be served by
        landside transport systems.




        Dublin Airport LAP adopted by the planning authority (June 2006) is based on
        the recommendations of the above studies. It provides the framework for
        future development of the airport lands as a whole, within a roughly
        rectangular shaped area of some 1084 ha.


        It provides for two parallel runways and two development zones (referred to as
        eastern campus and western campus) on either side of the existing cross-
        runway, and for the development of eastern campus to cater for a capacity of
        approximately 30mppa. It aims to deliver required capacity by 2010, and
        ultimate capacity by 2019, with an overriding aspiration to permit growth of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 116 of 308
        all businesses at the airport and implementation on a phased basis to meet the
        demand.


        The LAP is stated to have gone through a public consultation process in
        accordance with the requirements of relevant legislation and is subject of an
        SEA. (I shall also refer to this when looking at legal and procedural issues)




        Compliance with Policies and Strategies


        National Development Plan


        While at the time of making the application, the NDP 2001-2006 was in force,
        the new NDP (2007-2013) has come into effect since January 2007. In my
        view, it would therefore be appropriate to examine the proposed development
        against Government policy set out in the latter.


        The NDP sets out a regional development strategy based on the framework of
        the NSS (2002), while recognising the importance of maintaining a strong and
        competitive GDA. Under the Strategic Policy Framework for Regional
        Development, a key element of the plan is:


                 More efficient Greater Dublin Area: supporting a strong and
                 competitive GDA in order that it continues to drive its own
                 development and that of the State through improved and more public
                 transport based mobility, development of more compact and
                 sustainable communities and high quality international and domestic
                 transportation connections


        In meeting the challenges, the NDP would provide for priority investments in
        Gateway centres. In Dublin the Gateway these would include „Enhancement of
        the capacity of Dublin Airport‟.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 117 of 308
        Among the key objectives under the NDP section on “Economic
        Infrastructure”, include improvement of infrastructure of the three state
        airports. The NDP considers development of „World Class‟ airports as being
        crucial to Ireland‟s future economic competitiveness.


        The plan has specific reference to Dublin Airport where it states (p.135):


                 Ensuring that infrastructural capacity              increases in line with the
                 growth in air service is particularly important for Dublin Airport
                 because of its international gateway status for a capital city. A new
                 Pier D, which will have a capacity for additional 14 departure gates, is
                 scheduled to come into operation by end of 2007. Work on the second
                 terminal is due to commence in the first half of 2007. When terminal,
                 pier and related works are completed, the airport will have an overall
                 capacity to cater for in excess of 30 million passengers. Along with
                 Pier E the terminal is scheduled to be completed by end-2009. In
                 addition, the provision of a second runway at Dublin Airport which is
                 currently at the physical planning stage will be progressed over the
                 period of the plan.


        Having regard to the above, I would conclude that the proposed development
        is in accordance with these clear policies and would help achieve the
        prescribed objectives for increasing infrastructural capacity at Dublin Airport.


        I note the NDP also makes reference to significant investment in other State
        airports, such as Cork and Shannon as well as six regional airports. This
        indicates a nationwide policy, which is important in the context of arguments
        put forward by one third party that there is no „national aviation plan‟.


        The key objectives under NDP‟s „Economic Infrastructure Priority‟ include a
        radically upgraded public transport system and improved road network in line
        with the time table in Transport 21.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 118 of 308
        Under Transport 21 the investment priorities for Dublin Gateway would
        include:
                Implementation of the key public transport elements of Transport 21,
                 including completion of Metro North to the Airport and Swords, major
                 extension of the light rail network, enhancement of suburban rail and
                 Dart services, the provision of additional bus services and further
                 development of Quality Bus Corridors
                Completion of the M50 upgrade and completion by 2010 of all major
                 Inter urban routes between Dublin and other Gateway centres.


        „Transport 21‟ (Dept of Transport Investment Programme) details spending
        for up to 2015. The specific projects relevant to the case where there is
        commitment to funding include


        Roads-            M1 and M50 upgrades, (phase 1 by 2007, phase 2 by 2010),
                          construction of M3 by 2009
        Metro-            Provision of the „Metro North‟ line by 2012, linking the city
                          with Dublin Airport and Swords, and „Metro West‟ (by 2014)
                          an orbital line linking Dublin Airport with the western areas of
                          Blanchardstown, Lucan/ Clondalkin and Tallaght.


        These indicate strong commitment at national policy level for the provision of
        public transport and improved road infrastructure to facilitate landside access
        to Dublin Airport.


        The proposed development is therefore acceptable in terms of compliance with
        the requirements of the NDP.




        The National Spatial Strategy (2002-2020)


        The NSS which provides for long term spatial planning framework, aims to
        achieve a greater balance between the regions, but at the same time a „strong


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 119 of 308
        and internationally competitive GDA‟ driving both its economy and national
        development.


        Effective connections to the world are seen as vital to have a globally
        competitive, but regionally integrated economy, and to this end good national
        and regional airports are considered necessary. The NSS states


        „….Expanding the level of services available from Dublin Airport to an even
        wider range of destinations is essential in the interest of underpinning
        Ireland‟s future international competitiveness.


        The NSS states that the national and regional benefits of expanded services
        from Dublin Airport can be enhanced through improved connections with


             (i)      Integrated public transport as proposed by DTO,
             (ii)     The national roads network
             (iii)    Regional airports


        Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the proposed development
        is not contrary to the policies of the NSS for a more balanced regional
        development, as argued by appellants.




        Sustainable Development: Strategy for Ireland (1997)


        This remains the Government‟s principal statement on sustainable
        development. It recognises that air transport is an increasing source of
        polluting emissions, and supports action by the EU to address the problem.
        But it pays due regard to the effects on national competitiveness, notes that, as
        an island nation sea and air routes are vitally important to the Irish economy.


        The strategy notes that aircraft noise poses particular problems in the
        immediate vicinity or the airports, and highlights a number of initiatives to


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 120 of 308
        address the issue such as noise certification, limitation, monitoring, and
        greater attention to operational matters such as take-off routes.


        The proposed development is not contrary to these policies. I shall, however,
        return to the latter section during the examination of the noise issue.


        Also, as the above polices aim at facilitating increased public transport to
        Dublin Airport to provide for a more sustainable landside access, the proposed
        development would be in accordance with sustainable development principles.


        Having regard to the above, I would conclude that the proposed development
        is in accordance with the provisions of the relevant and over- riding policies at
        the National level.




        Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006)


        The Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006) state that Dublin Port and
        Dublin Airport are the premier international access points not only to the
        region but also to the country, and it is accepted that the continued
        development of these assets is essential in the interest of underpinning
        Ireland‟s future international competitiveness.


        They also state that the success of the GDA economy and the national
        economy in turn is dependent on accessibility to international markets.


        In order to achieve air passenger numbers of 22.3 million by 2010 and 31
        million by 2020, Dublin Airport would require a new runway by 2009,
        together with extended apron facilities and additional terminal passenger
        processing facilities. (I note that that the projections prepared prior to 2004 are
        more modest than the current projections)


        The Guidelines require that future development of airport facilities in the
        GDA should be fully integrated with the planning and operation of landside
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 121 of 308
        movement and access systems, and that landside access to Dublin Airport
        would be improved by the provision of an extensive high quality, fully
        accessible, and integrated public transport network.


        The proposed development would be in accordance with the policy and
        objectives of the Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006).




        DTO Strategy-Platform for Change (2000-2016)


        The strategy recognises the key role of Dublin Airport and contains proposals
        for an integrated transport network for the GDA together with demand
        management. Services to Dublin Airport include provision of:
                Metro system from the city centre to Swords via Dublin Airport,
                Construction of a LUAS line to Dublin Airport via Santry, and,
                Provision of QBCs.


        Demand measurement measures include reduced demand for travel by
        motorised modes, and fiscal measures.


        These support improved landside access to Dublin Airport in line with the
        national policies.




        Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011


        There are three documents prepared by FCC that contain information and
        policies in relation to Dublin Airport. These are South Fingal Planning Study,
        the County Development Plan and Dublin Airport Local Area Plan.


        South Fingal Planning Study was undertaken by an international team of
        consultants on behalf of the Council to provide an overall vision and strategy
        for the proper planning and sustainable development of South Fingal. The


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 122 of 308
        study, again using pre 2004 passenger figures is modest in projecting
        passenger growth but states that the forecast growth (from 14 million
        passengers to 20 million in 2011 and 30 million in 2020) must be catered for
        as a national priority


        The study envisages a major expansion of the airport from the current 1
        runway / 1 terminal configuration (with a minor cross runway), to a 2-runway
        / 2 terminal configuration (with a minor cross runway), where a second
        terminal is located to the west of the cross runway. It proposes a Designated
        Airport Area and preparation of a plan for the designated area.


        The study also identifies the need to maintain and enhance access to the
        airport as a key concern and supports the provision of a north-south rail spine
        connecting the city centre to Swords via the airport. It also recommends a
        spur from the N2 in order to access the western side of the airport zone.


        The findings of this study are stated to have contributed to the formulation of
        the policies and objectives of the Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011
        which is the statutory plan for the area.


        The County Development Plan recognises Dublin Airport as the most
        significant single economic entity both within Fingal County and the region as
        a whole, and the principal gateway to Dublin, GDA and the Country, and
        seeks to facilitate its development potential within the policies and objectives
        of the Plan.


        The plan provides for a specific zoning for the airport lands (DA-Designated
        Airport Area), and a number of policies and objectives for the efficient and
        effective operation of the airport, development of a second major east-west
        runway, on-going augmentation and improvement of terminal facilities,
        protection of surface access, promotion of public transport and on-going
        monitoring and review of noise, air and water quality. These are provided in
        the Strategy policies DAS1-DAS4.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 123 of 308
        Under objective DA01 the County Development Plan requires preparation of
        an agreed Airport Action Plan within the Designated Airport Area to serve the
        basis for planning control within that zone.


        Objective DA04 „to facilitate the on-going augmentation and improvement of
        terminal facilities at Dublin Airport‟ is of particular relevance to the subject
        appeal.


        There are further objectives in relation to surface access, integrated public
        transport, standard of design, water quality and flooding of local streams, air
        quality and consultation with local community. I shall refer to these while
        discussing specific topics.




        Dublin Airport Local Area Plan (LAP)


        This plan was adopted by the Council in June 2006 within the context of the
        County Development Plan, directly pursuant to objective DA01.


        The primary role of the LAP is stated be „To provide the optimal future
        development strategy for the Designated Airport Area, whilst ensuring
        efficient and effective operation of the airport‟. The lands subject of the LAP
        comprise 1084 ha.


        The LAP refers to an exciting future for Dublin Airport as a „new gateway‟ to
        the Middle East and Far East and the difficulties experienced by London, Paris
        and Amsterdam in developing additional capacity to service projected
        increased demands.


        In outlining the operational and future development needs, the LAP states that
        the existing runway and terminal facilities are approaching capacity and, based
        on passenger growth forecasts, new expanded facilities, are required. To
        maximise the potential of existing infrastructure and to satisfy the needs of


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 124 of 308
        airlines and other users, the LAP makes provision for a new terminal T2 and
        Pier E to be located to the south-east of the existing 14 bay terminal T1.


        The plan considers greatly enhanced public transport provision to be
        paramount to the success and sustainability of Dublin Airport, and provides
        for public transport measures such as Metro North, Orbital Metro West,
        improved bus infrastructure, bus links to the new Dart station at Baldoyle, and
        an extensive programme of upgrades to the external road network.


        As can be seen from these short summaries, the County Development Plan and
        LAP, following on from the findings of the South Fingal Study, actively
        promote expansion of Dublin Airport and provide detailed objectives to
        achieve such development. They also provide details regarding transport
        infrastructure to facilitate the expansion. The proposed development is in
        accordance with these policies and objectives, and therefore acceptable in
        principle.




        Capacity provision at Dublin Airport


        Capacity, although not raised in the written grounds of appeal, emerged as a
        key issue during the hearing.


        DAA explained that the starting point for airport facility planning and for
        related capacity provision would be the air traffic demand forecast, referred to
        earlier. The applicant‟s forecast based on 2005 data indicated that 30mppa
        would be reached by 2016.
        For capacity planning purposes the DAA produced „high growth‟ forecast to
        assess the additional requirements based on specific plans announced by the
        airlines and other factors. The recent open skies agreement and specific plans
        indicated that accelerated development was likely to take place over the next
        few years.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 125 of 308
        For terminal planning the forecasts were interrogated for airline assignment to
        terminals. Following exploration of various scenarios, it was decided that a
        Terminal 2 with Aer Lingus as the anchor tenant, together with Dublin based
        US carriers, would be the best option.
        Based on the forecast, Two Primary Planning Horizons‟ were established for
        Terminal 2.


        Phase 1           opening in 2009 with full operation in 2010, to cater for growth
                          until 2015 –2016, with a mid point demand year of 2013
        Phase 2           opening around 2015- 2016 reaching full utilisation by 2021
                          with a mid point demand year of 2018


        Forecast scenarios were used to determine the extent of traffic that would need
        to be accommodated in Terminal 2. It was calculated that peak hour departure
        demand would be 3,885-4,294 for 2013 (applying +/-5% variation) and 4,128-
        6,817 for 2018 (applying +/- 10% variation) were calculated


        Based on these figures a decision was made to provide a one-way peak hour
        passenger capacity of 4,200 in the first phase and 5,500 in the second phase.


        Planning day schedules were then developed to reflect selected peak hour
        departures and aircraft rotation cycles. The terminal capacity planning was
        based on expected peak hour departures.


        Table 2.2 of the EIS provides daily and peak hour planning schedule volumes:


        Phase 1           Passengers        42,015 (daily), 4,144 (peak hour /departures)
                          Flights               252 (daily),       31 (peak hour /combined)


        Phase 2           Passengers        51, 793 (daily), 5,476 (peak hour /departures)


                          Flights                312 (daily),         40 (peak hour /combined)


        In arriving at these figures a 70-80% sensitivity analysis was applied.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 126 of 308
        Applying 85% load factor provided by DAA, a ratio was established from
        dividing daily passenger volume by annual forecast for 2010, 2016 and 202,
        and based on these annual forecast of 11,436,847 passengers for phase 1 and
        14,886,686 for phase 2 were calculated.


        It was stated during the hearing that the proposed terminal building (T2) was
        planned to have a capacity of 11.4mppa for first phase and 14.9mppa for the
        second phase.


        This was then translated into a building with a floor area of 75,000m2 for the
        first phase, expanding to 92,000m2 in the second phase, having regard to the
        requirements of operators and the requirements for various functional areas at
        IATA Service Level „C‟. The peak hour flow was also used to derive the
        primary sizing of the kerbside.




        The main argument put forward by Ryanair team was that the proposed
        terminal building was too big relative to the size of a terminal development
        required to handle 30mppa in the eastern campus.


        They suggested that once completed, Terminal 2 would provide terminal
        capacity at around 22.8mppa for Phase I and 29.9mppa for Phase II, thus
        bringing capacity at Dublin Airport to around 46mppa (Phase I) and 52mppa
        (Phase II). As such it would clearly breach the LAP cap of 30mppa, and thus
        contravene the statutory development plan. Furthermore, if allowed, such a
        large building would enable DAA to justify raising the limits of the LAP.


        They further argued that over 20mppa additional passengers going through
        Terminal 2 would create chaos in the surrounding roads and on the M50.


        They were concerned about the increased costs that would arise as a result of
        the excessive size of the proposed T2, (stated to have tripled from €170
        million to €800 million in a very short time). While they accepted (reluctantly)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 127 of 308
        the ruling by the inspector that the cost was not an issue for consideration
        under the planning code, they argued that building that is permitted through
        the planning process would need to be paid for. As such, the capacity of the
        proposed building was important.


        There were quite lengthy presentations and rebuttal papers in relation to this
        issue continuing over several days, and well into the evenings, and involving
        work by both parties over night. During this Ryanair team repeatedly sought
        the original data which was used to produce „peak hour‟ and „busy day‟
        figures. This was declined by DAA on grounds of commercial sensitivity, as
        they had used airlines‟ future plans in their calculations. The Ryanair team
        was unhappy that the inspector did not direct DAA to disclose the information
        sought.


        I note that Senior Counsel for the planning authority stressed strongly that,
        „capacity‟ was not put forward, as an issue by Ryanair during the application,
        nor was it raised in the grounds of appeal.


        Similarly Senior Counsel for the DAA drew attention to the fact that the
        grounds of appeal did not include capacity as an issue. They would however
        comply with the inspector‟s ruling that capacity would have implications in
        terms of compliance with objectives of the LAP.


        It was presented at the hearing by the DAA that they assumed that 45% of the
        scheduled traffic would use T2, and 55% would use T1, giving a 15.3mppa for
        T1 and 12.4mppa for T2, a total of 27.7mppa for 2013 (Phase I), going up to
        32.2mppa in 2018 (Phase II).


        They were not prepared to reveal the figures on which the calculations were
        based for reasons of confidentiality. The overall figures would be 32mppa for
        both terminals of which 15mppa would be processed in T2.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 128 of 308
        In response to my question the Ryanair team stated that while they were not
        arguing that the methodology used by DAA was wrong. But that the figures
        arrived would need to be „sense checked‟ using other airports as a benchmark.
        They reiterated many times that they would need access to the base figures.
        This was declined by DAA.


        The aviation expert for Ryanair (Ms. Congdon) contended that, applying a
        busy hour passenger to mppa ratio, and accounting for natural inefficiency
        resulting from two terminals, the 4,200 for T2 and 4,800 for T1 would bring
        the capacity to 42.3mppa in the design year 2013.


        The DAA argued that they did not need develop a benchmarking methodology
        and such an approach was not seen elsewhere. Similarly the use of a ratio was
        not appropriate. Their methodology was based on demand forecast at the local
        airport.


        There were a lot of discussions in relation to which airports would be more
        appropriate to use for comparison, whether the graphs produced by parties
        using various figures were accurate, and whether the use of ratios as suggested
        by Ryanair was appropriate. A number of arguments were re-visited following
        overnight preparations by the two parties.


        The argument put forward by Ryanair team was that 4200 figure was
        exaggerated. In response the DAA argued that while the capacity declaration
        at 2007 was 4050, the actual demand from the airlines was 5838. They
        maintained because of terminal capacity constraints, the airlines were moved
        away from the hour they wanted to fly. The counter argument by Ryanair was
        that one did not plan on the basis of a wish-list of airlines as this never
        materialized.


        Ms Weston (DAA) said based on „future planning day‟ of the airlines, and six
        potential busy hours, and using 80% of peak hour demand she had calculated a
        peak hour demand of 4155. She submitted this was consistent with the
        planning day figure of 4200.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 129 of 308
        Throughout the hearing, the DAA stressed that their approach was endorsed
        by the independent Verifier‟s Report (presented at the hearing, exhibit G-
        18/04/2007) which was a public document. In response to the suggestion by
        Ryanair that those who prepared the Verifier‟s report were a construction
        company, the DAA maintained that the Verifier had access to aviation and
        architectural expertise. They further confirmed that the authors of the report
        had access to confidential information, and the brief included evaluation of the
        full proposition, including methodology and user consultation which led to the
        sizing of the terminal.


        I consider the issue of capacity relevant mainly in the context of compliance
        with the policies and objectives of the LAP, in particular, whether it would
        undermine achieving its objectives.


        Secondly, capacity is important in the context of traffic generation and impact
        on the carrying capacity of the road network in the area.


        Thirdly, as capacity requirement is one of the determinants of the size of the
        new terminal structure, it is relevant in relation to the proposed demolition of
        Corballis House a Protected Structure.


        Prior to proceeding with my assessment of the issue, I will first refer to a
        number of areas that were frequently referred to and have informed my
        understanding of the relevant issues applying to capacity provisions for
        terminal facilities at Dublin Airport.


        Dublin airport is considered unique as it caters mainly for two airlines, namely
        Aer Lingus and Ryanair, which make up 37% and 40% of passengers,
        respectively.


        Planning of a second terminal would need to take into account of unique
        market share of these two dominant airlines and move either one or the other
        to the new terminal as the remaining airlines put together would not have
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 130 of 308
        sufficient numbers. This has an input on the size of the terminal building,
        which has to cater for at least 40% of the overall demand. In this regard the
        assignment of 45%-55% share of passengers to Terminal 2 and Terminal 1
        respectively seems reasonable.


        Short haul carriers and long haul carriers would have different requirements.
        The former ( including low-cost airlines) would use narrow- bodied aircraft,
        and require short turn around time and therefore quick access to piers. They
        catered mostly for early morning passengers and therefore make up the bulk of
        the morning peak demand. The passengers using these would be more likely
        use on-line or kiosk check-in facilities and would likely to have minimum or
        no luggage. The peak departure period of these passengers is early morning
        peak hour (similar to „rush hour‟ in road traffic).


        The long haul airlines on the other hand would use wide-bodied aircraft,
        require longer time at the stands for preparation, cleaning, loading of catering
        provisions, luggage and staff preparation. They would depart at mid morning
        creating a different peak. The passengers using these need full check-in
        facilities and are likely to have more luggage and transfer requirements. As the
        aircraft sizes are much larger, they require processing and other facilities to
        meet the needs of larger numbers of passengers.


        Dublin Airport has another unique aspect as it provides an immigration pre-
        clearance facility for US bound flights. It was stated during the hearing that
        the existing facilities in Terminal 1 no longer meet the requirements of US
        immigration. Therefore provision of new facilities at the Terminal 2 was a
        requirement.



        An important concept in facility planning is the „level of service‟ (LOS). The
        level of service provide by most airports would be IATA level „C‟, (IATA is
        the International body recognised by all airport users, operators and carriers,
        and sets the industry standards). Service Level C is described as „reasonable
        service with acceptable level of delays‟. I understand that at airports catering

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 131 of 308
        exclusively for low-cost carriers this may not necessarily be the case, though
        many would operate at the Service Level C. The IATA manual (exhibit C-
        20/04/07) provides for space requirements for various functions.

        Currently, Terminal 1 at Dublin Airport is stated to be operating at
        substandard levels (Service level F in some areas), arising from its current
        congestion while processing 22mppa Its original design capacity is stated to
        be 10-15mppa. Following completion of Terminal 2, Terminal 1 would be
        refurbished to bring it to Service Level „C‟.

        I should note that there was disagreement on whether or not there was residual
        capacity of 20mppa in T1 following completion of Area 14 and Pier D and if
        so whether this was at appropriate level of service. (Area 14 is the new check-
        in area at the basement level of Terminal 1.

        I note South Fingal Study states in paragraph 5.4.1, „the recent terminal
        improvements will enable the airport to handle 20million passengers…‟.

        I also note that experts on both sides agreed that there would be some
        inefficiency in terminal capacity as a result of separate terminals and this
        would be in the region of 10%-20%.

        It was also stated that the terminal capacity was related to processing of
        passengers prior to departure. As such, increases in pier capacity (such as a
        new Pier D) did not lead to an increase in terminal capacity




        During the hearing (and responding to the inspector‟s questions) the planning
        authority explained that environmental constraints or the capacity of the roads
        did not play a role in determining the 30mppa figure referred to in the LAP.
        Their overall vision was to ensure the airport realised its „full potential‟ and
        the development moved into western campus following reaching capacity in
        the eastern campus. The reference in the LAP to 30mppa was an approximate
        figure, and there was no cap in the objectives.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 132 of 308
        They thought that a two- runway system would bring the overall capacity to
        60mppa. Their main consideration was to ensure the development of the
        eastern campus did not compromise the development of the western campus,
        but rather a balanced distribution was achieved.


        While 30mppa was the driving capacity of the eastern section it was a general
        guideline. In the context of the current growth experienced at the airport and
        having regard to the problems associated with providing new infrastructure at
        the western campus. In the immediate future, the planning authority had
        considered it was reasonable to accept 35mppa, as there was a question of
        inadequacy of capacity before T3 kicked in. They did however consider
        35mppa as the absolute limit.


        They were concerned that the capacity of the eastern campus should not grow
        to an extent, which would frustrate development of the western campus but,
        they considered it important that the facilities in the eastern campus should be
        worthy of a „Gateway‟ to the country. They were interested in „generous‟ and
        „well-designed‟ spaces.


        They maintained throughout the hearing that they accepted the proposal as put
        before them, to facilitate up to 35mppa. This was the figure contained in the
        EIS, and their assessment of the adequacy of the EIS was based on the
        proposal where it was put that the combined passenger throughput would be
        up to 35mppa.


        They referred to the application letter from the planning consultants for DAA
        (31/08/2006) which had estimated annual passenger traffic to be 30mppa. It
        had also identified that Terminal 2 and Pier E would take the operating
        capacity to 35mppa when completed.


        They drew attention to the Government Aviation Action Plan which
        highlighted the need to start planning for T3 as early as possible, and referred
        to the ongoing work of land owners in the western campus who had hired
        aviation experts and made submissions to the LAP.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 133 of 308
        In response to the question from the inspector, (having regard to what was said
        in the hearing), on whether there had been any changes in their view in terms
        of the capacity being proposed, and whether condition number 28 of their
        decision was adequate to ensure that the objectives of the LAP would not be
        prejudiced, the planning authority suggested revisions to the condition 28, and
        suggested an additional condition as discussed below.


        I note that during the discussions in the later transport module the issue of
        overall capacity of the airport was again raised, with references to various
        figures between 45-60mppa.


        Mr. Foley for the DAA produced a list from DAPF 06/01 „Commercial
        Aircraft Movements‟ (exhibit BW, 04/05/07) and indicated that the capacity of
        the runways would be between 45-50mppa. He did qualify this statement by
        saying that it would not be prudent to put an absolute limit as increase in
        aircraft size could change it by another 10 million, without increasing aircraft
        movements, while vacant seats would reduce the numbers. It was very
        important not to lock into numbers. Sean O' Faircheallaigh for the planning
        authority stated that the advice of their aviation expert was the same.


        The South Fingal Study (5.4.2) referring to proposals for a second runway
        states: „This would deliver a potential total runway capacity in the order of
        50mppa‟.


        The ultimate capacity of the airport is relevant to this case in the context of
        objectives of the LAP to achieve a balanced development of two campuses,
        and in terms of optimal use of the terminal and pier facilities.


        If the ultimate capacity of the airport is considered to be in the region of 55-
        60mppa, provision of 35mppa in the eastern campus would still allow for a
        viable western campus at 20-25mppa. If on the other hand the ultimate
        capacity is in the region of 45mppa (as originally suggested by the DAA), then
        provision of 35mppa capacity at the eastern campus would seriously
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 134 of 308
        undermine provision of a viable western campus in a balanced way and as
        such would be in conflict with the objectives of the LAP. It would also
        contravene one of the requirements of the Aviation Action Plan to facilitate a
        third terminal.


        The South Fingal Study (5.4.1) states that Aer Rianta (now the DAA) propose
        to expand the existing terminal site at Dublin to a maximum capacity at 30-
        35mppa over a 20 year period, which puts it bigger than any terminal in the
        UK (except T5 at Heathrow). It does however note that it is similar in concept
        to Schiphol which was developed to be both a hub for the national carrier,
        KLM, and to be in competition with the other really major European hubs.
        The study sees problems with this, not just in terms of handling large numbers
        of passengers but more importantly, in terms of provision of car parking and
        road access on the landside, and access by aircraft on the airside which have to
        park further away from the terminal and pier facilitites.


        Suggesting that the second terminal should be on the western campus, the
        Study states that the threshold at which the need is reached would depend on
        average aircraft size, internal arrangements and road access constraints. But, at
        or even before 30mppa, the existing focus on the eastern side would be
        reaching its reasonable limits.


        The LAP makes references to the figure of 30mppa in a number of sections
        but with varying preceding words. In the Executive summary there are two
        references:


                 It has been concluded that the development of a second terminal and
                 piers on the Eastern Campus is the most effective way forward to
                 provide the necessary capacity for short term requirements up to
                 30mmpa. („Overview‟)


                 This will bring the capacity of the existing and proposed passenger
                 handling facilities on the eastern campus to approximately 30 million
                 passengers per annum. („Airport Infrastructure‟)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 135 of 308
        Further references are made to the figure of approximately 30mppa (p.17)


        Based on these I would conclude that the LAP and the studies which informed
        the LAP envisage a capacity of approximately 30mppa for the eastern campus,
        give or take a million or two.


        I draw attention to S. 2.2.4.1 of the EIS regarding terminal capacity in the
        absence of a second (northern parallel) runway:


                 In the event of the northern parallel runway not progressing, the
                 operating constraints and the poor level of service currently being
                 experienced in T1 would still mean that the provision of additional
                 capacity is merited but that the ultimate capacity potential of the
                 terminal 2, Phase 1 development proposals would not be realised at
                 optimal levels of service


        I note therefore, that an issue of possible „over terminal and pier capacity‟
        would arise should the Board decide to refuse permission for the northern
        parallel runway, while granting permission for both phases of the terminal.


        I am not in a position to determine the accuracy of the critical „busy hour‟
        figure of 4200, as this was based on future plans of airlines together with
        demand forecasts. As stated earlier, the DAA was not prepared to disclose the
        relevant information on grounds of sensitive commercial information and
        confidentiality agreements with airlines.


        Determination of the accuracy of the figures is a matter for relevant authorities
        such as the Regulator, who would have access to confidential information. I
        note the verifier‟s report considers the methodology, approach and execution
        of the planning objectives and the considerations adopted by the DAA and its
        consultants to be in line with best practice (page 3 executive summary).


        While it was accepted that currently 4050 passengers are processed at
        Terminal 1 (at 20-22mppa) this was at low service levels. It was also stated
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 136 of 308
        that the current short haul peak departure was operating at 70%capacity at rush
        hour due to constraints, and that this resulted in spread of peak hour.


        Having regard to the most recent trends in passenger demand, the likely
        increase in demand as a result of the Open Skies agreement (which also
        reduced the share of Shannon stop over passengers), existing inadequacy of
        the surface transport infrastructure (particularly public transport) serving the
        western campus and the likely time frame for provision of such infrastructure,
        I am satisfied that development of the eastern campus in the region                         of
        30mppa, would be acceptable, and in accordance with the provisions of LAP.


        While I do agree that there is no specified cap in the LAP, it would be prudent
        to control the development of the eastern campus so as not to undermine
        development of the western campus. I am, however, not satisfied that this
        should be by way of imposing a cap.


        It was presented at the hearing by the DAA that the assumption they made was
        that 45% of the scheduled traffic would use Terminal 2, and 55% would use
        Terminal 1, giving a 15.3mppa for Terminal 1 and 12.4mppa for Terminal 2,
        (a total of 27.7mppa) in 2013 upon completion of Phase I. This would go up to
        32.2mppa in 2018 upon completion of Phase II.


        The DAA was not prepared to reveal the figures on which the calculations
        were based for reasons of confidentiality. They maintained the overall figures
        would be 32 million for both terminals of which 15mppa would be processed
        in Terminal 2.


        As stated earlier the submission by the DAA was that the overall capacity
        provision of both terminals would be 32mppa of which 15mppa would be
        processed in Terminal 2. This would leave 17mppa for Terminal 1 following
        its refurbishment to achieve acceptable level of service. While this is a
        reasonable figure, I would note the discrepancy with the figure given for T1
        Phase 1 in the previous paragraph (i.e. 15.3mppa for T1 in 2013). It would


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 137 of 308
        also be reasonable to question why the application is being made for 35mppa
        while the envisaged overall capacity is 32mppa.


        Upon examination of various documents, and listening to protracted
        arguments during the hearing it is my considered opinion that permission, if
        granted, should be for the first phase only. The second phase, if necessary in
        future, should follow refurbishment of Terminal 1 to achieve a satisfactory
        level of service and determination of its final capacity provision following
        such refurbishment.


        It was stressed during the hearing that forecasting figures changed on an
        annual basis and while the trends based on recent years showed a high growth
        in the near future, a lower growth scenario was anticipated in the longer term.
        I note the forecast by DAA for 2016 is 30mppa. The proposed development
        would cater for slightly below such demand upon completion of Phase I.


        As I shall discuss under building design, I am satisfied that the size of the
        building would not be a determinant factor regarding the demolition of
        Corballis House.


        Also, as I shall discuss under the transport module, there are issues regarding
        transport infrastructure to cater for Phase II, in terms of design and
        commitment to funding.


        The EIS has provided an impact statement for 35mppa. Any exceedance of
        this figure would constitute material intensification and require further
        planning permission and more importantly, assessment of associated impacts.
        In the case of the refurbished Terminal 1 providing capacity in excess of the
        suggested 17mppa there is a possibility that the combined capacity provision
        of Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 (both phases) may exceed this threshold.
        Therefore it is important that refurbishment of Terminal 1 is carried out prior
        to granting of permission for the second phase of Terminal 2, in order to
        establish its capacity, with an appropriate level of service.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 138 of 308
        Based on the information before me, the following are my findings:


                Dublin Airport is a unique airport with two dominant airlines.
                 Therefore, the design of the second terminal needs to take into account
                 this unique situation, to accommodate either of the carriers.
                While the current trend in Dublin Airport is in the direction of
                 increased low-cost operations, as a result of the recently completed
                 „open skies‟ agreement, and stated capacity constraints in Paris and
                 London, it has the potential to operate as a hub for long-haul
                 operations particularly between US and the Middle East.
                Therefore, it would not be appropriate to provide facilities on the basis
                 of the current trend of increased market share of short-haul operations.
                 Rather a degree of flexibility in provision of facilities to suit the needs
                 of both the long- haul carriers and short-haul (particularly low-cost)
                 carriers would be appropriate.
                There is a trend towards increased aircraft sizes in both short-haul and
                 long-haul operations.
                There is necessity at Dublin Airport for provision of flexible aircraft
                 stands to cater for different aircraft types
                The long haul operations in particular would have larger space
                 requirements than presently provided to process bigger numbers of
                 passengers carried by larger aircraft, (check-in, security and passenger
                 screening, boarding, staff accommodation, lounge and catering, rest
                 rooms, larger baggage carousels, etc).
                There is also need for space to meet the up-to-date requirements of US
                 Immigration for pre-clearance.
                Provision of services to Service Level „C‟ is appropriate and in
                 accordance with accepted industry standards.
                The methodology adopted by the DAA for determining the size (floor
                 area) of the facility based on growth forecast, and future plans of
                 airlines, busy day and planning day schedules is an acceptable
                 methodology commonly used by the airline industry.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 139 of 308
                The decision on whether the demand attributed to various airlines for
                 calculation of the „busy hour‟ figure is accurate is not a matter for this
                 appeal but for another authority specifically charged with such
                 responsibility, who would have access to confidential information on
                 airline plans.
                Similarly, the construction cost of the terminal, and various charges
                 arising from its floor area (size), are a matter for consideration by
                 another authority charged with such responsibility.
                While it is likely that the growth in demand for air travel will continue
                 in the short term, its profile will be more uncertain in the medium to
                 long term. Therefore a review of demand and emerging trends in five-
                 six years time would be appropriate to have a better understanding of
                 the longer term needs and requirements.
                Having regard to the provisions of the NDP, and the LAP, the current
                 congestion experienced at the terminal and piers, and to the current
                 provision and impending improvement of landside surface access and
                 planned public transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that provision of
                 additional terminal and pier capacity at the eastern campus is
                 appropriate and in accordance with various policies at national,
                 regional and local levels.
                Having regard to the provisions of the LAP, and the studies before me,
                 I am satisfied that a capacity of approximately 30mppa, as indicated in
                 the LAP is appropriate for the eastern campus. This would also be in
                 line with the figures indicated in the National Development Plan.
                I consider it is appropriate to allow some flexibility to address
                 inefficiencies arising from the provision of two terminals, to provide
                 headroom for the required refurbishment of Terminal 1, and to allow
                 for unexpected growth, should it occur. A capacity of 32mppa for the
                 eastern campus as indicated at the hearing, would therefore be
                 reasonable.
                In my view the combined capacity of T1 and T2 should not exceed
                 32mppa unless specifically allowed following an official review of the
                 LAP.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 140 of 308
                As the ultimate capacity specified in the EIS is 35mppa, the impact of
                 the proposed development has only been examined up to 35mppa.
                 Therefore any exceedance of 35mmpa, would constitute material
                 intensification and require further planning permission and associated
                 assessment of its impacts.




             I am not satisfied that a condition along the lines suggested by the
             planning authority (no 28) is appropriate or enforceable as it requires
             submission of proposals for development of another terminal at an
             unspecified location and possibly on lands outside the ownership of the
             applicant.


             In my view a decision on the location of the future Terminal 3 would need
             to be made as part of the review of LAP, and by the planning authority in
             consultation with relevant landowners, having regard to provision of
             necessary landside surface access infrastructure.


             Similarly, I do not consider a condition as suggested by the Ryanair team
             to restrict Terminal 2 to 10mppa to be appropriate or realistic, given the
             market share of the two dominant airlines, and the considerable public
             expenditure involved in planning and construction of a terminal facility.


             I do, however recommend a condition requiring refurbishment works to
             Terminal 1 to commence within 12 months of start of operations at
             Terminal 2 and completion within 24 months, to ensure Service Level C
             would be provided at Terminal 1 in a reasonable time. I also consider this
             should be by way of a planning application to include any refurbishments
             to Pier B which would serve Terminal 2 and Pier A which will serve
             Terminal 1 (I shall refer to this issues further in the drainage module).


             I further consider it would be appropriate to ensure the refurbishment of
             Terminal 1 to bring the service to acceptable levels, prior to proceeding
             with Phase II of Terminal 2. This would clarify the capacity of Terminal 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 141 of 308
             with appropriate service level provision, particularly in view of recently
             completed Area 14 providing additional check-in facilities.


             As I will discuss later in the building design section, the building design
             allows for the second phase of Terminal 2 to be constructed seamlessly
             and without any interference on the operations of Phase I.


             As will also discuss later in the transport section, there is no commitment
             for funding for some of the landside transport infrastructure which would
             be required for Phase II.


             Accordingly, I recommend that should the permission be granted, it should
             be for the first phase only to enable a review of the situation in the light of
             emerging trends in demand and needs, and infrastructure provisions in the
             intervening period.


             Should the Board agree with my recommendation for granting permission
             for Phase I only, I also recommend a reduction of the duration of the
             permission to the standard five-year term, as the application for ten year
             permission seems to arise from considerations related to completion of
             Phase 2 after 2015.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 142 of 308
        Location of terminal and pier facilities


        The decision on the location of the proposed terminal was made following a
        number of studies. The recommendations of these together with findings of
        South Fingal Study were adopted in the LAP.


        As referred to earlier the „Terminals and Piers Study‟ (carried out by PM/SOM
        and completed in mid 2003) examined four main options for the development
        of terminal and pier capacity in the eastern or western campus, recommended
        that the eastern option would have the highest potential to achieve early
        deliverability of required capacity by 2010 and the ultimate capacity by 2019.
        The study concluded that the eastern option represented the lowest overall
        capital cost to complete. This study was carried out on behalf of Aer Rianta,
        with a brief to cater for growth to 30mppa, to future proof the site to its full
        development potential, including land purchase if necessary, to provide
        balanced landside and airside facilities and to provide multi-user shared
        facilities.


        The subsequent study by Pascal & Watson (the architects for the current
        project) entitled Capacity Enhancement Report for Dublin Airport (2005) on
        behalf of DAA, was in response to the Government Aviation Action Plan, and
        had a brief to provide and independent review of previous studies. It
        concluded that the PM/SOM study was thorough and well considered and
        agreed with its conclusions, and recommendations that the new terminal be
        located to the south east of the existing terminal.


        Optimisation of stand and pier configuration, airside circulation, surface
        access and relief of congestion, protection of OCTB (Old Central Terminal
        Building), and programme of deliverability were the main considerations in
        their study. Pascal &Watson also concluded that the new Metro station should
        be located in the heart of the campus.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 143 of 308
        In developing the specific scheme three milestones were established referred
        to as „gateways‟ each of which had to be completed prior to moving into the
        next phase.


        The study examined various options in terms of building shapes having regard
        to key considerations such as walking distances, location of baggage handling,
        minimum impact on the apron and kerb, and minimum construction impact,
        also examining if the demolition of Corbalis House could be avoided.


        The last three options were option 5 (double slipped rectangular plan), option
        6 (two storey rectilinear plan) and option 7 (three storey remote forecourt
        plan). Following a presentation of these to the DAA Board, options 8 and 9
        were developed, and option 9 (Three storey with kerbs at grade) was chosen
        as the preferred option by the DAA.


        The final layout provided a separate Terminal 2 structure on either side of the
        existing access to Terminal 1, separation of access to Terminal 1 and Terminal
        2 and provision of separate arrival and departure kerb access to Terminal 2.


        A future MSCP (multi storey car park) would be located immediately adjacent
        to access route with high level pedestrian connection to Terminal 2. The
        Ground Transportation Centre (GTC) located behind both multi storey car
        parks would provide bus /coach operations at surface level with access to the
        Metro station below ground. It would be connected to both terminals through
        car park buildings.


        The location of Corballis House presented challenges in designing a viable
        and efficient terminal. Various options were examined (retention and
        incorporation of Corballis House within the terminal building, relocation of
        Corballis House, deconstruction / reconstruction of Corballis House and
        controlled demolition (following comprehensive recording).


        The argument put forward by one of the third parties (Mr. Harley) was that,
        had the land cost has been factored into the considerations of its market value,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 144 of 308
        a different outcome would have resulted in terms of best location for airport
        facilities. He further argued that criteria such as „protection of heritage‟ could
        be included and given a high value. He questioned the applicability of the
        methodology used by PM/ SOM (Terminal and Piers Study) in this case.


        In his response Mr. Moran (one of the authors of the Terminals and Piers
        study) agreed that while land cost could have some effect, the final outcome
        would not be different as it would need to be factored into all the options.


        The criteria had included „heritage‟ as one of the sub categories. He stated that
        the methodology used was well known and used in many airport designs,
        including JFK where there was an important heritage structure, the „TWA‟
        building.


        In terms of exact location of the proposed                  terminal building, the first
        argument put forward by Ryanair team was that a „northern‟ location would be
        more appropriate as it would have ready access to new Pier D (a copy of their
        proposal indicating how this can be achieved was presented at the hearing and
        is included in the documents (exhibit…).


        Secondly, while they had agreed to a terminal located to the south east of the
        T1 in a single structure and as an extension to T1 as recommended in
        PM/SOM, the proposed development was for a separate and much larger
        building which necessitated demolition of Corballis House and was so big it
        had to jump over to the other side of the road.


        Their main objection was to the size and design of the proposed new terminal.
        A smaller building could be located in the existing car park area to the south
        of T1. They noted such a building would not necessarily require demolition of
        Corballis House.


        These are reasonable arguments and I will examine them in more detail.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 145 of 308
        The impact of the proposed development on the built heritage and in
        particular, the demolition of Corballis House was examined during the oral
        hearing (attended by invitees from DoEH&LG, Architectural Heritage
        Advisory Service, and National Monuments Service) as a separate issue,
        which I will refer to in greater detail later.


        I note that protection of OCTB and its curtilage was given high priority (in
        line with LAP objectives), in deciding where Terminal 2 should go.


        The main considerations in deciding a terminal location within an airport
        campus seem to involve two distinctly separate areas connected by the
        terminal. The first of these are the landside facilities where accessibility (to
        private and public transport) with minimum walking distances to the same,
        adequate kerbside facilities for taxis and buses (for drop off and pick-up),
        would be expected. In the case of Dublin Airport relieving the existing traffic
        congestion, reducing pressure on the Terminal 1 forecourt and ready access to
        the future Metro were of particular importance.


        On the airside, adequate apron space to accommodate the greatest number of
        stands for wide and narrow bodied aircraft, as well as easy access to piers,
        remote stands and taxiways and ultimately to the runway, would be important.


        Where separate terminals are proposed, interconnectivity between the
        terminals and also between terminals and a number of piers is also important,
        to provide efficient and flexible access to passengers and to operators. The
        proposed development allows pedestrian connections between the terminals
        both on the kerb side and on the airside (to piers).


        The proposed development meets these main requirements.


        In the case of Dublin, deliverability within a short time frame as required by
        the AAP is another important factor and seems to be one of the main drivers.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 146 of 308
        The argument put forward by Ryanair is that such a time frame is not required
        as the recent expansions (Pier D and Area 14) provide adequate capacity. The
        DAA disagree maintaining that they were only measures to alleviate
        congestion.


        Noting that the location of the new terminal to the south east of the existing
        terminal has already been adopted as LAP Policy, I will examine the
        arguments put forward.


        The argument that a smaller terminal building in the northern section, which
        would provide direct connection and easy access to Pier D, and to the northern
        runway, has some merit. Such a location would also have reasonable access to
        GTC (Ground transportation centre), and to the existing multi storey car park.


        The argument put forward by the DAA was that the location of a terminal in
        close proximity to Pier D would impact on the curtilage of OCTB, and would
        also necessitate removal of at least one of the hangars with time delays in
        finding alternative an location for the hangar. I consider these counter
        arguments to be reasonable.


        A northern location of T2 would necessitate bringing large volumes of traffic
        associated with both terminals through the narrow area in front of the OCTB,
        and perhaps necessitate location of a roundabout in front of OCTB. The
        existing road space was not adequate to carry such traffic, and would not
        resolve the issues of congestion. I consider this to be a reasonable argument,
        as there is indeed a significant constraint arising from the narrowness of the
        space between the OCTB and the existing MSCP, to accommodate large
        volumes of traffic associated with both terminals. I am satisfied that removal
        (segregation) of T2 related traffic from this area is essential.


        Secondly, it was maintained by the first party that to allow for sufficient kerb
        side space (for taxi and bus drop off/ pick up areas) without impacting on the
        OCTB, the new terminal would need to be pushed further east, increasing the
        distance from Pier D. This would necessitate removal / relocation of further
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 147 of 308
        hangars (not just one hangar as suggested by Ryanair) (this was not accepted
        by Ryanair).


        I note that in his report (S.7.1.2), Jerry Barnes (the transport consultant for the
        Board) considers that the required kerb length rendered location of a second
        terminal adjacent to OCTB unsuitable. He also considers its location further
        east (along the same line) would not resolve landside access problems.
        Following careful examination of the drawings I concur with these views.


        He further considers that the suggestion by Ryanair, in relation to provision of
        a separate access to the new terminal from the northern parallel road could
        only be effectively used upon construction of the western access from the N2
        and the upgrading of the Northern Parallel Road. He also noted that the TIA
        (traffic impact assessment) did not illustrate that this was required at this stage
        of airport development. These are important considerations.


        Thirdly, if pushed further east as in point 2, the new terminal, would be at a
        considerable distance from the existing terminal and it would not have easy
        pedestrian connectivity with the same. During the hearing the importance of
        easy connectivity between terminals was stressed. I consider this argument
        reasonable.


        On airside because the apron space is quite narrow, a new terminal could
        accommodate only a single sided pier. This seems to be an important
        consideration in providing adequate pier capacity in terms of numbers and
        aircraft types. I consider this argument to be reasonable.


        As the apron area is at its widest in the southern section, it is possible to
        provide a double sided pier with flexibility to accommodate both wide and
        narrow bodied aircraft, with contact stands. Because of the available space this
        pier could also be quite lengthy. This is reasonable. I also note that apron
        space is considered one of important assets in any airport.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 148 of 308
        It was also pointed out that a southern location would have reasonable access
        to Pier B whether in its present form or after reconfiguration. While I note the
        distance to Pier D located further away from Terminal 2 would be quite
        lengthy, I accept the basic premise of easy connectivity to pier B to be
        reasonable.


        In view of the above I am satisfied that the proposed location of the new
        terminal and facilities at the south/eastern location would be appropriate in
        terms of landside access, airside facilities, connectivity to GTC and
        connectivity between terminals. While it would impact on Corballis House it
        would also mean protection of OCTB (which is of higher architectural
        heritage importance).


        The second argument put forward by the Ryanair team was that the
        recommendation by the PM/SOM Terminals and Piers Study, was for a single
        structure provided as an extension to the existing Terminal 1, and not for a
        separate terminal building. This argument is reasonable.


        Indeed a single linear building incorporating T1 is indicated in the Terminal
        and Piers study as the recommended option.


        Mr Moran (one of the writers of the study) indicated that while they had
        indicated a single building, the fundamentals of locating the facility in the
        south east would not change, and it would still remain the preferred option.


        The first party drew attention to Government AAP (Aviation Action Plan),
        which required a terminal building (Terminal 2) capable of being operated
        independently. (While the suggestion by the Ryanair team to separate a single
        building by a wall / door could indeed solve the requirement for independent
        operation, I am not sure it would be efficient functionally).


        In addition the architect for the proposal drew attention to the constraints
        arising from location of services for Terminal 1 within helical ramps, and the
        energy centre serving Terminal 1 (currently located to the south of Terminal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 149 of 308
        1). Interference with those services would effect the operation of Terminal 1
        during construction. Their brief was to cause minimum disruption to existing
        operations. I consider this to be reasonable.


        I should also note that bearing in mind its location, I am not satisfied that a
        single building in the form of an extended Terminal 1 as indicated in the
        PM/SOM study would not also necessitate demolition of Corballis House.


        The third argument by Ryanair was that a smaller building in the existing car
        park area should be provided. This would retain Pier C and would not
        necessitate demolition of Corballis House.


        Having regard to the location of Corballis House, I am not assured that a
        smaller building would not have significant impact on its integrity even if the
        house is not demolished. Indeed building design options described by the
        architects for the proposed development showed that unless the new terminal
        building is located considerably away from the T1 there would be adverse
        impact in terms of its setting, or the visibility of Corballis House. (I shall
        return to this issue in the section related to built heritage.)


        The existing Pier C, a single sided pier is located in the area where the apron
        space is most generous. Both the master plan PM/SOM study and the Pascal &
        Watson study recommended that this was the best place for maximising
        contact stands, with double sided piers close to passenger functions and with
        flexibility to accommodate both narrow and wide bodied aircraft. Location of
        a double-sided pier in this area (whether at either end or centrally) will
        inevitably affect Pier C. I am therefore not satisfied that a smaller building
        will alter the effect on the Pier C.




        Overall, I consider the iterative process followed by the study teams
        (PM/SOM and P&W ) in reaching the final proposition to be well thought out,
        comprehensive and robust.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 150 of 308
        In particular, I consider the plan-based approach adopted by the Terminal and
        Piers Study, which starts the master planning study by looking at the overall
        picture and identifying problems at the airport as a whole, inclusive of all
        interlocking elements, (airside, terminal, landside and parking) and suggesting
        a balanced development across all elements of the infrastructure (rather than
        the short term incremental approach previously followed) to be quite robust.


        Similarly the detailed site layout analysis by P&W, advance setting of
        objectives and requirements in relation to the location of the Metro and GTC
        in the heart of the campus, protection of the OCTB and its setting from
        intrusions, distinct separation of vehicular access to T1 and T2, derivation of
        maximum benefits from apron capacity where it is most suitable for pier
        location, and finally the thought process in relation to building form, indicate a
        very thorough, comprehensive, and robust iterative process. I also concur with
        their findings.


        As I will discuss in the next section I consider the location of the terminal also
        acceptable in terms of urban design, and in terms of opportunity to provide a
        high quality public realm and a landmark building at the approach to the
        airport terminal facilities.


        I now refer to the specific objectives of the LAP (including those in S. 4.2):


                A new terminal T2 and Pier E to be located south east of the existing
                 14 bay terminal T1, which would allow for integration with Pier C
                The new kerbside at T2, fully integrated with an enhanced kerbside at
                 T1, would deliver enhanced capacity for pick-up /set-down facilities
                 between surface access and terminal processing facilities.
                Though capable of independent operation, convenient access will be
                 provided for passengers both landside and airside to the existing
                 terminal facilities




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 151 of 308
                Central to the design of the terminal would be provision of passenger
                 links to short-term car park, Ground Transportation Centre (GTC),
                 with protection of the alignment of the Metro to be incorporated


        The proposed development complies with these objectives.


        I also consider that the sections of the EIS relevant to this module are adequate
        and meet the requirements.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 152 of 308
        Urban Design, building design, passenger experience and visual impact


        Dublin Airport is one of those unique pieces of infrastructure that is used by
        most people at one time or another whether they are from Dublin area or
        elsewhere. It is also the most used point of entry into the country. As such
        references to its „gateway‟ status are not unfounded.


        For those flying out, the experience of Dublin Airport usually starts from the
        airport roundabout, where passengers make a decision on whether to go to the
        long term or short term car parks (if driving). Even those who are dropped off
        somewhere near the terminal building (if arriving by bus, taxi or private car),
        have to negotiate their way through the cars, buses, and many other people
        into the airport building.


        The second leg of the journey is taken within the building in quite crowded
        conditions whether at the check-in (long queues except for those with on-line
        check-in), or at passport control and security checks (again long queues). This
        creates additional anxiety especially for those with limited time. There is very
        little room for human interaction including those who wish to say good-bye,
        prior to the passport control/ security.


        Immediately after the security check and without any space to recollect
        belongings and themselves, the passengers find themselves in the middle of a
        very busy but narrow thoroughfare, (aptly called the „street‟) where they try to
        locate the direction to their pier while at the same time try to avoid getting in
        the way of others negotiating the same area.


        Those who have some time to spare look at duty free or have a cup of coffee,
        while most continue in an effort to move away from the crowded area into the
        piers and gates, where they try to find somewhere to sit down in a yet another
        crowded area.


        The whole journey is quite stressful even for those who are seasoned
        travellers. Most make unfavourable comparisons with other airports.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 153 of 308
        The journey of those coming into the country is equally chaotic and
        unpleasant, the problems exacerbated by lack of way-finding information and
        availability of adequate public transport. The existing terminal building is
        considered to be „dingy‟ by many, particularly during the arrivals journey.


        It is therefore important that the proposed development, referred to by many as
        „the single most important piece of public infrastructure in the country ,
        addresses all those issues in a coherent and sustainable manner and provides
        for measures to ensure that passenger experience is at acceptable international
        standards throughout.


        In this context, not only the design of the terminal building, but also the „urban
        design‟ of the environment in which the building is located is important. This
        is because the visual, as well as the functional performance of separate
        elements provide for the passenger‟s experience.


        Recognising the current difficulties, the LAP is quite prescriptive in relation to
        the design aspect of development at Dublin Airport. Indeed S. 9 of the LAP
        states that in all its elements the LAP would promote quality of design as a
        „core principle‟. It considers such a principle to be a necessary strategy to
        provide an opportunity for the nation to make a statement of pride for visitors
        and citizens as they arrive in, or depart through, the country‟s principal
        gateway.


        The LAP aims to provide an opportunity to realise visual coherence and to
        facilitate the most effective use of the facility. In order to provide an attractive
        high quality environment, which enriches the public realm, the plan also
        provides for key urban design principles which must be adhered to, such as
        character, continuity and enclosure, legibility, ease of movement, diversity and
        adaptability.


        The LAP places specific requirements for a terminal building, to take account
        of airport user‟s experience. It requires in particular, minimum level changes,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 154 of 308
        minimum travel distances, provision of facilities to eliminate queuing, and
        provision of generous, well-designed public spaces and convenient
        refreshment areas.


        The design objectives DS1-DS6 provides for specific requirements in relation
        to these areas and in terms of sustainability. Indeed a number of the objectives
        set out by the architects /design team seem to include these specific
        requirements.


        I consider these aspirations, policies and objectives to be reasonable,
        appropriate and well thought out, and to be prescribed by the LAP.


        I will look at the design component of the proposed development under two
        main categories, namely, urban design and visual impact, and secondly
        internal design and passenger experience. Thirdly, I will look at the energy
        efficiency and sustainability of the proposed building.




        Urban design /visual impact


        The existing approach to the area from the airport roundabout onwards is
        guided by a number of gantry signs, informing the public of various routes to
        take to reach their particular destination, such as hotels, car parks, and finally
        the terminal building arrival or departure ramps. Corballis House is located at
        the last internal roundabout before one reaches the ramps for the terminal.


        In the initial section there is some landscaping to provide a calmer outlook, but
        as one approaches the internal roundabout, there is serious visual discordance
        from vast amounts of parked cars, with the stark silhouette of Pier C rising
        behind. The general outlook is one of confusion and of semi industrial
        character.


        Corballis House, without a garden to provide a setting and located almost
        directly at the edge of the roundabout has a very lonely and neglected outlook.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 155 of 308
        In this rather chaotic and semi industrial approach passengers are directed
        towards Terminal 1 through road signs and without a sense of arrival. The
        helical ramps to the rooftop car park (stated to be converted to offices) provide
        the most noticeable element (an anti-vista) on the approach road to the existing
        terminal.


        The most striking building, in fact the building of greatest intrinsic
        architectural quality at the airport is the „Old Central Terminal Building‟
        (OCTB). Located after T1, and behind a car park this unique building is not
        even noticed by the majority of the passengers on the landside (except those
        using the VIP lounge located inside). It has no visual connection to T1 or to
        the rest of the campus, and is dominated by surrounding stark structures such
        as the multi storey car park directly opposite.


        In the context of existing visual quality (or rather the lack of) I consider the
        location of the proposed T2 to be appropriate as it would inevitably remove /
        screen a number of the rather unsightly features. Its prominent position on the
        approach road, could also provide an opportunity to design a building of
        „character‟ as required.




        The question then becomes whether the proposed building meets this
        challenge. With its curvilinear design, the use of modern materials, as well as
        its scale, the proposed structure has a visually appealing contemporary style.


        It was described by the lead design architect during the hearing to have a
        „unique architectural form of two curved planar forms placed back to back,
        symbolic in shape with implicit references to flight, providing a gateway to the
        world‟.


        I am satisfied that, in terms of scale, height and overall mass, the proposed
        Terminal 2 is of acceptable proportions and of high visual quality and would
        provide an appropriate „landmark‟ building at this location. As such it meets
        the requirement set out in the LAP for a building of „character‟.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 156 of 308
        I am also satisfied that the proposed landscaping on the approach road together
        with specific proposals, such as pools immediately around the building, would
        enhance the visual outlook and quality of the public realm, and create an
        appropriate setting for the terminal structure. For those catching a glimpse of
        the double curvature of the two elements at a distance the building would also
        provide an interesting vista marking their destination.


        In the immediate area of the building the quality of the finishes and
        contemporary elevational treatment would need to be of a very high standard
        if the building is to continue the initial positive impression. These can be
        ensured by way of conditions.


        The proposed development could also, as suggested signal a departure from
        the current semi-industrial and rather dated outlook, and in a way re assert
        Dublin Airport as a location of high quality architecture, as in the case of
        OCTB. It could also set a precedence, a design benchmark, for a contemporary
        approach in other developments in the airport. This is in line with overall
        approach of the LAP.


        The passenger experience through the campus is not just impacted by the
        visual outlook of a building but also by the ease of movement through the
        campus. It is also effected by the traffic levels in which one has to travel, and
        the clarity of signage.


        The proposed development proposes removal of a substantial amount of traffic
        from the existing congested area by diverting it to the bus parking area behind
        the car park buildings. Some of this has already been carried out recently, and
        seems to provide some relief to the area immediately in front of the T1.


        The proposed development further proposes the separation of T2 traffic from
        T1 traffic, while still providing set down and pick up areas for buses and taxis
        right in front of the terminal buildings (or at the foot of the vertical circulation
        area leading to elevated walkways). These areas are well defined and enclosed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 157 of 308
        by the two sections of the building, and constitute a definite improvement to
        the existing arrangement.


        I should note however that it is important that kerbs are not used as bus
        parking and waiting areas, but rather access is given for set down/ pick up by
        all buses which provide public transport. While I shall return this issue later in
        the transport section, it is also important from the point of visual impact, as
        parked buses provide a visual barrier and clutter in front of the building. As
        such they reduce the visual quality presented by a well-designed and
        welcoming front elevation.


        It was stated by the lead architect for the design team that the urban design
        philosophy adopted was founded on the concept that the GTC and the Metro
        will be at the heart of the campus, with clearly defined routes to both
        terminals. This is an appropriate and necessary objective.


        I was initially sceptical about the location of the future MSCP in closer
        proximity to T2 than the GTC, (and the future underground Metro station) as it
        could reduce the incentive to use public transport.


        I am however satisfied that locating the new GTC in the site of the proposed
        MSCP while making it more accessible to Terminal 2, would not have the
        same accessibility to Terminal 1.


        During the discussions at the oral hearing it was stated that the walking
        distance from the centre of the GTC would be 250m to T1 and 180m to T2 (4
        minutes and 3 minutes walking distances respectively). Following inspection
        of the recent changes in the area, (which require some provincial bus
        passengers to walk through the existing short term car park), I am satisfied that
        the journey of the passengers using public transport would not be unpleasant
        or unnecessarily long. It is however, important that they have shelter at all
        times.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 158 of 308
        I note that the location of a multi storey car park adjacent to the Terminal 2 is
        a LAP objective.


        It is unfortunate that the future MSCP building was not proposed as part of the
        application. In the hearing it was stated that this was as a result of extreme
        time pressure to lodge the application. Having regard to the fact that it has
        been included in the EIS and its connections to the terminal building are
        clearly provided for in all relevant drawings, I am satisfied that its absence
        from the current application does not constitute a significant information
        deficit, and that its design can be assessed in the context of a separate
        application. Such an application would need to include details of weather
        protected pedestrian routes from the GTC.


        During the hearing it was indicated that the kerb side (sometimes referred to as
        the forecourt) would be used by approximately 25% of the passengers who
        would use taxis, while the rest of the passengers would use the high level
        tubes (elevated walkways) connecting the check-in building directly to the
        future MSCP, where they would continue further on to GTC. This means not
        only a distinct separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but also a
        separation of arrival and departure passengers.


        While I think it is important that the modal share of bus (the only form of
        public transport until the Metro is constructed) needs to be increased, at least
        until the Metro is provided (which I shall discuss in the transport section), I do
        accept the general premise of the argument that the proposed development
        provides for separation of pedestrian and vehicular routes and thus contributes
        to an improved ease of movement.


        While there is a significant role to be played by the design and clarity of the
        road signage, I am satisfied that details of these can be addressed at a later
        stage. It is important that these are designed so as not to detract from the vista
        and overall urban design quality of the public realm.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 159 of 308
           Overall, in terms of the areas external to the building, I am satisfied that the
           proposed development meets the objectives of the LAP.




           Building design and Internal layout


           It was presented by the first party that the overall dimensions and the internal
           layout of a terminal building would be determined by the space requirements
           of a number of functional areas needed to process departing and arriving
           passengers. As a result of the trends towards increasing aircraft size, each of
           these areas area would be required to process larger numbers of passengers at
           a given time.


           The generic building form was a „deep plan‟ footprint with the departures
           process placed above arrivals to facilitate baggage handling operations at the
           apron level.


           The departure process would involve five distinct functional areas namely, the
           check-in area (to cater for long haul as well as short haul passengers each with
           different requirements and preferences), the landside concourse (good-bye
           area known as area for „weepers and wailers1‟), the security areas where
           passengers and their hand luggage is searched electronically (or manually
           where required), the departures lounge (where passengers can finally relax
           after the security checks and consider whether to do duty some free shopping
           or to eat before moving on) and finally the pier (for waiting to board the
           aircraft). Adequate provision for US pre-clearance was also a requirement in
           the case of T2.


           The arrival process would also involve five distinctly separate functional
           areas: pier, immigration hall, baggage reclaim hall, customs hall and arrivals
           hall (for „meeters and greeters‟). The space requirements for the baggage
           reclaim area, including carousel lengths have also increased in tandem with


1
    The term was introduced by te designing architect

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 160 of 308
        aircraft size. Similarly, the immigration and customs areas need more booths
        and cubicles and back up offices to process larger numbers of passengers.


        The requirements for the proposed terminal and pier included, customs and
        border control facilities, future proofing (capacity capability to meet changing
        requirements), enhanced customer experience, independence of operation
        from T1, and provision of a sustainable landmark building.


        For the pier size to suit the projected stand mix, and ability to cope with busy
        hour and forecast growth was essential.


        Other requirements included provision of an efficient and elegant building,
        clear and simple way finding, unobstructed passenger routes, minimum level
        changes, avoidance of cross flows, and comfortable waiting areas.


        The design principles had to include
                Continuity and enclosure - making sure the space in front of the
                 buildings is enclosed by the building, where public, semi public and
                 private spaces for both pedestrians and road traffic are distinguished
                Legibility -making sure key components of the building are readily
                 understood (where to go for check-in, or how to proceed to security)
                Ease of movement - way finding as intuitive as possible for all
                 passengers




        The proposed building has three primary areas for passengers, check-in floor,
        departures floor and arrivals floor.


        The departing passengers change levels as they check-in at ground level
        before moving up two levels to pass through security and the lounge area
        before dropping down to the departures corridor of the pier building.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 161 of 308
        Arriving passengers pass through the complex all at one level, (first floor),
        moving directly onto MSCP, without changing levels. ( 25% of passengers are
        anticipated to drop down to kerb level for taxi /buses).


        Baggage handling is at the apron level.


        One of the main arguments put forward by the Ryanair team was that the
        proposed building was excessively large. They maintained that there was no
        need for a separate check-in building and a shallower building could be
        located between Pier C and the existing roadway. They also pointed out that
        the retail area was excessive, and seemed to have driven the size of the
        building.


        While this argument seems to arise from cost related concerns associated with
        the building size, the building size is also important in terms of passenger
        experience, walking distances and overall level of service.


        As stated earlier, service level is measured by IATA standards. In the case of
        Terminal 2, Service Level C is proposed (described as reasonable level of
        service, with acceptable levels of delays), the minimum recommended by
        IATA.


        During the hearing it was explained that the depth of a terminal building was
        determined by the area requirements of various processing functions, operator
        requirements and IATA Service Level C requirements. The current depth
        provisions at Standstead and Heathrow were greater than 160m.


        In this case the constraints in the depth and width of the site area led to the
        development of two buildings linked as one. On one side the building had to
        fit in between the access route to T1 and Pier C, and on the other between the
        catering buildings, hangar and T1.


        The existing depth of T1 (front wall to retail at the back) is stated to be about
        80m. The area suggested by Ryanair between Pier C and the roadway is
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 162 of 308
        approximately 68m at the narrowest point. I would therefore accept the
        assertion that the space would not be adequate to meet the minimum depth
        requirements.


        Terminal 2 as proposed would have a depth of approximately 100m in the
        main building and 20m in the smaller building (check-in building). The latter
        would accommodate a check-in hall at the ground floor (56 check-in desks,
        kiosks and baggage drop-in areas for outsized baggage), information areas and
        arrivals hall at the first floor of the tall two- storey structure (with cafes at
        mezzanine level for meeters and greeters).


        I note that the issue of depth of the building was re-examined in the module
        related to architectural heritage.


        In this case while the architects were given a brief to design a building with
        75,000m2 floor area, it was presented that the building was designed on the
        basis of the functional requirements of the arrival hall (aimed at providing the
        shortest possible distances for the passengers to clear the building). It was
        argued by the lead architect that reduction of the depth would seriously
        compromise the efficiency of the operations.


        I note the departures hall, located at the upper levels is larger as the building
        becomes more voluminous as it moves upwards, overhanging Pier C.


        Having regard to the space requirements for functional areas, the need to
        process increased number of passengers (arising from increased aircraft size)
        in short stretches of time, and the need to reduce /eliminate excessive queuing
        in various thresholds, I am satisfied that the depth of the building as proposed
        is a reasonable response to meet the processing requirements and to provide an
        efficient and comfortable passenger journey.


        I should note that provisions for increased capacity (for Phase II) would be
        made through increased width of the building only, as the depth of the
        building would remain constant for both phases of the development. Therefore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 163 of 308
        even if the capacity / size is reduced, the depth of the building would not be
        reduced.


        An increasingly important consideration in terminal planning is stated to be
        the reduction of walking distances as much as possible. There was a lot of
        discussion in relation to this issue during the hearing and there seems to be a
        growing focus on the issue by the aviation industry as the age profile of the
        travelling population has changed towards the older group in recent years. As
        such there seems to be an implicit requirement in terminal planning for
        minimum level changes and provision of shortest and most direct routes.
        Indeed these are also prescribed in the LAP as requirements.


        The walking distances travelled by the public take place in two distinctly
        separate areas, outside the terminal building (between the terminal building
        and the transport) and within the terminal building.


        For those using public transport (bus and taxis) the proposed development
        provides good kerb side set down and pick-up areas. These are located next to
        the terminal building, and provide short travel distances. For the remainder
        using provincial buses at the GTC and the car park the distances, as discussed
        earlier, are also acceptable. I shall return to this during the transport section.




        Within the proposed Terminal 2 an „illuminated central spine‟ is used to
        provide a direct and clear route for the arriving passengers.


        For the departing passengers this direct central route is altered only in the
        departures lounge, where, following „passenger search‟ the passengers are
        directed to the eastern side of the building to enter the retail area at the first
        orientation point on the eastern side of the building. Going through the width
        of the retail area they come to a decision point at the other (western) end to
        choose either Pier E (52%) or Pier B (48%). (The premium passengers would
        use a separate direct route if desired.) The departure lounge includes a
        mezzanine level for food and beverage outlets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 164 of 308
        The planning authority had considered this section of the journey (through the
        departures lounge) circuitous and imposed a condition (no 34) requiring that it
        be redesigned.


        The revisions proposed at the hearing by the first party (reducing walking time
        by half a minute) was acceptable to the planning authority, but not so to some
        of the third parties, who argued that the needs of the retailers (footfall) was
        given precedence over the needs of the passengers, who were forced to go
        through the retail area.


        I now refer to attached diagram presented at the hearing (exhibit AR 30/04/07
        where „orientation point‟ and „decision point‟ are identified. Following
        examination of the plans further and despite the proposed reductions in time
        distance, I am of the opinion that the journey is lengthened unnecessarily for
        the passengers, and this seem to be for the benefit of the retail outlets. (250m
        vs.100m)


        In particular for the passengers moving onto Pier B the journey is lengthened
        unnecessarily, as the exit from passenger search area is located at the eastern
        side of the terminal while the escalators, stairs, lifts etc connecting to Pier B
        are located on the western side. This forces the passengers to go through the
        retail area to the full width of the building, before continuing to pier B which
        is located further 4 minutes away.


        While I do understand the desire to create a long retail frontage for passengers
        to go through and browse for retail income (one of the requirements set by the
        DAA was to ensure the building had a successful retail component), this could
        not be a material consideration for a decision on the design of a public
        building. I believe the passengers who prefer to go directly to the pier should
        be allowed to do so in the shortest possible way, rather than being directed
        through the retail area through design manipulation. Those who have time to
        relax and desire to browse around the retail area would move into the retail
        area in any case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 165 of 308
        In my view this issue could be resolved easily by relocation of the exit from
        the passenger search area to the western section of the building (west of the
        centrally located toilet block /escalators to mezzanine) This would allow
        passengers to choose the direct route to either pier if they wish to do so, or go
        to the retail area / catering area at the mezzanine level.


        I note there was a suggestion that individuals loitering in the departure lounge
        may witness security arrangements. I am satisfied that screens can be provided
        to resolve such a problem, if it does indeed exist (I note that in T1 currently
        the passenger search area opens directly to the „street‟.)


        Accordingly, in the event of a decision to grant permission, I recommend a
        condition requiring a revision of the layout to relocate the exit from the
        passenger search area to the western side of the central toilet block, in closer
        proximity to the revised decision point.




        The third area where travel distance is important is the connection between the
        two terminals. These are provided by a walkway on the landside, and by Pier
        C on the airside. The former would be used by only a small percentage of the
        passengers and by some staff.


        During the course of the hearing and following explanations by the designing
        architect in terms of difficulties that would arise from the additional space
        requirements, constraints imposed by the existing energy building and the
        distance involved (at 180m well below the 300m IATA requirement for
        travellator), the planning authority decided they would no longer consider
        condition number 29 requiring provision of a travellator in this section, to be
        necessary.
        I note this would be used by a small number of people, some staff and those
        who started in the wrong terminal. Based on the evidence before me I consider
        this to be reasonable. I note in particular that on the pier side, the connection is
        provided through existing Pier C where a travallator is already in existence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 166 of 308
        Another arguments put forward by the Ryanair team was that the departure
        lounge was excessive in size. This argument also has some merit.


        Based on an examination of the space requirements for arriving passengers at
        the lower floors (particularly carousel length requirements of larger aircraft)
        and increased space requirements for immigration and customs, I am satisfied
        that the width and depth of the building is determined by the space
        requirements of these operational areas, rather than a desire to provide a large
        retail area in the departure lounge, which is located at the upper level. While
        the departures area sails across on top of Pier C and is therefore larger, it also
        needs to provide an additional area for US immigration pre-clearance.


        I am satisfied that processing larger numbers of passengers (arising from
        aircraft size) in a short time without delays does indeed require larger areas, in
        particular in the areas of check-in, security, passenger search on the departure
        level and immigration facilities, customs control, baggage hall where larger
        carousels are required at the arrivals level.


        While the departure lounge has indeed a comparatively large area dedicated to
        retail and catering (at mezzanine level), it also has considerable seating areas
        where passengers can relax, and look over the airfield. For passengers who
        have long waiting period prior to long haul flights such retail and food
        /beverage areas will provide some distraction and comfort.


        Having regard to the LAP requirement for generous and well designed spaces,
        and the need to provide some headroom for additional passengers during
        refurbishment of T1 I consider the size of the departure lounge to be
        acceptable.


        During the hearing and at the request of Mr. O‟Donnell (for the DAA), Ms.
        Kenny of FCC           confirmed that the LAP both in terms of policies and
        objectives required the design of a building to a particularly high standard. She
        confirmed that objective DS4 required a generous, well designed building,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 167 of 308
        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.


        In terms of level of service of the proposed development was assessed in
        terms of passenger experience and planners perspective. It was considered to
        be providing a good level of service in accordance with the objectives of the
        LAP.




        I have not discussed the functional area requirements for non-passengers such
        as ground crew, office workers, caterers, retailers, the lounge and route
        requirement for premium passengers, fire escapes, deliveries and waste
        disposal, and of course the baggage hall where speedy security screening of
        baggage as well as separation of departure and arrival baggage, (and transfer
        baggage) are essential. The workers and services have completely segregated
        circulation and functional areas than passengers. The segregation of landside
        and airside spaces for staff also require additional space.


        Similarly, I have not discussed the proposed materials and finishes. The
        architect outlined that they used an Irish palette. These are acceptable in
        principle, and were not raised as issues in the grounds of appeal or during the
        hearing. I note that the planning authority suggested some improvements to
        the wording of the conditions they had previously imposed in relation to
        finishes and materials used. These improvements are acceptable in principle.


        During the hearing I requested drawings comparing the proposed Pier E and
        recently completed pier D. These are attached (exhibit ?). I consider the
        proposed new pier to be well designed and functionally efficient.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 168 of 308
        Energy efficiency


        The third aspect of the building design is related to energy efficiency and
        compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. The
        measures employed by the first party include use of high efficiency CHP plant
        to reduce emissions, and reduction of energy requirements through a number
        of measures, including use of natural daylight, and introduction of fresh cooler
        air at 180C, at higher levels rather than the usual 120C at lower levels. They
        submitted that the measures would bring the carbon emissions to well below
        the required levels.


        The other measures, such as high level of insulation at roof level, were part of
        the building design. I consider these to be appropriate.


        As discussed in a previous section, the terminal building needs to be flexible
        to meet the differing demands of long haul and short haul passengers. Should
        Dublin Airport become a hub for international flights between Middle East
        and US as hoped, it also needs to be flexible to provide for the needs of
        transfer passengers. As stated earlier it also needs to have some headroom to
        provide for processing some T1 passengers during its refurbishment.


        Overall I am of the opinion that T2 (as proposed in phase I) would be able to
        meet these requirements while providing an acceptable level of service and
        improved passenger experience in a building which is well designed and
        visually stimulating both internally and externally.


        As stated in an earlier section I am satisfied that Phase I, on its own, would be
        adequate to meet the need for the short to medium term. As the building is
        designed for seamless expansion for Phase II, should the need arise for some
        unforeseen reason, for urgent expansion, further application can be made for
        phase II at a later date, without any impact on the basic arrangements for over
        the all site layout.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 169 of 308
        While I do have reservations regarding the lack of signage (and the lack of
        information regarding associated visual clutter) in the photomontages for the
        proposed development I consider those sections of the EIS related to building
        design and visual impact to be adequate.


        There was some discussion during the hearing regarding materials and design
        details. The arguments put forward by some third parties were that these were
        not fully provided and that the requirement for submission of details as per
        conditions imposed by the planning authority, was not acceptable. Although
        there is some merit in this argument, I accept the explanation given by the
        architect that they have provided adequate information regarding materials and
        colour palette and that the detailed design will evolve at later stages of the
        project. I am satisfied that the submission of these as part of compliance with
        conditions would not effect the integrity of the EIS.




        Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural heritage


        The area within the Dublin Airport LAP contains a number of important
        archaeological sites or features listed in the Record of Monuments and Places
        (RPM), and protected under National Monuments Acts 1930-2004.


        It also contains a number of Protected Structures listed in Fingal County
        Council‟s record of Protected structures protected under Part IV of the
        Planning and Development Act, 2000.


        Those relevant to the appeal development are


        Castle site       (DU014-011) with no visible trace, this site is stated to be
                          located within the appeal site in the vicinity of the existing
                          surface car park. The proposed central plant, airside loading
                          bay, and future expansion of the terminal would intrude into the


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 170 of 308
                          area. It is however noted that the area has been developed
                          previously and contains a network of service pipes /cables.


        Collinstown       Demolished in 1935 during development of the aerodrome
        House             .


        OCTB              (Old Central Terminal Building) Protected Structure of
                          National /International importance, not affected by the
                          proposed development


        Corballis         Protected Structure, No 613 (regional importance) is located
        within the House                    appeal site. It is proposed to be demolished to
        make way for the
                          proposed T2


        The Church of Our lady (1964) Protected Structure of regional importance
                          located to the rear of GTC. It is not effected by the proposed
                          development




        The most important issue in relation to cultural and built heritage in this case
        is the proposed demolition of Corballis House which is a Protected Structure
        of „regional‟ importance.


        Following the decision on the location of the proposed new terminal building
        to the south east of the existing terminal, and determination of the size
        required by the DAA, the architects for the proposed terminal carried out a
        series of site analyses in order to find the best option for locating the terminal.


        On the basis of a three storey building of 75,000m2 (with a footprint of
        25,000m2), having regard to the minimum depth required to accommodate
        functional areas, the requirement for minimal walking distances to /from the
        Ground Transportation Centre and T1 /pier B, and not encroaching into the
        apron area (the most valuable asset in an airport), they arrived at the appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 171 of 308
        site as the preferred option. However, Corballis House, (a Protected Structure)
        is located within this area.


        The architects carried out a second set of option analyses to explore if it was
        possible to incorporate Corballis House into the design by either incorporation
        into the terminal building or by designing the terminal building around
        Corballis House, with the house located in an external recess. Having regard to
        various considerations, they concluded that neither of these would be
        appropriate due to unacceptable operational and performance compromises,
        and they recommended that Corballis House be demolished.


        The EIS study team, which included a conservation architect, looked at
        various options for Corballis House. These included the possible movement of
        Corballis House in its entirety to another location, deconstruction and
        reconstruction at another site and controlled demolition with complete
        recording of details.


        Potential relocation raised issues, as it would be highly intrusive and would
        involve the demolition of the central hall and relocation of the house in two
        parts. It would also involve loss of historic setting and orientation. The experts
        were not sure if the building would survive the operation.


        There was no justification for pursuing the option of deconstruction /
        reconstruction as it would not lend itself to reuse of significant quantities of
        the original material.


        The study team recommended the last option with a number of measures to
        ensure demolition, recording and salvaging of some items in a manner
        appropriate to architectural heritage.


        The conservation architect for the first party having regard to the Guidelines
        under Section 52 of Planning and Development Act, 2000 carried out an
        architectural assessment of Corballis House and concluded that


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 172 of 308
                The house was much altered and extended, and could not be
                 considered as an exemplar of good quality architectural design by any
                 particular period
                The house was not the work of a known and distinguished architect
                The building had several phases of construction and it was difficult to
                 consider that it reflected harmonious differing styles within one
                 structure as it did not reflect any style other than that of an early 19th
                 century house
                The building made no particular contribution to the streetscape,
                 landscape or setting,
                The interiors could not be described as being well designed, rich in
                 decoration, complex and spatially pleasing, though a number of rooms
                 retained a level of quality in decoration.


        He concluded that the building was an assemblage of phases of construction
        which had been pulled together through 19th century remodelling and it would
        be more appropriate to rate the building as being of local importance on the
        NIAH scale.


        The planning authority having regard to the specific provisions of Section 57
        of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 which provides that permission
        may only be granted for the demolition of a Protected Structure in exceptional
        circumstances, and that it requires the strongest justification before it can be
        granted permission, and it would require input from an architect or engineer
        with specialist knowledge so that all options other than demolition receive
        serious consideration, and having regard to the singular circumstances
        embodied in the application, decided to permit its demolition, subject to
        conditions.


        The view of the conservation architect for the planning authority was that,
        while avoidance would be the preferred mitigation, given the acknowledged
        strategic and national importance that terminal 2 project constituted,




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 173 of 308
        exceptional circumstances as detailed in Planning and Development Act, 2000
        existed.


        The planning authority also had regard to the degraded setting of the house.


        Following the decision of the planning authority to grant permission further
        exploratory works were carried out at the request of DoEH&LG (the
        conservation architect for the first party noted the thickness of walls in some
        sections which might suggest an earlier period).


        The exploratory works indicated the presence of a cottage within the house
        possibly predating 1700. This brought the provisions of the National
        Monuments Acts 1930-2004 into effect.


        At the direction of and under licence from National Monuments Service
        (DoEH&LG) a team of archaeologists carried out further investigations during
        February –April 2007 (i.e. after lodgement of the appeal).


        These further investigations confirmed that an earlier structure (a humble
        cottage from the 17th century) was contained within the extended 18th /early
        19th century house, and that following acquisition of the lands by the
        Wilkinson family around 1706, the building seems to have gone through
        several phases of significant refurbishment over the course of the 8th century.
        During these works the building was expanded considerably.


        The main arguments put forward by the third party appellants were:
                Corballis House, which had cultural as well as historical value, should
                 be preserved
                A Protected Structure is being demolished to make way for the
                 proposed development because the applicant had made a decision on
                 the size and location of the new terminal building,
                There would be no reason for demolition of Corballis House if the size
                 of the terminal was reduced


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 174 of 308
                As there are other areas where the proposed terminal can be located,
                 there is no justification for the demolition of Corballis House
                Exceptional circumstances, as provided by S.57 to warrant demolition
                 of Corballis House, have not been demonstrated




        The oral hearing module on built and cultural heritage was attended, at my
        invitation, by Dr. Frederic O‟Dwyer (Senior Architect, Architectural Heritage
        Advisory Service and Heritage Policy Unit, DoEH&LG) and Brian Duffy
        Chief Archaeologist (National Monuments Service, DoEH&LG).




        Corballis House is a Protected Structure (RPS no 613) described in the County
        Development Plan as „seven bay two storey 19th century house, in grounds of
        Dublin Airport, on roundabout before terminals‟.


        During my site inspection of Corballis House the investigating archaeologist
        explained how the single storey modest cottage was extended first by adding a
        first floor, and lowering the ground floor, then by adding two storey wings on
        either side at different times, and how its front door was relocated from front
        to rear of the house which became the new front. Along the way a number of
        windows were blocked.


        He also pointed out that very little, if any, of the walls, and floors of the
        cottage remained as they were either removed or reused as materials in the
        new walls. The whole process seemed to indicate refurbishments in
        accordance with the dictates of the fashion at the time by the new and
        wealthier owners. The considered opinion of the archaeological team was that
        the building had gone through several phases of refurbishment to reflect the
        elevated social standing and concerns of the new owners, and was not a good
        representative of any specific period.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 175 of 308
        Following presentations at the hearing a number of third party appellants
        maintained that they were saddened by the proposal to demolish Corballis
        House which had a cultural as well as historical value. Some argued that it
        should be preserved and people using the airport should be given guided tours.


        The response by the first party architect was that they had explored the option
        but it just was not possible to retain the house without seriously compromising
        the functional operation of proposed terminal building.


        The argument put forward by the Ryanair team was that the decision was
        made by the DAA in relation to size and location of the terminal building, and
        Corballis House would be demolished because it happened to be in the way.


        During the discussions it was again stressed by the designing architect that the
        depth of the building was determined by the functional area requirements
        which had to remain constant regardless of capacity considerations.


        While I note that the overall area of the terminal was indeed determined by the
        DAA which prescribed an area of 75,000m2, I am satisfied that even if the size
        of the building is required to be reduced, this would need to take place in the
        width of the building (as the depth of the structure is more or less the required
        minimum for operational purposes) and the impact on Corballis House would
        not change. I have discussed in a previous section, why I consider the site
        location to be acceptable.


        It was also reiterated that the possible impact on OCTB was a more important
        consideration in the location analysis by the first party, and that the protection
        of OCTB was given priority over Corballis House. Having regard to its higher
        protection status of international importance, I consider this to be plausible.


        During the hearing it was stressed by the planning authority that the LAP
        made reference to an individual building only in objective AH1. The OCTB
        was the most significant structure of architectural merit on Airport site.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 176 of 308
        There are six architectural objectives contained in the LAP, of these


        AH1      To have particular regard to the conservation and protection of the
                 1937 Old Central Terminal Building
        AH2      To ensure as far as is consistent with the development of necessary
                 airport facilities the conservation of architectural heritage within the
                 LAP area and in the area immediately bordering the study area
        AH4      To devise a strategy for the reuse and retention of the Protected
                 Structures within LAP as far as is consistent with the development of
                 necessary airport facilities


        Therefore it is quite clear that while the planning authority considered
        protection of OCTB to be singularly important, such special care is not
        afforded to other protected structures. It is also clear from the other objectives
        that protection of the architectural heritage and protected structures is
        conditional on being consistent with development of necessary airport
        facilities. Corballis House, though a Protected Structure, would fall into the
        second category.


        As such the proposed development is not in contravention of the development
        plan policies.


        It was presented at the hearing by Mr. Slattery (the conservation architect for
        the first party) and going through the requirements of S. 52 of the Planning
        and Development Act, 2000 and Guidelines, that a rating of „local importance‟
        was more appropriate for Corballis House as the building was an assemblage
        of phases of construction which have been pulled together through 19th
        century remodelling to appear as an early Victorian house. It was extremely
        difficult to consider, in its much altered setting, that the house could be
        deemed as holding a considerable significance architecturally.


        In response to my question it was explained by the conservation architect,
        Fionnula May, for the planning authority, that while Corballis House could be
        a borderline case to be included in the Ministerial list for the Record of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 177 of 308
        Protected Structures, a building had to have a minimum rating of „regional‟
        importance. They would maintain that such a rating was appropriate.


        This was confirmed by Dr. Frederic O‟Dwyer (DoEH&LG ) who stated that
        the view of the Department previously was that the building was of „regional
        importance‟ and this view had not changed.


        Mr. Duffy Chief archaeologist (DoEH&LG), clarified that the National
        Monuments Act did not provide for any ratings of monuments.


        In view of the above I do not consider that any issue arises regarding the
        NIAH rating of Corballis House and in particular whether it should be
        degraded to „local importance‟.


        The planning authority agreed that the setting and curtilage (which are an
        intrinsic part of a structure) were eroded to a significant degree over the last 50
        years as the airport developed around it. The layout of the roads, which had
        greatly impacted on the house took place prior to enactment of the 2000 Act.


        It is indeed true that Corballis House no longer has the setting it once had, and
        it no longer performs its original function, that of a dwelling. It stands on its
        own with only a remnant of a garden wall on one side. It is highly exposed to
        the traffic using the roundabout and the ramps to Terminal 1 on one side and
        access to the surface car park on the other.


        While during the hearing there were some discordant views regarding time of
        removal of its lawn, and when it was converted to office use, I do consider the
        views of the first party that its curtilage does not extend beyond the footprint
        of the house to be reasonable. Also and having regard to relevant case law
        (provided by Mr. O‟Donnell for the DAA) , I accept that what is being
        protected is what was present at the time the order was made.


        The most important question in this case is whether demolition of protected
        structure to make way for the new terminal building is appropriate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 178 of 308
        It was put forward by the third party appellants, that a Protected Structure
        could only be demolished under „exceptional‟ circumstances and these have
        not been demonstrated in the case of the appeal development.


        They further argued that, as there were other alternatives for the terminal
        building including alternative location, exceptional circumstances have not
        arisen.


        The response of the planning authority was that in assessing the project, Fingal
        County Council had considered the policies and objectives related to the
        proposal, and the assessment had concluded that the criteria for „exceptional
        circumstances‟ have been met and the mitigation proposed was in line with
        best practice and appropriate.


        Avoidance was a preferable option, but given the significant constraints, the
        architects for the proposed development were unable to generate a proposal
        that would satisfy the requirements of the terminal and retain Corballis House.


        It was adjudged that given the acknowledged „strategic national importance‟
        that the Terminal 2 project constituted, in this instance, „exceptional
        circumstances‟ as identified in the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
        existed.


        The alternatives were apparently clearly examined by the first party and found
        not be acceptable. Therefore exceptional circumstances would pertain.


        Dr. Frederic O‟Dwyer Architectural Heritage Advisory Service, and Policy
        Unit      (DoEH&LG) clarified that there was „nothing‟ in S.57 of the Act
        regarding „alternatives‟.


        Corballis House clearly had 17th century building fabric and as such was of
        some interest, but the building had incorporated sections from six or seven
        different phases from 17, 18, and 19th centuries and it was not easy to compare
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 179 of 308
        with other buildings. There were other buildings with 17th century fabric in the
        Fingal area. In their deliberations, they had looked at the overall context.


        He further stated: “The Department had taken an overall view and when one
        is    dealing       with   important      infrastructure      development        exceptional
        circumstance may arose and we believe they have done so in this case”.


        Brian Duffy, Chief Archaeologist (DoEH&LG) said “in regard to what was
        contained in Corballis House, it is a national monument within the meaning of
        the Act, but the building does not have sufficient archaeological significance
        to raise it to level of a National Monument”. They would not be very
        concerned about its removal through an archaeological process, and that
        would be the standard mitigation measure.


        It was also explained during the hearing and in response to a question, that
        FCC had previously agreed to the removal of a Protected Structure in another
        case (a railway bridge), which was inhibiting freight traffic on the Dublin
        Belfast corridor. Its removal was allowed to facilitate a „development of
        national importance‟.




        Section 57 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 states:


        (10) (a)      For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a planning
                      authority or the Board on appeal-


                      (i)      In considering any application for permission in relation to
                               a protected structure, shall have regard to the protected
                               structure status of the structure,


             (b) A planning authority, or the Board on appeal shall not grant
                 permission for the demolition of a protected structure or proposed
                 protected structure, save in exceptional circumstances


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 180 of 308
        The Act does not give an indication of what the exceptional circumstances
        may be, but in this case it was the view of both the conservation architect for
        the planning authority and the Senior Advisor of Architectural Heritage
        Advisory Service and Policy Unit of DoEH&LG, that such circumstance
        arose, in the case of developments of national importance.


        I should also note that while there were some suggestions during the oral
        hearing of some significant cultural heritage of Corballis House arising from
        possible connections with Countess Markiewicz, and an IRA arms raid, Dr.
        Frederic O‟Dwyer who came back to the hearing on another day provided
        documentary evidence to clarify the matter and said that the connections
        alluded to in the previous session were not in fact correct.


        As such a requirement for retention of the building on grounds of cultural
        heritage is not warranted.


        Having regard to the information before me the following are my findings:
                Corballis House is a Protected Structure of regional importance, and
                 not of a lesser „local‟ importance
                While the building contained 17th century fabric, over a century and a
                 half, it went through substantial changes including significant additions
                 to reflect the affluence and increasing social standing of the owners
                Incorporating a number of different phases over several centuries it
                 does not have sufficient archaeological significance
                The building does not have significant cultural value over and above
                 other buildings of same period
                Its setting and curtilage have been degraded significantly and
                 surrounded by road and airport developments, and it is not likely that it
                 will regain its former setting, or curtilage
                Its present use (changed to office use sometime ago) does not represent
                 an appropriate use for the building




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 181 of 308
                Its incorporation into the new terminal building while seriously
                 compromising the functional operation of the T2 would not provide a
                 positive heritage value
                Designing the terminal building around Corballis House would not
                 provide an appropriate setting for Corballis House
                Reduction of the size of the new terminal building would not remove
                 the impact on Corballis House, as the depth of the terminal building
                 would remain the same
                Availability of alternative locations for the terminal building is not a
                 consideration under S. 57
                Provision of necessary airport infrastructure as referred to in the NDP
                 does constitute a development of national importance


        Therefore and having regard to the provisions of S.57 (10)(b) of the Planning
        and Development Act, 2000, I accept that „exceptional circumstances‟ have
        arisen in this case and that the proposed demolition of Corballis House is
        acceptable.


        Should the Board agree with this recommendation, the following would need
        to be taken into consideration in imposing conditions:


        During the hearing it was stated by Dr. Frederic O‟Dwyer (DoEH&LG) that
        should the Board decide to grant permission they would recommend
        expanding beyond the condition imposed by the planning authority regarding
        items to be salvaged, in particular to include joinery items.


        He suggested a general condition requiring further evaluation and drawing up
        a list of features to be salvaged by the applicants with the agreement of the
        planning authority.


        Brian Duffy (Chief Archaeologist, DoEH&LG ) said they would expect and
        require archaeological supervision of all removal works, and archaeological
        recovery of all items (stones, timber), re-used in the building. It would then be


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 182 of 308
        a matter for the National Museum to decide on the disposition of how to
        proceed.


        In view of the fact that Corballis House would be demolished to make way for
        the new terminal I also consider it appropriate that an information package in
        the form of a video or similar medium to chronicle its historical and cultural
        story be prepared by DAA, and made available for public viewing in
        appropriate locations in the new terminal building.                     It would also be
        appropriate to provide a copy of this documentary to the Irish Architectural
        Archive


        In the event of a decision to grant permission I recommend conditions
        accordingly.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 183 of 308
        Transportation


        The main considerations under this issue are related to traffic generation as a
        result of the proposed terminal and pier facilities, compliance with various
        transport policies, road network capacity, public transport availability,
        circulation patterns within the airport campus and ease of access by various
        transport modes, car parking and demand management, mobility management
        strategy, traffic generation by the construction compound, adequacy of the
        EIS, including assumptions and the methodologies employed, and cumulative
        impacts. Additional works to the surrounding road network, and junctions to
        facilitate the proposed development, form another very important component.


        Indicating the importance of the issue the oral hearing for this module was
        attended by a number of transport experts invited by the inspector. Those
        attending included representatives from the NRA, RPA and Dublin Bus, as
        well as a team from the DTO. The planning authority and the third parties also
        had a number of transport specialists.


        In my assessment of the transport issues I also refer the Board to the report of
        Jerry Barnes (Volume 5, appendix 1). I note that further information was
        requested by the Board in relation to some transport and traffic related issues.


        The main concerns of the residents of the surrounding communities were
        related to congestion on the surrounding road network (including the M50),
        the road works required to accommodate increased traffic, and the impact of
        both on their communities. They argued that the traffic generated and the
        impacts arising were seriously understated, particularly, in terms of employee
        traffic, and that the EIS was deficient in a number of areas. St. Margaret‟s
        community were in particular concerned about road proposals in their area.


        Traffic congestion, difficult circulation patterns and inadequate provision of
        parking facilities were issues initially raised by the Ryanair team in their
        written submissions. These were expanded greatly during hearing, with
        particular emphasis on the impact from the provision of excessive capacity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 184 of 308
        They submitted that the EIS, traffic flows and sensitivity analysis presupposed
        a state of affairs that did not exist. It did not allow for the QBC to achieve
        accessibility, nor did it take account of demand tolling to manage traffic
        volumes, as identified in the EIS for the M50. They drew attention to
        differences between the figures provided by ILTP (consultants for the
        planning authority), and DAA.


        They contended that the entire application was premature in the absence of
        road improvement measures and financial programmes and that the
        cumulative impacts of the other development in the area have not been
        considered.


        They submitted that the EIS was entirely defective as no explanation was
        offered in relation to car parks short or long term. These needed to be part of
        the EIS and the planning application.


        They maintained that the EIS created a lunchtime peak which existed no
        where else in the world, and was not likely to occur in Dublin, given the
        direction of growth for short-haul operations.


        They reiterated their main argument that the capacity that would be provided
        by the proposed development would be significantly in excess of what is
        envisaged in the LAP, and the traffic generated by such excess capacity would
        result in severe congestion in the road network.




        An Taisce submitted that the proposed expansion of the airport was untenable
        in the absence of a Metro within the immediate achievable time frame. In their
        view the modal split indicated was unlikely to be achieved, and an effective
        mobility strategy was needed to minimise congestion, greenhouse gas
        emissions and pollution. They submitted the mobility strategy proposed was at
        variance with DTO objectives and Regional Planning Guidelines.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 185 of 308
        The main concern of the DTO (while recognising the strategic importance of
        Dublin Airport both at regional and national level) was that any expansion of
        the airport and the associated increases in demand for landside access should
        be provided for in a manner which seeks to maximise usage of modes other
        than the private car, (both passengers and employees).


        They noted that most major airports in Europe are actively attempting to
        improve mode shares for both passengers and employees.


        They suggested a sensitivity test based on current aircraft scheduling patterns
        would indicate a greater impact on the transport network for the AM peak than
        suggested in the EIS, and put a greater emphasis on the need to increase non-
        car based mode share.


        They further suggested priority be given to scheduling and exit/entry of buses /
        coaches over cars (at the junctions), and direct covered access to/ from
        bus/coach stops for pedestrians.


        They stated that without a more restrictive approach to the provision of new
        passenger parking than proposed in the MMP there is a risk that investment in
        public transport infrastructure and services, particularly the Metro, would not
        have a sufficiently beneficial impact on private car mode share for journeys to
        the Airport.




        Traffic generation at Dublin Airport as a function of „terminal capacity‟


        One of the most important considerations in this case is whether the additional
        traffic generated at the airport is a function of the terminal or runway capacity,
        or both.


        It was repeatedly stressed by a number of the third party appellants that they
        were not allowed to discuss increased traffic generation or car parking at the
        runway appeal, because it would be a function of terminal capacity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 186 of 308
        It was submitted by Mr. McGrath (senior executive engineer, FCC) that the
        Council has consistently held the view that the generation of additional trips at
        Dublin Airport was predominantly a function of „terminal‟ capacity and not
        „runway‟ capacity. They maintained consequently that the TIA (Traffic Impact
        Assessment) for the terminal proposal must consider all trips generated by the
        proposed development over and above the trips generated by T1 and
        „unconstrained‟ by runway capacity.


        Mr. O‟Sullivan of ILTP (the consultants for the planning authority who
        provided traffic and transportation input to the LAP) also stated that the
        second runway did not in itself generate significant additional traffic.


        He stated that the proposed second terminal was a significant development in
        its own right and in addition to accommodating the expected growth in
        passenger numbers through the airport building, it would also generate
        additional traffic movements as a result of additional staff, additional retail,
        and other additional facilities.


        In their view, for long term passenger predictions and other developments to
        be     accommodated, the landside access capacity of Dublin Airport would
        require major improvements, including a rail link.


        I accept these views to be reasonable.




        Landside access


        This has two main components: firstly „in campus development‟ and secondly
        development „external‟ to the airport, but facilitating the proposed
        development.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 187 of 308
        The „in-campus‟ development involves significant changes to the existing road
        layout, circulation, forecourt /kerbside arrangements, public transport and car
        parking provision.


        The applicants propose a new road layout segregating the traffic for T1 from
        T2. A ground transportation centre (GTC) located to the rear of the existing
        and proposed multi storey car parks (where the existing coach park is
        presently located) is proposed with provision to connect to the metro stop
        below ground. When completed, the GTC would effectively operate as a
        „public transport interchange‟. These as discussed under „location‟ are
        acceptable in principle, and in detail. (I also refer to S. 7 of the report by J.
        Barnes)


        The development „external‟ to the airport campus involve works to the
        national and local road network (to increase road capacity and junction
        capacity), public transport provision, and car parking located external to the
        campus but serving the campus.


        These, though facilitating the proposed development, would not be carried out
        by the applicants but by various authorities (such as the NRA, RPA and be
        funded under the NDP/ Transport 21) at the national level. Junction and road
        improvements in the surrounding local roads would be carried out by the local
        authority (or as required by way of condition of the planning permission), and
        large scale car parks provided by private developers in the vicinity.


        Strategic Transport Policies


        Under the National Development Plan (NDP) the transport related objectives
        include
                 M50 upgrade
                 Completion of Metro North to the Airport and Swords
                 Phased development of Metro West




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 188 of 308
        Transport 21 details the spending for the period up to 2015 and includes
                M1 and M50 phase 1 upgrade by 2007 and M50 phase 2 upgrade by
                 2010
                Completion of Metro North line from city centre to Swords by 2012,
                 and Metro West from Tallaght to Ballymun by 2014




        The National Spatial Strategy (NSS) recognises the need to upgrade the
        landside ground transport system with the expansion of the Airport


        Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006) acknowledge current landside
        transportation capacity constraints but note that upgrading of the M50 and M1
        would improve road access. The Guidelines emphasises the need to place
        public transport at the centre of the airport development strategy.


        The DTO Strategy -Platform for Change provides for specific detailed
        measures, for buses, QBCs, Luas, Metro, park and ride facilities, parking
        policies, demand management measures, etc (for further details see report by
        J. Barnes, S. 3.2.2)




        Local Area Plan Transport Strategy


        The LAP envisages an „airport box‟ (a roughly rectangular shaped area)
        defined by the R132, R108, Collinstown Lane, Forest Little Road and St.
        Margaret‟s road and provides for these to be upgraded to dual carriageway
        standard.


        It also envisages an east-west distributor road from Blanchardstown to
        Baldoyle to form a parallel road to the M50 to be used by traffic that does not
        need to use the M50 or the M1. This too would be upgraded to dual
        carriageway standard.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 189 of 308
        Thirdly, a link is to be provided from the N2 to the airport box and to the
        terminal and cargo facilities on the western campus, and allow access to the
        airport from the west.


        Also required are the upgrading of R108 from Collinstown Lane to the M50
        interchange at Ballymun, additional /improved access from Forest Little Road,
        to eastern and western campus.


        The M50 upgrade (under Transport 21) and the Western by-pass to Swords
        with a future link to the airport box are also cited as related road
        infrastructures.


        In terms of „Public Transport‟ the LAP strategy provides for
                QBC inclusion in all road upgrades as part of the airport box,
                Protection of lands for Metro North and Metro West,
                Provision of a multi-modal transport interchange directly adjacent to
                 the main terminal building,
                Prioritisation of bus links to the dart station at Baldoyle,
                Bus linkages to commercial areas with more than 500m walking
                 distance from Ground Transportation Centre.


        To incentivise public transport for staff and passengers and to provide real
        time information is another but a very important part of the strategy.


        In relation to „car parking‟ the LAP envisages an increase in car parking
        provision in tandem with the growth of airport, but this would be constrained
        by numbers available and staff parking.


        The following are of particular relevance
        C9       To control the        supply of car parking to maximise use of public
                 transport by passengers
        C10      To limit growth of employee car parking to improve public transport
        usage


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 190 of 308
        CD6      The production and implementation of a Mobility Management Plan
        (MMP)


        The LAP envisages that long stay parking would be provided both by the
        DAA and private developers, having regard to the role of public transport.


        The LAP also includes provisions for internal roads. (S.6.2, and figure 6)




        Strategic Transport Assessment


        Dublin Airport was referred to, on several occasions, as being one of the
        biggest origin/destination points in terms of surface access.


        It is located just off the junction of one of the busiest and most important
        national roads in the country (M1 -Dublin/ Belfast corridor-, and M50 orbital
        route around Dublin), and is surrounded by other important roads such as the
        N2 (Dublin-Derry), the Swords Road (R132), and the Naul Road (R108).


        It is also located in an area of other major land use developments including
        some large scale shopping. While served by some buses, presently there is no
        high capacity/ high speed public transport option such as rail or metro serving
        the area.


        It was submitted at the hearing by the planning authority that in their view any
        large development in the area had to consider its impacts on these roads and as
        such the TIA for the proposed development had to involve strategic multi-
        modal modelling, a cordoned local area model, micro simulation modelling
        within the airport campus and individual junction analysis.


        They submitted that the modelling procedure to be employed was agreed with
        the DTO and included revised land use forecasts provided by FCC, a high
        growth scenario and high density developments along the proposed Metro
        North alignment, and the network assumptions of local area model.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 191 of 308
        Year 2012 would be the worst time for transportation impacts because Metro
        North would not yet be in operation and the demand management measures
        from „Transport 21‟ would not be in place.


        The applicants‟ trip generation and trip attraction calculations based on
        passenger and employment forecasts were acceptable to the planning
        authority.




        The methodology used by the applicants included the following:

                Traffic generation forecasts based upon forecast passenger numbers in
                 the departure peak period and number of employees, mode choice
                 forecasts to determine access by car or by public transport based on
                 DTO‟s strategic model, traffic generated by departures and arrivals at
                 the kerbside combined with employee traffic, compared with an actual
                 survey carried out (validation), vehicular traffic forecasts for 2012 and
                 2024 for the „Do Minimum‟ and „Do Something‟ scenarios for the
                 same time periods.

                A strategic transport assessment was undertaken, using the DTO
                 Strategic Model, for the two forecast years. The 2012 assessment was
                 without Metro, while the 2024 scenario included Metro North and
                 West. This strategic modelling exercise took into account land use
                 changes, infrastructural changes, and improvements in public transport.
                 The assumed infrastructure reflected Transport 21, Platform for
                 Change, and Fingal County Council local projects between 2006 and
                 2015.

                A local area model was then developed using the DTO‟s SATURN
                 modelling platform by taking a cordoned area from the DTO‟s
                 strategic model. Trip matrices were developed using the DTO‟s
                 strategic model.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 192 of 308
                A junction impact assessment on 17 junctions (Table 6.20) in the
                 vicinity of the Airport were undertaken using ARCADY+863,
                 PICADY 4.1 and TRANSYT 12 software packages using data arising
                 from the local area model.


        I note the above methodology is, in general, considered by Jerry Barnes to be
        thorough and robust in assessing the traffic impacts of the development, but he
        notes the DTO‟s multi-modal model was not used to assess the likely impacts
        on the public transport systems (i.e. Metro and bus). He also notes that while
        the strategic modelling exercise did not produce outputs on journey time,
        accessibility, or emissions, which would have been desirable to assess
        strategic issues and sustainability, this did not represent a deficiency in terms
        of assessing the likely significant impacts of the proposed development on the
        environment, which will be principally traffic impacts.


        Air traffic forecasts based on constrained and unconstrained scenarios were
        used as the basis of the TIA. The employment forecasts also based on
        constrained and unconstrained scenarios, were stated to be extracted from
        SEA of the LAP (EIS S.6.4.2), which were in turn sourced from the
        Employment and Income Impact Study by York Aviation (2002-2005).


        While I consider this approach to be reasonable in general terms, having
        regard to the passenger forecast figures for 2012 (71,500 for „do minimum‟,
        and 108,500 for „do something‟) and the employment forecast for the same
        date 2012 (13,700 for „do minimum‟ and 14,300 for „do something‟), as
        provided in the EIS (tables 6.9 and 6.11), indicating an increase of only 600
        employees to serve additional 30,000 passengers (and taking cognisance of
        productivity argument), I consider the argument put by one of the appellants
        (an economist) that the employment figures are constantly „under estimated‟ to
        be reasonable. In this module this is particularly important in terms of
        employee traffic generation, and car parking requirements.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 193 of 308
        I will now note some of the conclusions by Jerry Barnes:


                As the DTO has certified that the strategic modelling exercise was
                 undertaken correctly, the principal issue to consider in the assessment
                 of its adequacy is whether the inputs in terms of the assumed
                 transportation infrastructure and the land use assumptions are
                 reasonable (2.2.23)


                While inclusion of phase 1 projects in the strategic transport
                 assessment is reasonable, as many of the phase 2 projects are not
                 funded as part of transport 21, there are issues arising from their use.


                While the evidence presented during the hearing was inconclusive in
                 relation to whether IKEA was specifically factored in, and that this
                 would have implications in terms of junctions analysis for the mid day
                 and PM peak periods, he is satisfied that the sensitivity test undertaken
                 for 2012 did take into account the cumulative transport impacts of both
                 developments. (2.2.27)


                The junction impact assessment is likely to represent the worst case
                 scenario, particularly for the Corballis Road South/ R132 junction
                 (2.2.28)


                The conclusion that cumulative construction impacts in the event that
                 runway and terminal developments are undertaken at the same time
                 would be insignificant, as the runway construction traffic will access
                 the site from the west is reasonable (2.2.30)


                The sensitivity tests carried out constitutes adequate assessment of the
                 proposal under both existing aircraft scheduling profiles and those
                 indicated in the EIS (2.2.35)




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 194 of 308
                The EIS, the additional information submitted to the Board, and the
                 supplementary information provided to the oral haring, in so far as it
                 relates to transportation issues, can reasonably be regarded as
                 complying with Article 94 of the Planning and Development
                 Regulations, 2001 and the provisions of the EIA Directive, as
                 amended. (S.2.4.1)


        I will now look at specific areas.




        Roads and traffic issues


        Strategic Road network capacity

        The strategic network assessment indicated that, in general, the 2012 network
        would cater for higher vehicle demands than those anticipated in 2024, due to
        the introduction of Metro North and West. In the 2012 Do Minimum Scenario
        (i.e. without T2 in place) additional road improvements were considered
        necessary over and above those detailed in Table 6.17a of the EIS.

        These were:

                Replacing the Cloghran Roundabout with an at-grade signalised
                 junction.

                The addition of an auxiliary south bound lane to the north of the M1
                 Airport Interchange.

                Upgrade of the Naul Road/Forest Road junction.


        Specification for the „Airport Box‟ indicated:

                East West Distributor road between the R132 and Harristown to be
                 upgraded to dual two lane standard.

                R108 between the East West Distributor and the M50 Ballymun
                 Interchange to be upgraded to dual two lane standard.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 195 of 308
                East West Distributor from Harristown to Cherryhound Interchange to
                 be improved to two lane single


        The EIS also states:
                 “It should be noted that the introduction of a higher capacity, higher
                 speed road link between the Ballymun Interchange and the Swords
                 Road (i.e. the East-West Distributor) increases the use of this route as
                 an alternative access route to the Airport.”


        As stated earlier, a significant project to the scale of the proposed development
        requires provision of significant transport infrastructure externally. Most of
        these are not within the capacity of the applicants to deliver and would need to
        be provided by State bodies, and /or by the local authority.


        It is however important to ascertain whether the assumptions made in TIA are
        reasonable in terms of the likelihood of their provision in the period relevant.
        As stated in an earlier section, while the assumptions regarding delivery of
        external transport projects for phase I are reasonable, a significant component
        of those projects included in phase II do not have funding under Transport 21.
        It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, in the absence of certainty or
        commitment for provision of the external infrastructure projects, which the
        proposed development would be dependent upon, the proposed Phase II would
        be premature.




        Local road network capacity and impact on the same


        This issue is particularly important for the residents living in the area, who
        maintain that the proposed development would result in serious traffic
        congestion. In particular St. Margaret‟s Concerned Residents drew attention to
        significant, and in their view devastating, effects the road improvement
        proposals or new links would have on their community. (The community
        would be „CPOed‟ again was a phrase used)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 196 of 308
        It was also raised by An Taisce that improvements were dependent on
        conditions imposed by the planning authority on roads /junctions which were
        outside the ownership of the applicants.


        As stated earlier an assessment undertaken by ILTP on behalf of the planning
        authority as part of the LAP, recommended a number of improvements
        including R108 link to M50, and the upgrading of R132.


        Some of the conditions imposed by the planning authority require that some of
        these works are carried by the applicant and that they be in place prior to
        occupation of the terminal.


        During the oral hearing and in response to my question as to whether they
        considered imposition of a „special contribution condition‟ rather than
        requiring the applicant to carry out these works, it was stated by Mr. McGrath
        (planning authority) that it was considered to be easier.


        I note in his report J. Barnes following examination of various roads
        concludes: (5.2.3)
                 “While the assumptions underpinning the subject EIS are considered
                 to be robust, the assessment also needs to be considered in the light of
                 the ILTP Accessibility Study as this underpinned the LAP for the
                 area….It is considered that these link improvements in the road
                 network      are required as a direct result of the T2 development,
                 whereas the other road improvements detailed in transport impact
                 assessment are also required to serve other developments in the
                 vicinity.”


        He also states in (5.2.4)
                 “However, given that the upgrading of these links require detailed
                 design by the roads authority, environmental assessment, statutory
                 consultations and possible CPOs and may well form part of the
                 extended roads programme for the area (such as East-West Distributor
                 road to Malahide Road and Cherryhound Interchange), it is not
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 197 of 308
                 considered appropriate to require the applicant to undertake these
                 works. Neither it is considered appropriate to attach any condition to
                 any permission requiring that these elements be in place prior to
                 occupation of T2. Such an approach would make development of the
                 subject proposal dependent upon other statutory planning procedures.
                 It is incumbent upon the planning authority to initiate the required
                 procedures to support this development of national importance”.


        I concur with this view.


        A number of road improvement schemes in and around the Airport (which
        would be specifically required to serve the requirements of the proposed
        development) are identified by J. Barnes as:

                Upgrade the R132 to 2 lanes + 1 bus lane in each direction between
                 the Airport Roundabout and Collinstown Cross.

                Provision of the East West Distributor to a dual carriageway standard
                 equivalent between the R132 and the R108 junction at Harristown.

                Upgrade the R108 between the M50 Ballymun Interchange and the
                 junction with the South Parallel Road (Collinstown Lane). The precise
                 standard needs to be the subject of further detailed study.



        I note that while the last one is identified in the current Fingal S. 48
        Contribution Scheme as the “R108 Ballymun Interchange to Harristown” road
        scheme, the first two are not covered by it. As such I consider it appropriate to
        attach a Section 48 (2)(c) condition requiring                   payment of a „special
        contribution‟ for the first two road schemes detailed above.



        I also note a special contribution is recommended by J. Barnes for the VMS
        signage on the external road network. I concur with this view.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 198 of 308
        Following discussions at the hearing and assurances by the NRA that the
        contracts for the upgrade of this section of the M50 were about to be signed,
        and that the project is scheduled for completion by 2009, there was a general
        agreement that the condition number 6 of the planning authority which was
        appealed by the first party was no longer necessary.




        Junction impacts


        This is considered in two broad categories. Firstly, the impact on the strategic
        junctions relating to the M1 and M50 and secondly the impact on the other
        junctions in the area. The motorway junctions assessed are the M1/Airport
        interchange (site R), the Airport Roundabout/M1 link (site B), the M1/M50
        interchange (site A) and the M50/Ballymun Road junction (site Q).


        The sensitivity tests undertaken following the Board‟s request for further
        information showed that, without the M50 upgrade, the M1/M50 would be
        severely congested in the AM peak, particularly on the M1 southbound off
        ramp, with saturation level of 215% in the Do Something scenario, though it
        would not be materially different from the Do Minimum scenario (i.e. without
        T2 in place). The sensitivity test indicated that the M50 Ballymun and the
        Airport Roundabout interchanges would operate within capacity, irrespective
        of the upgrade of the M50.


        While some of the „other junctions‟, would operate satisfactorily it is
        concluded by J. Barnes that some of the junction improvements can be carried
        out as they are either in the ownership of the applicant or form part of the
        public part.




        Emergency Access


        I understand the issue of access to the airport in the event of a major incident
        on the M1 or M50 was fully considered during the runway hearing. The
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 199 of 308
        condition imposed by the planning authority in this regard is considered
        appropriate.




        Construction traffic
        There are two main considerations in relation to this issue. The location of the
        construction compound, and traffic generation associated with the same.


        The construction compound is not part of this application, but a condition of
        the planning authority decision requires provision of a remote construction
        compound (condition number 27). I note permission has recently been granted
        by the planning authority (under Ref. Reg. F06A/1949) for a construction
        compound between the M1 and R132. It was confirmed during the hearing
        that this would be a compound for the subject development. I also note during
        the hearing the appeal by the first party against condition number 27 was
        withdrawn.


        In order to reduce the impact on the traffic levels it is proposed by the
        applicants to stagger delivery times and to provide measures to prevent
        queuing. It is also proposed to stagger arrival of the construction employees. I
        consider this acceptable.


        It is not considered by J. Barnes that the construction activity would have any
        adverse impact on the free flow of traffic in the area. Based on the evidence
        before me I concur with this view.




        Public Transport


        Metro
        The principal issues in relation to public transport relate to capacity, alignment
        of both Metro North and Metro West, construction methodology and the


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 200 of 308
        section 49 contribution scheme. I note the transport assessment undertaken as
        part of the EIS assumed adequate Metro capacity to serve the development.


        During the hearing Mr. O‟Connor (RPA) confirmed that Metro North would
        have adequate capacity to serve the development and stated that Metro North
        was principally a commuter route serving north Dublin. Airport related traffic
        would account for approximately 20% of the total patronage.


        I note a preferred alignment for Metro North through the Airport has now been
        selected, (October 2006), and the drawings submitted in response to further
        information request by the Board indicates that it passes under the apron area
        and part of the proposed terminal building itself. While it was indicated in the
        hearing that there would be no implications for foundations a condition
        requiring co-ordination would be appropriate.



        The planning for Metro West lags behind that of Metro North. Current options
        do not include an option directly serving the western campus. A proposed
        station (Metro Park) to the north of the M50 would serve both Metro North
        and Metro West. The Metro West services could also be routed through the
        Airport to Swords.



        The planning authority adopted a section 49 contribution scheme for Metro
        North, subsequent to issuing its decision for the subject application, and as
        such did not include a condition requiring contribution under S. 49 of the
        Planning and Development Act, 2000.



        During the hearing the RPA submitted a comprehensive legal submission (BP-
        03/05/07) outlining the case for applying the said Scheme‟s requirements.



        The Airport is a major beneficiary of Metro North and the subject
        development is, to a large extent, dependent upon its provision. I note there

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 201 of 308
        was no objection to such a condition by the DAA. As the case is being dealt
        with de Novo, I would consider imposition of a condition for contribution
        under S. 49 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 to be appropriate.



        The planning authority has proposed amalgamating conditions 13 and 36
        relating to the reservation of the Metro alignment. The combination of these
        two conditions is considered appropriate.



        Bus provision

        The principal issues relating to bus provision are capacity, mode share,
        responsibility for bus operations and bus priority on the internal and external
        road network.

        Bus capacity is an important consideration, particularly in advance of the
        provision of the Metro. The assessment assumed that there would be
        „unlimited bus capacity‟ to serve the development.

        A full assessment of the bus requirements to serve the development was
        submitted to the hearing (AA-25/04/07), which indicated that the number of
        regional and local (public and private) scheduled bus services would need to
        be doubled to 87 in the AM peak period in 2012, dropping to 75 in 2024 after
        the provision of the Metro. These services would cater for both passengers and
        employees.



        While it was submitted during the hearing that Dublin Bus had plans to
        expand its fleet, and would have an important role to play, it is noted that there
        are other operators who currently              contribute and could also expand to
        contribute to overall capacity. Regardless of who does, it is important that
        measures are put in place to ensure that the service is provided, at the required
        levels.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 202 of 308
        The DTO raised the issue of whether the applicant should play a more active
        role in the provision of bus services to ensure a better mode split in favour of
        public transport, particularly in advance of Metro. In particular, the
        submission by DTO (18/12/2006) states

                  “having regard to its location within metropolitan area… Dublin
                 Airport is well placed to achieve significant growth in public transport
                 mode share for both passengers and employees at the expense of
                 private car… and DAA have a key role to play in influencing this
                 outcome”.


        In relation to „passengers‟ it highlights that “the targets propose that, by 2011,
        in advance of Metro,…there will be a negligible increase in bus mode share”.
        The submission suggests a higher target for bus mode share needs to be set for
        2011.



        While I do agree with the view that to require the applicant to provide a city-
        wide bus service for passengers could be difficult to enforce and could result
        in duplication of other existing services, I am satisfied that at least until the
        Metro becomes operational, it would be appropriate for the airport authority to
        have direct involvement in the provision of bus services (either by providing
        bus services or by arranging for such services to be provided by third parties).
        This would be particularly important during the early morning when many
        employees living in the surrounding area have to access the Airport. I note
        that, while there are employee car parks, with a shuttle service to offices and
        the terminal, this requires access to the Airport in the first instance by car. I
        also note that the DTO anticipated a greater impact on the transport network
        for the AM peak hour than indicated in the EIS.



        As stated earlier the worst-case scenario is likely to happen before the Metro
        opens.

        As I shall discuss in more detail further, I consider that it would be reasonable
        to require the applicant to take a proactive role, particularly in the period prior
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 203 of 308
        to the Metro, to ensure a better modal share of public transport. This would
        help reduce congestion and be in accordance with policies for promoting
        alternative sustainable modes of transport.


        The most critical period in terms of traffic congestion is pre-Metro when the
        terminal facilities would be operating at full capacity and generating high
        levels of traffic. In the absence of Metro, the only form of public transport is
        bus.


        While there will be measures on roads and junctions to facilitate bus
        movements, there is nothing in the proposals to indicate a pro-active approach
        by DAA to improve mode share of public transport. This means that unless a
        service is provided by third parties it would not be available, and if it was
        provided by third parties it would be on routes of their choice. I consider this
        unacceptable having regard to the anticipated congestion.

        In particular, provision of bus services for employees living within the
        catchment area (e.g. Swords, Portmarnock and north Dublin suburbs), would
        be beneficial. Arrangements should also be made to make this service
        available to other businesses operating from Dublin Airport. This matter can
        be addressed in the context of the Mobility Management Plan. In my view
        should commence in advance of the operation of T2. I will discuss this mater
        further under mode share and MMP.



        Bus priority measures within the Airport complex and on the external road
        network were key issues raised by Mr. Kelly (Ryanair) and Mr. O‟Leary
        (Dublin Bus) at the hearing. I note it is considered by J. Barnes that this is
        likely to require further detailed study and assessment, and while he noted that
        there is already dedicated bus lanes along the R132, the issue of whether
        further dedicated bus lanes would be required on other elements of the
        „Airport Box‟ would be matters to be considered at the detailed design stage of
        those elements. Bus priority measures on the external road network to allow




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 204 of 308
        access to the long term car parks, particularly in Harristown, would be
        important in ensuring the effective operation of the Airport.



        While Dublin Bus is seeking more continuous bus priority measures within the
        campus itself, the proposed bus priority measures are considered reasonable
        by J. Barnes, who noted that the situation would need to be kept under review
        to ensure that congestion pinch points for public transport vehicles are
        rectified through remedial measures when required. This can be addressed by
        way of condition.



        Another issue raised by the DTO and Dublin Bus related to transport operators
        in the campus and access to kerbsides. Three options are provided by the first
        party i.e. Kerbside Services, GTC Only, and Kerbside Set Down/GTC Pick up.
        All required bus access roads to be in place for these options.



        The issue of „priority access‟ to kerbside is an important issue as there is
        evidently varying degrees of provision with premium bus services (Aircoach
        and Airlink), car hire shuttle and hotel courtesy buses (premium)
        accommodated at the arrivals kerb, while regional bus services, charter
        coaches, scheduled bus services, long term car park shuttle and hotel courtesy
        (standard) and private coach services are directed to the GTC.

        It is important that these services should have access to the kerbsides based
        upon passenger numbers rather than on any other consideration (e.g. cost of
        the service), to reduce walking distances for the greatest number of
        passengers. I also think priority should be given to those who use only public
        transport from their origin rather than those who use car to access the airport
        in the first place. It is considered that this issue could be addressed by way of
        condition.



        The applicants have indicated that, during the construction of the Metro
        „station box‟ the temporary GTC would be accommodated to the north of the

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 205 of 308
        proposed multi-storey car park. While this may pose problems it is an issue
        that needs to be addressed in the context of the statutory procedures associated
        with the Metro North project.




        Demand Management and Parking


        Mode Share
        Provision, availability and pricing of parking together with availability of
        public transport would help determine the mode share.


        The mode share assumptions of the EIS are based on the 2001 survey, which
        indicates that 24-25% of the passengers, and 17% of the employees accessed
        the airport by public transport. In the „Do Something‟ scenario a similar
        situation is assumed with 25-33% of passengers and 17-19% of employees
        using public transport. AT present and up to 2012 all public transport access
        would be by bus. With the introduction of the Metro the figures are expected
        to rise to 42-46% for the passengers and 38-43% for employees.


        There are however some discrepancies between the EIS and the MMP both for
        passengers and employees, in terms of mode share projections. For example
        employee public transport share for 2020 is only 25% in MMP, while it is 38-
        43% in the EIS. (Passenger mode share prior to Metro is 24% in MMP, and
        25-33% in the EIS)


        I fully agree with the DTO (observation –04/10/2006) that a higher mode
        share for bus should be promoted in advance of Metro. As public transport
        mode share can only be achieved by bus during this period, there will need to
        be a greater emphasis placed on the provision of bus services, particularly for
        those employed at the airport prior to the introduction of Metro.


        Dublin Airport as a major trip generator and one of the greatest transport
        pressure points in the country. If an alternative is not provided people will


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 206 of 308
        have no option but to use their car despite significant increases in cost through
        demand management measures. The resultant congestion would not only be a
        problem of road network capacity but would indirectly also affect operations
        of Dublin Airport through late arrivals by passengers and staff.


        Uniquely, DAA is in a position to effect change either through incentives to
        public transport service providers, or by allowing or denying preferential
        access to the Airport‟s facilities (particularly kerbside facilities). I am satisfied
        that they could use this advantage creatively to improve balance of the modal
        split in favour of public transport.


        During the hearing there was strong reliance by the first party on the survey
        indicating that 70% of the trips had their origins or destinations in the GDA to
        justify expansion of Dublin Airport rather than locating an airport elsewhere.
        In my view the same information, together with up-to-date surveys
        (particularly amongst employees) can be used to extrapolate the areas where
        there are deficiencies in bus services to the airport. DAA can then decide on
        the best way to resolve the problem either by direct provision or through
        persuasion of other service providers. I also note that even after Metro North is
        completed there would be need for public transport in areas not served by the
        Metro.


        Therefore I would recommend a condition requiring that DAA provide
        proposals to the planning authority for written agreement to help achieve a
        35% mode share of public transport both for employees and passengers during
        the pre-Metro period. (In this regard a combined approach may be used, i.e.
        higher share of public transport for those employed at the airport). The modal
        share of public transport should be much higher after completion of Metro.


        The DTO also highlighted concern regarding the projected decline in the mode
        share of taxis (down from 26% in 2005 to 14.4% in 2020), which are more
        sustainable than private car as they carry passengers to and from the Airport. It
        is therefore important that the extent of car parking is curtailed and active


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 207 of 308
        measures are introduced such as car parking charges, to counteract such a
        decline.




        Mobility Management Plan (MMP)


        The policies MM1 and MM4 of the LAP require preparation, monitoring and
        implementation of an MMP for the Airport.


        The Mobility Management Framework Plan (2006), which was submitted as
        part of the planning application, summarises a number of measures and these
        include:

                Signage and information for public transport users

                Employee public transport information

                Setting targets for employee car parking

                Car-sharing schemes

                Encourage facilities for cyclists

                Ensure that each major employer has a mobility management plan

                Proactively seek new and improved public transport services through
                 sharing employee travel pattern information with operators

        This is generally in line with the DTO approach, which recommends an
        approach of published targets, monitoring reports and reviews. But I note that
        the submission from DTO notes that „no commitments‟ to DAA funded public
        transport services for airport employees are included in the MMP.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 208 of 308
        As referred to earlier DTO (18/12/2006) considers that Dublin Airport is well
        placed to achieve significant growth in public transport mode share for both
        passengers and employees at the expense of private car… and DAA have a key
        role to play in influencing this outcome”.



        I note the view that while MMPs can have a significant role in demand
        management of private car use through pricing and the number of parking
        spaces, they can be less successful in the supply side of public transport. I am
        however satisfied that, as stated above, the DAA could play a greater role in
        ensuring increased share of public transport not only through negative demand
        management measures, but also by taking an active role in the supply /
        provision of public transport as an alternative to car transport, because they
        have control of facilities in particular kerbside facilities at the airport.


        A condition requiring the preparation and implementation of the MMP in
        advance of the construction of T2, publishing of a report on progress against
        targets set out in the MMP each year, and a review of the MMP every three
        years to improve targets           as recommended by the DTO, would also be
        necessary.




        Car parking


        The policies of the LAP in relation to car parking are outlined under CP1-
        CP11. Of these the following are of particular relevance:
        CP2      Removal of staff parking from centre of campus
        CP3      Phasing of short and long term passenger parking having regard to
                 improvement of public transport access
        CP4      Changing of location of car-hire facilities
        CP8      To provide short term car parks close to the terminal building
        CP9      To control the supply of car parking at the airport so as to maximise,
                 as far as practicable, the use of public transport and to secure efficient
                 use of land

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 209 of 308
        CP10 To limit the growth of employee parking in order to improve public
                 transport usage


        Car parking charges are established in the MMP. While there are no
        provisions relating to the structure of charges, there are various precedents
        including a condition attached by the Board in the case of IKEA whereby
        charges are used as an instrument to deter car use. A condition along the lines
        of no 11 imposed by the planning authority but expanded to require review on
        a regular basis would be appropriate.


        While the proposed development does not include any proposals for passenger
        parking, a future MSCP (for 1500 spaces) is indicated adjacent to the T2 and
        included in the EIS impact assessment. The condition imposed by the planning
        authority specifies 1750 spaces.


        As stated by J. Barnes there are no specific car parking standards in the LAP
        and there is significant potential for ad hoc incremental and demand led
        provision of public car parking.


        In terms of short term car parking, the EIS indicates 2,970 existing spaces but
        no figure is provided apart from the MSCP. MMP indicates an existing
        demand of 3,018 (2006) and 4,060 for 2016 (at 30.2mmpa), and 4,433 in 2020
        (at 34.2mppa). It is concluded that MSCP would accommodate both Phase I
        and Phase II. I note the recommendation by J. Barnes that if phase II is to be
        refused, the number of short spaces should be reduced to 1000.


        The EIS indicates currently 5,360 spaces for employee parking. While the
        employee numbers are expected to increase from 12,500 in 2006 to 14,300 in
        2012 and 15,500 in 2024, the parking target as indicated in the MMP is 5,540.
        Unless a cap is put on further increase, it is highly likely that there would be
        uncontrolled growth. This would make it imperative to provide an employee
        public transport service in the short term. Therefore I recommend no increase
        in employee parking be allowed. This is in line with the DTO approach.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 210 of 308
        Long term parking also presents problems. The EIS indicates 17,500 spaces of
        which 3,500 are in a privately operated car park off R132. The MMP indicates
        a demand of 19,922 in 2006.


        Peak demand for long term car parking is stated to occur during summer.
        While it was indicated by the planning authority that limiting car parking
        spaces would not have any impact on the modal split, but rather lead to
        frustrations by the public, having regard to the figures indicating a requirement
        for long term spaces of 26,808 spaces for 2016 (at 30.2mppa capacity), and
        29,269 spaces for 2020 (at 34.2mppa capacity), it would be reasonable to
        impose limits.


        During the hearing and following examination of a number of planning
        applications / permissions it became clear that a number of large scale car
        parks though located outside the airport campus serve the airport. While some
        of these are long term car parks catering for holidaying passengers, a
        considerable amount serves those employed at the airport, who then use
        shuttle service to access the airport / terminal.


        Based on the evidence before me it is my considered opinion that unless the
        car parking is restrained, its provision in response to demands by both
        passengers and employees would likely to lead significant increase in car
        based travel and the congestion is likely to outweigh the benefits arising from
        the road improvements in the area carried out at significant public expenditure.


        I also note it is stated by J. Barnes (6.7.1), that “if the maximum quantum of
        parking indicated in the MMP is exceeded this would undermine the very
        assumptions upon which the transport impact assessment in the EIS is based.
        It is therefore considered appropriate to place caps on the amount of long term,
        short term and employee parking. In the event that significant additional
        parking is considered necessary over and above these figures, then a revised
        EIS and associated transport impact assessment would have to be considered
        as part of a new application”. I concur with this view.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 211 of 308
        In view of the above and having regard to the evidence before me the
        following are my findings:


                Dublin Airport is a major trip generator, and one of the one of the
                 greatest transport pressure points in the country


                Generation of additional trips is predominantly a function of „terminal‟
                 capacity and not „runway‟ capacity


                The policies at national and regional level emphasise the need to place
                 public transport at the centre of the airport development strategy


                There is commitment for significant public investment in landside
                 infrastructure serving Dublin Airport through Metro and road
                 improvements


                An uncurtailed increase in car parking availability serving the airport
                 and car based travel would undermine this public investment


                It is appropriate to place caps on the amount of long term, short term
                 and employee parking serving the airport


                Any expansion of the airport and the associated increases in the
                 demand for landside access would need to be provided for in a manner
                 which seeks to maximise usage of modes other than the private car


                In particular there is need for a significant increase of „bus mode‟ share
                 in the period prior to operation of the Metro, as increased demand for
                 access as a result of the proposed T2 if provided for mainly through the
                 private car would have a significant adverse impact on the road
                 network capacity




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 212 of 308
                It would be appropriate for DAA to take a proactive role in achieving
                 increased public transport mode share for both passengers and
                 employees. This would need to be done in addition to demand
                 management measures


                A significant component of assumptions regarding the delivery of
                 external transport projects included in Phase II do not have funding
                 under Transport 21. As such and in the absence of certainty or
                 commitment for provision of external infrastructure projects which the
                 proposed development would be dependent upon, the proposed Phase
                 II would be premature.




        Drainage


        The main issues in this section are related to flooding and contamination of
        nearby streams, which drain into Baldoyle Estuary, a designated European
        Site.


        It is submitted by the appellants (Teresa Kavanagh and Ms. O‟Brien), that by
        creating another large concreted area at the airport, the DAA would further
        restrict the amount of soakage available for surface water and put further and
        excessive strain on the small streams.


        They maintained that the ditches around the airport are unable to cope with the
        existing runoff from the airport and frequently flood the adjacent roads and
        fields. During the hearing they provided a number of slides showing flooded
        roads in these areas.


        They submitted that the attenuation measures in the Eastlands car park and SR
        Technic site were not working and were causing regular flooding. They
        maintained that Dublin Airport did not comply with the requirements of the
        Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 213 of 308
        They drew attention to cumulative impacts of a number of developments
        taking place in the airport lands, while measures introduced by the applicants
        seem only to relate the to site of specific applications. They further submitted
        that the EIS was inadequate as the interaction between human beings and
        surface water has not been examined.


        They also maintained there were no pollution control requirements with regard
        to the surface water system, which drained into streams discharging into
        Baldoyle estuary, SAC and SPA.


        Pollution of some of the streams was also raised as an issue, in the submission
        by the Eastern Region Fisheries Board to the planning authority during the
        application (as discussed in the module on natural heritage) in the context of
        maintaining the salmonid quality of the water in the Sluice Stream. This
        stream is also stated to be a habitat for otters (Annex IV species)




        There are several river catchments which drain the lands within the LAP
        boundaries. Of these the most relevant are:


                Forest Little Stream / Wad Stream / Kealy‟s Stream all tributaries of
                 the Sluice River which discharges into the sea at Portmarnock through
                 Baldoyle estuary


                Ward River which discharges into Broadmeadow Estuary in Swords,


                Mayne River /Cuckoo Stream which discharges to Portmarnock
                 /Baldoyle estuary


        The LAP refers to EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which requires
        achievement of „good ecological status‟ for surface waters by 2015. It draws
        attention to the key tenet of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 214 of 308
        Policy document which states that the requirements of the WFD can not be
        met unless sustainable drainage systems and continued improvements are
        implemented, and policies UTP18 and UTP19 of the County Development
        Plan are adhered to.


        In particular it states that the lands downstream of subject lands should be
        protected from flooding for a design event of once in every 100 years.


        The LAP also states


               “The development has impacted and will impact on both the quality and
               quantity of the surface water runoff in these catchments. De-icing /anti-
               icing of aircraft, runways, and taxiways associated with existing
               developments has been identified as a significant source of water quality
               impact. The development of the airport has given rise to an increased
               rate of surface water runoff with consequent increase in the frequency of
               flooding. The use of de/icing chemicals on aircraft will be carried out in
               controlled areas.“


        The LAP has a number of surface water objectives (SW1-SW11), some of
        which are specific objectives to comply with the polices UTP18 and UTP19
        (related to surface water quality) of the County Development Plan. The
        following are of particular relevance to the case


        SW2      to intercept and collect, for separate treatment and disposal, runoff
                 contaminated with de-icing chemicals in a manner compatible with
                 achieving and maintaining „salmonid‟ water quality in the receiving
                 waters


        SW4      to develop and implement a stormwater management system following
                 principle of sustainable urban drainage and compliance with the
                 recommendations of the GDSDS in respect of new development and re-
                 development of „brownfield‟ sites, to interalia attenuate runoff to pre-
                 development green field rates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 215 of 308
        SW5      to implement in respect of existing developments where practicable,
                 recommendations arising from the flood impact assessment under
                 Objective WDO34 of the County Development Plan within the lifetime
                 of this Masterplan


        The other objectives relate to the study of foul drainage misconnections and
        improvements, pollution prevention from oil and fuel storage, a pollution
        contingency plan, and submission of a sediment and water pollution control
        plan prior to commencement of all development in compliance with the
        County Development Plan Objective WDO36.


        Section12.2 of the EIS relates to existing and proposed surface water drainage
        systems, including water quality issues and assessment of potential impacts of
        the proposed development.


        It states that, while surface water drainage and water quality issues for T2 and
        pier E contributed to the overall drainage strategy for the airport campus being
        developed in conjunction with FCC in accordance with LAP, as part of the T2
        application FCC had requested that localised attenuation facilities be provided
        for the T2 building and associated airside and landside works, including
        upgrading of the road network.


        It further states that in addressing the surface water drainage and attenuation
        issues for the airport campus, DAA had commissioned a separate study to
        review the current airside drainage and pollution control strategy at Dublin
        Airport and to advise on the long term remedial strategy resulting from airside
        developments.


        The Dublin Airport Drainage Strategy Report released in March 2006, and
        reissued in Aug 2006 is stated to have provided detailed plans of a global
        drainage and attenuation scheme in terms of volume and quality for the airside
        facilities of the airport campus with particular focus on the Cuckoo Stream
        catchment. This report stipulated provision of attenuation and water quality
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 216 of 308
        measures to deal with runoff generated for the Cuckoo Stream catchment,
        Kealy‟s Stream catchment and other campus catchments.


        It is stated that the design of surface water drainage systems and attenuation
        for the T2 proposal considered only the Cuckoo stream catchment drainage
        that is encompassed within the proposed area of development, and would form
        an integral part of the overall airport drainage strategy.


        During the hearing the lead consultant engineer for the project said the surface
        water drainage was designed to comply with all the requirements of the LAP
        and GDSDS to protect from flooding 1 in a 100 year storm event. There was
        also a requirement by DAA to mitigate against bird strikes from birds attracted
        to ponds, which imposed higher standards.


        He described the specific measures for collection and attenuation of surface
        water from the buildings, access roads, and hard standing areas to provide
        attenuation at green field discharge rates.


        The scheme drained to two different catchments, Cuckoo Stream and Kealy‟s
        Stream. The former primarily collected runoff from airside areas, while the
        latter collected landside runoff.


        At the request of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board some areas previously
        included in the Kealy‟s Stream catchment have been moved to the Cuckoo
        Stream catchment.


        The pollution control of surface water runoff was addressed in two parts. On
        the airside the runoff would be intercepted on apron slabs through a network
        of drainage channels. An online monitoring within a downstream manhole
        would be provided to detect presence of contaminants, including de-icing
        agents, when a shut off valve would divert contaminated water to a separate
        holding tank, which would then be pumped to the foul sewer system.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 217 of 308
        He also outlined the details of hydrocarbon interceptors in the roads and
        parking areas.


        The area covered by the scheme was the area outlined in red and thus
        comprised site specific to the proposed development. This included the site for
        T2, pier E, the GTC and access roads.


        The adequacy of such a restricted site area was strongly contested by the
        appellants who maintained that the surface water drainage issues had to be
        resolved for the airport as a whole.


        They maintained Cuckoo Stream (highly polluted) receives the discharge from
        the airport (including leaks from toilet tanks of planes while being emptied,
        from car parks, and de-icing chemicals). They argued the estuary received all
        of the waters from the airport, while DAA tended to treat only the water from
        sewerage pipes.


        In particular they submitted that the proposed development would lead to
        aircraft parking and servicing not just around Pier E, but also around other
        piers in particular Pier B.


        Indeed section 12.4.2 of the EIS states,


                 Overall Cuckoo Stream may be considered „class D‟ or a heavily
                 polluted stream, given the fluctuating water quality characteristics. The
                 fluctuation in water quality is likely due to pollution discharges
                 upstream of the airport boundary and on-site operations on the south
                 Apron and adjacent areas of the airport.


        The on-site operations outlined in S. 12.4.3 include
                 De-icing of aircraft, aprons, taxiways and runways
                 Turn around of aircraft including aircraft re-fuelling, waste handling,
                  and on-stand maintenance


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 218 of 308
                Other ground support and facility management activities both airside
                 and landside including oil and fuel spillages, leaking of badly
                 maintained vehicles, vehicle washing, „un-bunded‟ containers and
                 barrels, chemical spillage from stored chemicals


        Therefore, while the LAP requires attenuation measures to „Greenfield status‟
        and pollution control through planning permissions, as this only covers the
        areas where an application for permission has been made and not areas already
        developed, it seems reasonable that appropriate level of surface water drainage
        and attenuation measures in particular pollution control measures, are
        provided at all apron and aircraft stand facilities.


        Indeed it was clearly indicated during the hearing that 48% of the passengers
        processed at T2 would be directed to Pier B. In fact all of the airside facilities
        would be shared by T1 and T2.


        Based on the information before me, firstly I consider drainage and pollution
        controls within the area outlined in red to be satisfactory.


        Secondly, and having regard to the fact that a large portion of the passengers
        processed at T2 would be using Pier B and possibly other piers, (and /or
        remote stands) and that the airside ground operations servicing these
        passengers (such as aircraft cleaning, fuelling, and most importantly de-icing)
        would take place in the apron areas (and/or remote stands), I am of the opinion
        that the surface water drainage and pollution control measures need to extend
        to the apron areas beyond the immediate area of Pier E / Terminal 2 to include
        apron areas around pier B, and pier A, and to areas where remote stands are
        located.
        g
        I note it was explained in the hearing that the airfield where the runways are
        located, drained into a different catchment (i.e. not Cuckoo Stream).


        Having regard to the uncertainty regarding time frame for the implementation
        of the drainage scheme for the airport as a whole, and the apparent problems
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 219 of 308
        associated with contamination of streams draining into the European Site, it is
        my considered opinion that confinement of drainage and pollution control
        measures to that outlined in red is not appropriate. Accordingly I recommend a
        condition requiring drainage and contamination prevention measures for all
        apron areas and all surfaced areas serving remote stands.


        This, in my view would be in line with the requirements of the County
        Development Plan and LAP, in particular SW2 and SW4, and GDSDS.


        It would also be necessary to protect the „salmonid‟ quality of the Sluice
        Stream / Cuckoo river, to protect its quality as a habitat for otter and habitat
        quality of the designated European Site at Baldoyle Estuary which receives the
        streams.


        Accordingly, I recommend a condition be imposed to extend surface water
        drainage and water pollution measures to the aprons around Piers A and B and
        to areas where remote stands and cargo planes are located.


        In relation to flooding at SR Technics site, Mr. Cochlan for the DAA
        explained that a new attenuation scheme (on foot of a permission) had started
        in Eastlands in December 2006, to be completed in June 2007. It provided for
        a 14000m3 attenuation tank constructed in the Eastlands car park, which would
        cater for all surface water into Kealy‟s stream catchment plus a portion of the
        catchment to Wad‟s stream, and would deal with the issues related to SR
        Technic‟s hangar car park. I consider this acceptable.


        I consider flooding and water quality issues in the areas outside the eastern
        campus, in particular in the runways, to be outside the scope of this appeal.


        Another area where surface water runoff and possible contamination can be a
        problem is related to the construction activities at the construction site and the
        construction compound. The planning authority stated they were satisfied that
        by following the best practices outlined in the Construction Industry Research
        and Information Association Guidance (CIRIA), the risk of water pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 220 of 308
        would be minimised throughout the construction works. There is no evidence
        before me to contradict this view.


        They also suggested a revised wording to Condition No 21 in relation to
        surface water and ground water, and amalgamation of conditions 22 and 23 for
        ground water /soil.


        There was strong argument by one of third party appellants (Mr. Sweetman on
        behalf of Teresa Kavanagh) that such conditions, particularly in relation to
        ground water were not acceptable and should have been included in the EIS. I
        consider this reasonable.


        During the hearing the site was described as being highly impermeable, as a
        result of 10-20m thick highly impermeable boulder clay protecting the aquifer
        (10-9). It was stated that initial investigations regarding to possible impact on
        groundwater was carried out (when the thickness of the boulder clay was
        ascertained) but it was concluded that it would not be significant.


        Following lengthy discussions during the hearing and evidence presented, I do
        accept the argument by the first party that there would be significant
        protection of the ground water from pollution by any polluted surface water.
        Therefore the condition suggested by the planning authority would only be
        precautionary, rather than requiring completion of an inadequate EIS.




        I do have some concerns regarding the size of the holding tank for
        contaminated surface water, or the number of monitoring points (one). In
        particular there seems to be no measures proposed in case of possible mal
        function of the proposed on-line monitoring system.


        In my view a condition requiring monthly sampling at the point of discharge
        of the surface water drainage network to the Cuckoo Stream, would be
        appropriate. The sampling results should be forwarded to the planning


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 221 of 308
        authority on a monthly basis and also published on the DAA website, together
        with other environmental monitoring results.


        I do however consider imposition of conditions requiring submission of
        detailed designs of interceptors for pollutants and monitoring systems prior to
        commencement of the development to be acceptable as these would need to be
        at Best Available Technology (BAT) standard as outlined in the planning
        authority condition.




        There was concern on the part of the third parties that conditions imposed in
        the case of other developments were not complied with by the applicant and
        that in some cases commencement notices were provided, though planning
        authority records showed no records of compliance with required submissions.
        Enforcement of conditions is a matter for the planning authority. At the
        hearing it was confirmed by the planning authority that there were no
        enforcement in relation to any of the 13 or so permissions referred to earlier in
        the hearing.




        I consider the concerns of the third parties in relation to cumulative impacts
        arising from a series of individual developments to be reasonable. However,
        having regard to the rather prescriptive requirements of the LAP in relation to
        surface water drainage and water quality, the over arching requirements of
        GDSDS and the global attenuation proposals stated to be envisaged in the
        Dublin Airport Strategic Drainage Study, I am satisfied that the surface water
        drainage at the airport would be addressed as a whole, sometime in the future.


        I also note that in implementing the requirements of the Water Framework
        Directive 2000/60/EC and SR 722 of European Communities (Water Policy)
        Regulations 2003-2005, the planning authority would need to ensure
        achievement of „good status‟ in all waters by 2015.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 222 of 308
        I consider the EIS to be adequate in terms of methodology, description of the
        existing environment and identification of likely significant direct and indirect
        impacts and mitigation measures.


        As stated earlier, I consider it necessary that the measures suggested for the
        site should also apply to the rest of the apron area, particularly in the vicinity
        of Pier B.


        I am satisfied that while there has been serious flooding and water quality
        issues associated with the airport development as a whole, having regard to the
        provisions of the GDSDS, CDP, and the LAP and in particular the
        requirements of the Water Framework Directive, I am satisfied that the
        proposed development would not lead to further deterioration of the receiving
        environment, but rather, in compliance with the conditions recommended
        would lead to an improvement of the existing situation to bring it to acceptable
        levels.


        Finally, condition number 17 of the planning authority requires completion of
        extension of the 900mm diameter branch foul sewer to Collinstown Cross. It
        does not specifically require carrying out of the works by the applicants.
        During the hearing it was confirmed by the planning authority that they had
        undertaken to extend the 900mm sewer to Collinstown Cross by 2009, and
        there would be adequate capacity in the foul sewer to cater for the proposed
        development. They were satisfied condition numbers 17,19 and 20 addressed
        the foul sewer issue.


        As the linkage referred to in condition number 17 does not seem to be
        specifically referred to in the Development Contribution Scheme for Fingal
        County Council, I consider that the imposition of a special contribution
        condition under S. 48(c) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, would
        be appropriate.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 223 of 308
        Natural Heritage/Ecology


        The main areas of concern are possible presence of bats, the pollution of
        Sluice River (a salmonid river and possible habitat for otters) and the impact
        on Baldoyle Estuary, a European site into which the river discharges.


        The appeal site is located in an urban and highly artificial environment, and as
        such does not offer an environment conducive for rare species to thrive.
        Therefore, with the exception of some bat species, which I understand could
        be present in the airfield, it does not seem to contain any protected species or
        provide habitat for any other than common species.


        It is stated in the EIS that while relatively mature trees and crevices in the
        walls of the multi storey car parks have some potential for roosting bats, these
        areas are considered to be too highly illuminated at night-time to provide a
        hospitable environment for bats.


        During the survey carried out by a bat specialist, on one occasion a bat was
        detected but not sighted. Leisler‟s bat is stated to be widespread, but it is listed
        in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive.


        Condition number 30 of the planning authority required monitoring by a bat
        specialist during the carrying out of works. This was unacceptable to Mr.
        Sweetman , who argued that permission could not be granted without
        ascertaining if bats would be effected.


        Having regard to the extent of the site where the proposed terminal and Pier E
        would be located, and the existing use of the site area thus delineated (car
        park, roads, a number of modern structures and Corballis House), I consider,
        (with the exception of possible roosting sites around Corballis House), the
        evidence put forward by the first party that the environment is not a suitable
        habitat for bats to be plausible.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 224 of 308
        As a survey has already been carried out the condition number 30 is
        precautionary rather than requiring a process of ascertaining presence of bats
        on the site. I do not consider the condition to be in conflict with Article 6(3) of
        the Habitats Directive.




        The main consideration of the third parties in terms of natural heritage was
        related to indirect effects on the nearby Baldoyle Estuary, (SAC and SPA),
        and the Sluice river which is a salmonid river and a habitat for otters (Annex
        IV species). The impact on these would arise from pollution of the streams
        from contaminated surface water discharge from the airport.


        Indeed during the course of the application the planning authority received a
        submission from Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, which drew attention to
        the issue of contamination from surface water discharge and requested that the
        ecological integrity of the Sluice Stream and all surface should be
        safeguarded.


        They required comprehensive surface water management measures to be
        implemented at the construction and operational stages, and suggested
        particular measures for phasing out of de-icing and controls to be put in place
        to prevent entry of de-icing material into the surface water system.


        The issue of surface water attenuation (examined in drainage section in more
        detail) is also important in terms of protection of natural heritage as
        contaminated surface water easily finds its way into the network of streams
        around the airport box. These streams drain into the Sluice Stream (salmonid
        river and habitat for otter), which in turn discharges into Baldoyle Estuary
        (SAC and SPA).


        The area is part of the Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme and it was accepted
        that the planning authority imposed conditions for attenuation of surface water
        as applications came on stream.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 225 of 308
        The concern of the third party appellants was, that in the case of Dublin
        Airport the planning authority only applied such conditions for new
        developments, while contamination occurred mainly in the existing apron
        areas where de-icing, fuelling, and toilet servicing of aircrafts took place.
        These were outside the application areas. They argued for a comprehensive
        approach at the airport.


        The EIS, while comprehensive in terms of direct effect arising from the
        proposed development at the appeal site, is deficient in terms of indirect
        effects on sites outside the site boundaries. While there is reference to the
        „moderately to seriously polluted‟ state of the water courses of the streams into
        which the area drains, the EIS concludes that the site has no significant value
        for nature conservation and therefore the direct ecological impact of the
        proposed development on the site would not be significant. It does not
        examine indirect effects on the nearby European Site except to refer to the
        distance to Baldoyle Estuary at 2.5km.


        The issues were highlighted and discussed during the hearing at great length. I
        also note both sessions (surface water and natural heritage) were attended by
        Dr. Morris Eakin of NPWS (DoEH&LG).


        As referred to earlier the measures for prevention of contamination of surface
        water were also discussed at great length during the drainage and flooding
        module above. In particular I refer to my recommendation for extension of
        drainage and pollution control measures to aprons around all piers and remote
        stands.


        I am satisfied that these measures would provide a significant improvement to
        the existing level of contamination arising.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 226 of 308
        Noise


        The main reason for appeal by a number of the appellants is stated to be the
        issue of noise, in particular noise associated with aircraft activity during night
        time. I refer the Board to the relevant module of the hearing.


        The EIS and the evidence presented in the hearing considered noise in two
        distinctly separate areas. Airside noise from increased aircraft movements,
        and landside noise from construction activities and traffic.


        The study of airside noise looked at noise from increase in aircraft movements
        directly attributable to the new terminal. The study used an internationally
        recognised noise modelling program. Using the growth forecast supplied by
        the DAA, and the format of „Do Minimum‟ and „Do Something‟ scenarios as
        in other sections of the EIS, the study team concluded that, overall, there was
        very little variation between scenarios, and that the development of T2 would
        have no significant impact on the day time or night time noise environment
        around the airport, in terms of noise from aircraft in flight.


        The potential noise and vibration from landside activities would arise from
        construction activities and traffic. The noise from construction activities would
        have limited impact due to distance from residential areas, while the increase
        of 3decibels in peak hour noise arising from traffic the vicinity of the roads
        would be imperceptible.


        The communities most affected are the residents of Portmarnock and St.
        Margarets. The first group are mainly affected by the noise of aircraft during
        take-off, while the second group by the noise of landing aircraft. I understand
        because of extra energy requirements aircraft would be noisier during take-off.


        The main argument put forward by the appellants was that, as the proposed T2
        would enable processing of passengers in the region of 30-35mppa this would
        represent a doubling of the passenger numbers currently processed (22mppa).
        As such, they argued there would be a reciprocal increase in the number of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 227 of 308
        flights including night flights. The „acoustic‟ consultant acting for
        Portmarnock Community Association calculated that extra 30 flights would
        arise.


        They also argued that the two scenarios provided in the EIS („do nothing‟, „do
        something‟) were not realistic, and that the argument that the runway could be
        built without the terminal was not credible. They did not accept that there
        would be only 2% and 7% increase in aircraft activity as a result of T2 (figures
        provided in the EIS).


        Residents of the effected communities referred to incremental increase in
        noise levels until the pain threshold. They questioned the methodology of
        estimating noise levels based on models without verifying the results against
        local measurements. Their acoustic consultant wanted measurements on single
        events (most disturbing) rather than averaging over an 8-hour time frame.
        Using DAA data they referred to increases in aircraft activity from 45 in 2005
        to 59 in 2007. They asked that the WHO and Noise Directive (2002/49/EC)
        limits be imposed as conditions.


        The explanation given by the first party noise consultant (Mr. Sharp) was that
        the appropriate way to calculate an increase in the number of aircraft
        movements was through growth factors. The growth factors were what
        determined aircraft movements in the future, and as such it was all that was
        needed to determine the impact of noise from aircraft in flight. From the noise
        point of view whether the number of passengers were 5 or 35mppa was not
        important.


        He maintained that, with only one runway, there would be no net effect in
        terms of noise impact from the proposed terminal and pier. With two runways,
        the terminal and pier would result in a small increase in aircraft activity
        (relative to that associated with only one terminal), estimated to be 2% in 2012
        and 7% in 2024. These percentage increases in aircraft movements would
        result in less than a 0.4 db increase in day-time and night-time noise levels.
        The conclusion was that the increase in noise levels associated with the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 228 of 308
        proposed terminal would not be significant, in terms of noise impact on the
        community.


        (I should note that it was also stated by the consultant that they had accepted
        during the runway hearing that there would be a significant impact in terms of
        noise from aircraft activity as a result of the second runway.)


        The growth assumptions were provided by Dr. Coveney using 2003 as the
        baseline for the runway and 2005 as the baseline for the terminal. As such they
        were different in terms of the baseline figure, GDP elasticity and impact of
        decrease in domestic flights. As these were used to calculate noise contours,
        the noise contours for the terminal were narrower than the runway.


        During the hearing it was further explained that the number of passengers at
        the airport would increase regardless of the terminal capacity. In the case of
        T1 such increase in recent years had led to spreading of the peak into „troughs‟
        and more importantly lowering of the level of service.


        The noise consultant for the first party maintained that the WHO figures were
        guideline values (not limits) below which effects (such as sleep disturbance)
        can be assumed to be negligible. Because these values were so low they would
        already be exceeded in many properties. Within Dublin area 50 dBA max
        could not operate as it would be exceeded by a car passing, or a bird singing
        etc. They stressed that the conditions suggested by the third parties were not
        enforceable.


        The planning authority had considered the EIS together with mitigation
        measures, to be adequate. The report of their noise consultant had said there
        would be no significant increase in noise levels. (The third parties noted that
        the report also recommended a condition for the reduction of noise levels).
        There were no legislative noise limits. The only requirement was for data
        gathering for noise mapping. They confirmed planning authority had not
        carried out surveys to establish baseline noise levels.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 229 of 308
        I do accept the argument that the passenger numbers would grow (or decline)
        as a result of the growth of the economy and regardless of the presence of a
        second terminal.


        If the proposed northern parallel runway is not permitted the aircraft
        movements would be limited by the capacity of the existing runway (though I
        note it was stressed that it could go up by ten million as a result of increases in
        aircraft size). As T1 and T2 (upon completion of the first phase) would
        process approximately 29mppa, this would equate to roughly the capacity
        provided by the existing runway(s).


        If the second runway is permitted, then the aircraft activity would continue to
        increase without any constraint, to the capacity of the new runway. As the
        noise assessment by the first party is based on this unconstrained scenario (i.e.
        grow to the capacity provided by both runways) I consider the methodology
        adopted in the examination of impacts to be reasonable in general terms.


        I am satisfied that while there will be some reduction in noise levels through
        technology and through elimination or phasing out of some noisier aircraft
        types, this would be counter balanced by the increase in aircraft movements as
        a result of forecasted growth. Thus the impact will not be positive as suggested
        by the first party.


        I was assured during the hearing that increase in aircraft size did not lead to
        increased noise levels. Therefore the increased ability afforded by Pier E to
        accommodate larger aircraft types would not lead to increased noise levels by
        itself.


        Regarding the concerns of the community in relation to an incremental
        increase of the noise levels, (to the pain threshold), I accept the explanation by
        the first party consultant that as the figures presented were the ultimate (worst-
        case) levels, this would not be so.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 230 of 308
        During the hearing there were detailed discussions regarding the methodology
        for deriving the noise contours, whether 92 day period was appropriate,
        whether use of certified measured figures was appropriate standard, and why
        use of leq giving total energy was better than Lamax. While I consider the
        explanations provided by the first party consultant to be generally plausible, as
        this is a specialist area, I defer to the opinion of the noise consultant for the
        runway appeal.


        One area I would like to bring to the attention of the Board is the request by
        the residents of the effected communities that the Board impose conditions
        restricting flights over Portmarnock, and in particular, impose curfew on night
        flights (2300-0700 hours). They referred to such bans in Belfast or Cork
        airports.


        This was strongly opposed by the first party counsel, on grounds that one
        could not be deprived of existing rights. They also argued such a condition
        would be impossible to implement and would not meet the requirements that a
        condition must be clear, reasonable, and enforceable.


        They maintained that as the flight paths were determined by the Aviation
        Authority and not by DAA, they could not have any effect in this regard. As a
        matter of law total ban of flights over Portmarnock was just not possible. They
        argued ”you could not restrict aircraft movements within an area which is
        determined under the International Civil Aviation Act, 1992” and that such a
        condition would mean the airport could not operate.


        I also note the argument by Mr. Sweetman that there is case law where
        restrictions can be imposed on an existing use due to „intensification‟.


        I note the Noise Directive was transposed into Irish Law by way of
        Environmental Noise Regulations, 2006, which came into effect on
        03/04/2006. Its provisions would apply. These require preparation of „strategic
        noise maps‟ in major installations. Dublin Airport is stated to be in the process
        of preparing one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 231 of 308
        This issue is clearly a matter of serious concern to the local communities who
        have attended the very long hearing to express their plight. They have repeated
        many times that while they do not object to the existence of the airport, the
        quality of their life was seriously affected by disturbance due to the airport
        operations, particularly at night time through sleep disturbance as a result of
        increased aircraft activity. In their view further expansion of the airport would
        lower their quality of life even further. I consider these arguments to be
        reasonable.


        As stated under other issues, while I consider the additional aircraft
        movements predicted by the first party at 2% (2013) and 7% (2020) associated
        with terminal capacity to be somewhat conservative, I accept, as stated earlier
        that growth in aircraft activity (based on economic factors) rather than
        passenger processing ability would be a better indication of the worst case
        scenario. I also accept that the increase in aircraft activity would be mainly a
        function of runway capacity and the increase in noise levels as a result of
        increased passenger processing capacity would not be significantly over and
        above the levels that would otherwise occur.


        I also note that it is possible that the increased processing capacity afforded by
        the new terminal, may prevent further movement of aircraft activity to troughs
        outside the peak hours, in particular to night-time / early morning slots. (As
        stated in an earlier section, currently only 70% of the short haul operations are
        allowed in the morning peak hour due to terminal capacity constraint).


        In my view the imposition of conditions restricting increased aircraft activity
        as a result of the terminal and pier development would be difficult to
        implement. (How does one impose a curfew on 7% of aircraft activity, or
        identify aircraft movements associated with terminal facilities?). In this regard
        I accept the argument by the first party counsel that a condition must be clear
        and enforceable.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 232 of 308
        I would like to bring to the attention of the Board that those living in
        Portmarnock noted reduced disturbance when take-off routes were slightly
        changed in a northerly direction.


        Determination of flight paths and take-off routes would be a matter for the
        Aviation Authority and outside the remit of this appeal. I note however,
        Sustainable Development: Strategy for Ireland (1997) states that aircraft noise
        poses particular problems in the immediate vicinity of airports and highlights a
        number of initiatives to address the issues such as noise certification,
        limitation, monitoring and greater attention to operational matters such as
        take-off routes.


        On landside the construction noise would be confined to the construction site
        and to the construction compound located near the M1. It was suggested by
        the first party, and agreed by the third parties, that the condition no 31
        imposed by the planning authority was not appropriate in this case, as it was a
        standard noise condition applicable to development in residential areas and
        that there was no reason why construction activity could not go on until
        midnight. Having regard to the unique location of the appeal site within an
        area of continuous activity, I concur with this view. I also consider that, in
        exceptional circumstances such as times of continuous concrete pouring, it
        would be acceptable to extend these hours, subject to prior agreement of a
        programme of works with the planning authority.


        In relation to landside noise, the EIS has a limited approach to traffic noise,
        and attributes roadside noise mainly to external traffic. As discussed in the
        transport module there will be a significant increase in traffic levels as a result
        of increased terminal capacity. In this regard I refer to my recommendations
        on conditions restricting car based transport and requiring higher modal share
        of public transport.


        I consider the issue of noise associated with development of aprons near St.
        Margaret‟s to be outside the scope of this module.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 233 of 308
        Air quality and Emissions


        This was another issue of serious concern to the communities living in the
        area, and this issue generated lengthy discussions during the hearing. I refer
        the Board to the relevant module of the hearing.


        The EIS examines the likely significant impact of the proposed development
        on local air quality in two stages, namely the construction and operation of T2.


        At the construction stage emissions would result in short term impact from
        dust and particles during site preparation and construction of the terminal
        superstructure, Pier E, approach roads and the haulage of materials


        The impacts during the operational phase would be associated with road traffic
        and aircraft movements. The EIS states that during the operational period there
        would be airside emissions from additional aircraft activity associated with the
        additional stands provided by Pier E, and changes in traffic flows on roads
        within the locality of the airport arising from the expected increase in
        passenger throughput at Dublin Airport.


        The methodology employed compared the data on air quality in the locality of
        Dublin Airport (collected by surveys carried out on behalf of DAA), with
        NAQS (National Air Quality Standards) to see if the standards were exceeded
        significantly.


        Secondly, to predict the impact for the future a „dispersion modelling‟ exercise
        was carried out based on „do nothing‟ and „do something‟ scenarios for the
        years 2013 and 2024, based on aircraft movement figures provided by DAA,
        for the airside and based on peak morning traffic flows in the vicinity of the
        airport and on short term car parking figures.                The impacts arising from
        construction activities were also examined.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 234 of 308
        It is stated that there is an existing air quality monitoring programme
        independently carried out for the DAA (initially by RPS, then by Bord Na
        Mona ) at 11 locations, to survey emissions on Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulphur
        Dioxide, benzene, carbon monoxide, and particulates PM10 since 2002.


        The monitoring network included a number of locations in the locality of the
        airport such as Forest Little and St.Margarets as well as further afield at
        Kinsealy, Swords and Portmarnock.


        The survey was extended to 13 locations in 2006, and was also extended to
        include ozone measurements and PM25 at certain locations near the airport.


        The results for 2005 and 2006 showed that the emissions did not exceed the
        levels set in NAQS (National Air Quality Standards) as provided in statutory
        instrument 271 of 2002.


        The emissions data from aircraft for the dispersion model were derived from
        LTO (Landing and take-off cycle) using different aircraft and engine
        categories with estimates of times for LTO. The number type and category of
        aircraft using runways was supplied by DAA (a total of 28 aircraft categories
        ranging from the large Airbus 340 and Boeing 767 to medium and small jets
        and turboprops).


        Road traffic emissions for the M50 and M1 were derived from traffic
        prediction models developed for the project (projected mean peak morning
        number of cars, commercial vehicles and speeds for 2012 and 2024 scenarios).
        Emissions were also derived from ground support vehicles operating near the
        terminal, the boiler plant complex and the planned CHP for T2.


        The miscellaneous emissions from sources around the terminal from airside
        traffic, public transport travelling between car parks and the terminal building
        and aircraft maintenance operations were derived from the annual fuel
        consumption estimates for 2005 supplied by DAA.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 235 of 308
        They referred to the three car parks serving the airport, namely short term car
        park at the airport, and two long-term carparks at Harristown (used as over-
        flow car park during summer) and the Eastlands car park between the Swords
        Road and the M1. As the turnover rates in the long term car parks were 50-100
        vehicles per hour during peak hours, the emissions from these compared to
        road traffic would be negligible.


        The emissions from the short term car park would be significantly higher
        (particularly at the end of the day, starting with a cold engine). The study also
        took into account the impact from the future MSCP with 1500 spaces. No
        significant impact beyond the terminal complex was expected from the short
        term car parks.


        In terms of traffic movements, the model took the predictions made by traffic
        section.


        The study concluded that there was no significant difference between the
        ground level concentrations for „do nothing‟ and „do something‟ scenarios for
        T2 and that predicted ground level concentrations within the airport boundary
        would not exceed NAQS. The highest levels were predicted near the M1 and
        M50 and relatively high along the main roads in the locality.


        Overall they concluded that the predicted increase in ambient concentrations
        in 2012 and 2024 due to T2 would not have a significant impact within the
        adjoining communities or on the local environment.


        The construction of T2 and Pier E would result in emissions of dust, and PM10
        from the construction area, including new construction access roads, and the
        concrete crashing and batching plant. In view of the proximity of T1 and
        aircraft it was important to control dust emissions to ensure no risk to aircraft
        operations. The submission provided a number of control measures, such as
        the hard paving of access roads to reduce dust emissions, wheel wash, covered
        trucks, and various dust suppression measures.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 236 of 308
        The main arguments put forward by the third party appellants were threefold


        Firstly, they argued that the two main scenarios put forward in the EIS (i.e. do
        nothing and do something scenarios, with two underlying assumptions that the
        passenger growth shall continue regardless of construction of T2, and that
        there will be very little increase in aircraft movements as a result of T2), was
        not credible. They argued there would be significant increase in aircraft
        movements as a result of doubling of passenger numbers.


        Secondly, they questioned the accuracy of the monitoring results (they noted
        there were references to 31 days in the month of February). They maintained
        that individual exceedances were lost in quarterly reports to the planning
        authority, and that there seemed to be no action taken by the planning
        authority in relation to exceedances. They noted some of the monitoring
        stations were moved around and questioned if this was to prevent recording of
        exceedances.


        They also submitted the use of the term                   „continuous monitoring‟ was
        misleading, as it did not mean continuous monitoring at the same sampling
        location. They were also sceptical about some of the monitoring locations.


        While the DAA website referred to monitoring of data and gave the
        impression that this was done, the information was not shown online, and one
        could not get up-to-date information from the planning authority. There was
        no indication of any control measures.


        Thirdly, they drew attention to inclusion of only the short-term car parks in the
        calculations while there was car parking provision for over 10,000 cars.


        Mr. Bailey for the DAA who had prepared the relevant section of the EIS,
        maintained that while he did not carry out the sampling or decide on the
        locations, he considered them acceptable and based on his analysis he was
        satisfied that the emissions did not exceed limits set in the NAQS, which were
        quite stringent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 237 of 308
        He had not included the long term car parks in his calculations as they did not
        generate impacts in terms of emissions. He clarified that he did not include
        those outside the campus, nor he had factored the MMP, as it would take place
        in the long term car parks. In effect only the traffic moving in and out of the
        airport was taken into account.


        Section 6.6, of the County Development Plan states that the Council supported
        the polluter pays principle and would have regard to the General Policy
        Directive relating to air quality standards nationally. The Council would also
        have regard to the Dublin Regional Air Quality Management Plan.
        The single policy in relation to air quality Policy UTP60 states:


               To implement the provisions of national policy and air pollution
               legislation, in conjunction with other agencies as appropriate.


        The LAP does not have a specific policy or objective on air quality but the
        SEA for the LAP examines air quality in separate sections in relation to
        aircraft activity (7.4.4) and traffic (8.3). It states


                 The emissions from aircraft engines are at greatest when they are
                 operating at maximum thrust during take-off and climb-out, while
                 hydrocarbon, CO and             PM10 emissions resulting from incomplete
                 combustion of the fuel are likely to be greatest during taxiing or
                 landing when the aircraft engines are operating at low thrust.


                 The effect of aircraft exhaust emissions on ambient concentrations at
                 ground level below the take off flight path rapidly decreases with
                 increasing altitude and will generally become insignificant above
                 450m altitude.


        In the non-technical summary the SEA for the LAP concludes:




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 238 of 308
               The existing air quality at Dublin Airport is good with results indicating
               that the primary source of airside pollution in the area is from road
               vehicle exhausts.


        Following listening to protracted discussions during the hearing and
        explanations provided by the DAA, I am satisfied that while there has been
        lack of air quality monitoring in the past, this has been rectified with the
        current and ongoing monitoring carried out by Bord Na Mona on behalf of
        DAA.


        I am also satisfied that the emissions are below the limits set in NAQS, which
        are based on stringent criteria.


        There is however, some confusion as to what happens to the collected data. I
        note that while there is separate monitoring carried out by the planning
        authority on behalf of three county councils on ambient air quality for Dublin,
        this is limited in its scope, and includes only a number of compounds.


        During the hearing information in relation to monitoring data was provided
        following repeated request by the third parties over several days. It would, in
        my view be beneficial, to provide the results of the monitoring on the DAA
        website in real time in addition to the suggested quarterly reports to the
        planning authority. I understand this is done by a number of other airports.


        In relation to the predictions for the future I accept the dispersion model used
        by the first party to be an appropriate methodology.


        While I consider the third party arguments that there would be significant
        increase in aircraft movements as a result of increased throughput of
        passengers facilitated by the proposed terminal to be reasonable, I also accept
        the first party argument in principle that the aircraft movements would be
        constrained by the runway capacity, and that prediction of the air quality
        emissions based on the growth forecast regardless of the terminal would give a
        reasonable indication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 239 of 308
        I do however consider the approach quite restrictive in terms of emissions
        from car traffic, as it included only the campus area, while the movements
        associated with very large car parks around the airport (though serving the
        airport) were excluded. While it is true that some of these are long term car
        parks, some are also used by the employees on a daily basis. As discussed in
        transport section, Dublin Airport is a major traffic generator.


        I also note that the conditions suggested in the transport module in relation to
        restrictions on further car park developments and requirements in relation to a
        modal split in favour of public transport would also be beneficial in terms of
        curtailment of emissions.


        The issue of emissions were also raised in the module related to impact on
        communities, which I shall refer to later.




        Climate Change


        „Climate Change‟ is examined as a sub heading of „Climate in S.18 of the EIS,
        in two groups namely emissions from buildings, and aircraft emissions.


        Emissions from the central plant building are quantified and increase of 39%
        over the current CO2 emissions are predicted. There would be improvement
        from the replacement of boilers and it is concluded that the current emissions
        at Dublin Airport are less than 0.2% of the greenhouse gas emissions from the
        energy sector nationally and the projected emissions would have a negligible
        impact on the national emissions.


        It is noted that, while the Kyoto Protocol set limits for Ireland in terms of
        greenhouse gas emissions, and Ireland established a National Climate Change
        Strategy (2000) in response, the aviation sector is excluded from the Strategy
        as it is excluded from the Kyoto Protocol.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 240 of 308
        The EIS states that the impact of aircraft emissions on climate change is
        difficult to quantify due to the low contribution from this transport sector
        compared to other human generated sources, and estimates it to be about 3%.
        It notes the rapid growth in the aviation sector between 1990-2003 and likely
        rise in emissions by 4.3%, and that it would offset more than a quarter of the
        reduction required in other sectors under the Kyoto Protocol.


        It also refers to a Communication by the EU Commission in Sept 2005,
        (Climate Change Impact of Aviation), which identifies the need to control and
        reduce the projected growth of CO2 and other emissions, and measures to
        include fiscal, technological, alternative fuels and improvements in traffic
        control management.


        Overall, the EIS concludes that, as the projected increase in the number of
        aircraft movements when T2 is in operation, compared to do minimum
        scenario is less than 3%, there will be an imperceptible impact on annual CO2
        emissions and other greenhouse gases in the Dublin Airport area compared to
        the current situation.




        During the hearing and referring to proposed amendments to Directive
        2003/87/EC (which establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission
        allowance trading to include aviation activities), it was emphasised by the
        consultant for the first party that the EU legislation related specifically to
        aircraft operators and not to operators of airports.


        He estimated that based on data supplied by DAA the increase in aircraft
        traffic with the provision of T2 and Pier E would be less than 2% in 2013 and
        7% in 2024.


        The greenhouse gas emissions from road transport associated with the
        operation of T2 on the local road network was negligible, as the volumes
        would increase by 15% in 2012 and 21% in 2021.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 241 of 308
        The main arguments put forward by the third parties related to the cost of the
        proposed development in terms of global warming, and inadequacy of the EIS
        in relation to Climate Change issues.


        Mr. Harley used the Stern report as the basis for his analysis ($85 /tonne of
        CO2), together with figures provided by Ryanair to the US Securities and
        Exchange Commission that every Ryanair passenger produced 93 kg of CO2
        in fiscal year of 2006 (noting that it is 1/3 of the 300kg of CO2 calculated by
        UK Government). Based on these figures he calculated that, at 21mppa in
        2006, the Global warming cost of Dublin Airport was €357 million. The extra
        40 million passengers to bring the capacity to 60mppa would be another
        €680million (per year), and from now until 2050 the cost would be €8.4
        billion.


        Mr. Lumley for An Taisce submitted that the overriding consideration must be
        to quantify climate change impact. He referred to the lack of data and different
        terminologies used in terms of emissions (CO2 or CO2 equivalent which
        included other gases). He maintained we could not proceed with analysing the
        impacts of aviation unless we had actual tonnage of emission.


        He questioned the adequacy of the EIS in terms of emissions by the terminal
        building, land based transport, and aircraft emissions. Exclusion of emissions
        from elements of land transport, in particular long term car parks was not
        acceptable. Measures had to be introduced to contain emissions to at least
        current levels.


        This was one sector where the trans-boundary effects were very important, and
        had to be assessed.


        The burden to carry out an Article 3 assessment under the EIA Directive lay
        first with the local authority and now with An Board Pleánala. He submitted
        that An Board Pleánala could not carry out an assessment under Article 3, as
        neither the baseline data nor the projection data required under Article 5 were
        available. CO2 emissions had to be calculated. As such the Board could not
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 242 of 308
        make a determination without further information. Alternatively the
        permission could be refused on the basis of inadequate information on the EIS.


        Ms. Lawton raised the issue of an application by the DAA to EPA for
        increasing emission limits.


        Trevor Sergeant (leader of the Green party) who attended the hearing during
        the first module was concerned that the development if permitted could be
        seen as another impediment on the road for the country for being „carbon
        neutral‟ (He noted that he was not talking about the aviation industry being
        under the radar in the Kyoto Ggreement, 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 a proper assessment was not made.


        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 planning authority recommended re-wording their conditions nos. 32 and
        33 in an amalgamated single condition requiring the submission of intended
        energy saving options and the use of sustainable energy technologies as set out
        in s. 19.2.2 of the EIS, adherence to DS6 of LAP, and to require that the CO2
        emissions permitted by the EPA are not exceeded.


        The LAP does not have specific objectives in relation to Climate Change, but
        requires in DS6 (design objectives)


                 „To encourage more sustainable development through energy end use
                 efficiency and increasing use of renewable energy in all new building
                 projects within the LAP area by applying (specific) criteria towards


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 243 of 308
                 the design and assembly of low-energy buildings of non-residential
                 types‟.


        These include passive solar design measures, water conservation and heat
        recovery measures, use of low energy lighting systems, and monitoring.


        I note however that, the SEA for the LAP includes under „air quality‟ the
        following objectives.


        EO14 Promote minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere
        EO15 Support international action on climate change, ozone depletion and
                 trans-boundary pollution


        The National Climate Change Strategy provides for an extensive range of
        measures aimed at meeting Ireland‟s commitments to reducing greenhouse gas
        emissions. These include the Energy Efficiency Action Plan and the
        Sustainable Transport Action Plan'.


        The key additional measures under „transport‟ include: (page 9)
                Modal shift to public transport as a result of Transport 21
                Support for inclusion of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme


        In Chapter 4, under Transport, the strategy states that transport emissions
        accounted for approximately 19% of total emissions in 2005, and overall
        transport emissions increased by 160% between 1990 and 2005.


        In relation to aviation it states:


             The Government supports, in principle, having regard to Ireland‟s
             peripheral status, the inclusion of aviation and maritime emissions in
             future restructuring of the EU Emissions Trading scheme (ETS).
             Emissions from aviation are projected to continue to grow to more than
             double the present levels by 2020.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 244 of 308
        There are, as outlined by the parties, three sources of CO2 emissions in the
        case of the proposed development. The buildings (the terminal and more
        importantly the energy centre), landside transport and air traffic activity.


        The applicants seem to have mostly concentrated on the first designing an
        energy efficient building (see building design module), with use of CHP
        (Combined heat and power plant). They maintained that while use of CHP
        would increase the emissions generated at the site it would in fact represent a
        beneficial option by removing the necessity to import power generated
        elsewhere with its own emissions. This was why they had applied to EPA to
        increase emission levels set in the permit. I consider this approach (subject to
        permit levels being set by the EPA) to be reasonable.


        Arising from growing concerns about accelerated onset of climate change,
        there has been an increased awareness of the issue. I note however, as the
        aviation sector was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol, the impact of the
        aviation sector on climate change has not been considered as an issue until
        very recently. The EIS was prepared in advance of the recent developments
        and reflects this thinking.


        There are undoubtedly attempts by many to quantify emissions (in particular
        whether to use CO2 or „CO2 equivalent‟) from aircraft as indicated in one of
        the papers presented by Ms. Lawton. However, despite increasing prominence
        of the issue, there seems to be no single commonly accepted method used by
        all concerned, in particular by those at the decision making levels.


        Indeed, in response to my question, Mr. Lumley said unfortunately there was
        no model in calculating greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases CO2
        emissions were used, while in others „CO2 equivalent‟ which included other
        greenhouse gases.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 245 of 308
        The model suggested by Mr. Harley is quite reasonable and does provide a
        quick glimpse of possible costs, but I note it is based on passenger numbers
        rather than aircraft activity (model used by the DAA).


        Therefore, while I do consider the EIS deficient in terms of quantifying the
        emissions from aviation activity associated with the proposed development,
        having regard to the lack of consensus or an internationally accepted model, in
        relation to how it should be measured (CO2 or CO2 equivalent), I consider that
        it would be unreasonable to refuse permission on that basis.


        In arriving at this conclusion, I am also cognisant of the fact that increase in
        the number of aircraft movements would be more associated with the runway
        capacity at the airport, rather than increase in the terminal capacity alone
        (regardless of the accuracy of the 2%-7% increase indicated in the EIS)


        Secondly and having regard to the provisions of the recent National Climate
        Change Strategy, which acknowledges an increase in emissions to more than
        double the present levels and provides for a specific Government policy for
        supporting the inclusion in the Emission Trading Scheme, and the work of the
        Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; it is my considered opinion that
        the emerging issue of the impact of aviation on climate change is a matter
        appropriate for strategic policy at Government and EU level and outside the
        scope of this appeal.


        The same consideration also would apply to the trans-boundary effects of the
        aircraft emissions.


        In contrast, the National Climate Change Strategy is quite prescriptive in
        relation to measures to be applied in the case of land based transport.


        In the case of the proposed development the emissions predictions for the
        landside transport were based on the forecast provided by the traffic team and
        excluded long term car parks located outside the airport campus.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 246 of 308
        As discussed in the „air quality‟ section, I take cognisance of possible
        difficulties in quantifying emissions from the cars which may be travelling for
        some distance, and accept as reasonable the basic premise that the land based
        transport emissions at the surrounding major roads are much higher than the
        campus. I do nevertheless consider the exclusion of emissions from car parks
        outside the airport campus (which are of considerable size) to be deficient.


        In this regard I consider the argument put forward by Mr. Lumley that the
        DTO origin-destination data could be used to be reasonable, particularly
        having regard to the fact that it was heavily relied upon by the first party in
        their argument for the location for the proposed development at Dublin
        Airport.


        As such I find the EIS deficient in terms of the description of the present
        levels of emissions arising from land-based transport to the airport.


        I am satisfied that the future increase in emissions arising from land based
        transport could and should be curtailed by measures to ensure a modal shift to
        public transport as discussed in the traffic and transport module. These would
        be in line with the policies indicated in the National Climate Change Strategy.


        I am however satisfied that the conditions recommended in the transport
        module to ensure significant modal shift, would also ensure compliance with
        above policies.


        Finally I note that, the issue of Climate Change was also raised by An Taisce
        and by Trevor Sergeant (Green party) in the context of adequacy of the SEA
        for the LAP. I shall refer to the matter in a separate section under „legal and
        procedural issues‟.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 247 of 308
        Impact on Residential Amenities


        The main concerns of the affected communities living in the vicinity of the
        airport were related to health and educational impacts arising from noise,
        emissions, and safety. To a lesser degree they were concerned about the
        impact on the value of their property.


        They argued that the airport was similar to a major industrial complex in terms
        of emissions. Sleep disturbance arising from the noise of aircraft at night-time
        was having significant effect on their health. Worries about crashing airplanes
        were effecting their health. These were also effecting the education and
        general well being of their children.


        They maintained that it was necessary to carry out a health impact assessment
        (HIA) as in other countries for the expansion of airports. This would need to
        be done as part of the EIA process. Dr. Staines speaking on behalf of the
        communities said a HIA should have been carried out.


        They were not happy with the monitoring carried out by the DAA on
        emissions and noise. They wanted monitoring to be carried out by an
        independent authority, not acting on behalf of DAA. They wanted information
        to be available in real time, rather than being presented to the planning
        authority on a quarterly basis, to ensure early detection and immediate action.
        They maintained that monitoring without control was useless. They were not
        able to get information from the planning authority.


        They maintained that the passengers using the terminal were still flying over
        their heads, and to say that the terminal would not have effect was not
        credible.


        They submitted that Fingal County Council, the stated „guardian‟ of their
        amenities was doing nothing about it. They submitted that the County
        Development Plan Policy DAP13 required that a „health impact assessment‟
        must form part of an EIA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 248 of 308
        The value of their property was affected, by not increasing at the level it
        would otherwise have. They submitted that the DAA and FCC were engaged
        in an enterprise, and while the two authorities would benefit from it, the
        communities were paying for the consequences.


        These points were strongly contested by the first party and by Fingal County
        Council.


        I will first look at whether there is a requirement for a HIA.


        Under Article 3 of the EIA Directive (85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC) there is a
        requirement for an EIA to „identify, describe and assess in an appropriate
        manner, in the light of each individual case,… the direct, and indirect effects
        of a project on a number of factors‟. The first item of the list is „human beings‟
        followed by „flora and fauna‟.


        Therefore impact on „human beings‟ (direct and indirect) must be identified,
        and assessed.


        The EPA Guidelines in section 2.4.2 states:
               The physical environment is one of a number of recognised determinants
               of health which is often at the forefront of community concerns. Health
               can be affected by a number of direct and indirect environmental
               pathways, such as air, water or soil. Populations can be affected by
               either direct contamination or by induced effects of disease vectors, food
               chains and exposure to risks. The EIA typically deals directly with the
               environmental pathways and the extent to which these are affected by
               known contaminants, irritants or change inducing factors.


        The question then becomes how the impact analysis is to be carried out. The
        EPA Guidelines states:
                 The evaluation of effects on these pathways is carried out by reference
                 to accepted standards (usually international) of safety in dose,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 249 of 308
                 exposure or risk. These standards are in turn based upon medical and
                 scientific investigation of the direct effects on health of the individual
                 substance, effect or risk. This practice of reliance upon limits, and
                 thresholds for environmental pathways, such as air, water or soil
                 provides robust and reliable health protectors for analysis relating to
                 the environment.


                 Where anxieties about human health are understood to be of particular
                 concern, the scope of the EIS ensures that observance of and reliance
                 upon conformity with recognised national and international standards
                 is adequately related to specific health and safety topic that are of
                 local concern.


        During the hearing I asked Dr. Staines what would be included in a HIA. He
        referred to construction impacts and operational impacts. For the latter he
        referred to flight movements, noise, emissions of volatile compounds,
        emissions from aircraft exhausts, CO2 emissions, fuel discharge, and outflow
        from the runway of contaminated water. There would also be impacts arising
        from transport of cargo, fuel, humans and traffic congestion.


        Chapter 17 of the EIS examines the „impact on human beings‟. In this section
        it provides extensive information on soci-economic conditions, (population
        trends, age structure, origin destination of, increase in number of passengers,
        employment and income, tourism, and community aspects particularly the
        involvement of DAA in various local initiatives, including the Stakeholders
        Forum). It identifies potential impacts during construction (particularly traffic
        and access by other users of local roads).


        In relation to operational impacts however, it mainly refers to an „employment
        and income impact assessment‟ (York, 2002, and 2005) and concludes that the
        proposed development would have positive social and economic impacts
        directly on airport users and on the local community and indirectly on the
        wider community, regionally and nationally. As such there is no reference to
        an examination of „health impact‟ on the communities living in the area. Nor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 250 of 308
        is there any area where conformity with recognised standards is adequately
        related to specific health and safety topic of the area concerned.


        I note, however that, during the hearing most relevant if not all of these issues
        (emissions, noise, surface water contamination) were examined on an
        individual basis with long periods of questions and explanations
        /clarifications.


        In the case of emissions to air I am satisfied that reliance on individual limits
        as in the case of examining air quality and emissions against National Air
        Quality Standards (which are stated by Mr. Bailey to be set at levels
        recommended by an EU expert committee and with risk to human health in
        mind) does represent a robust and reliable health risk predictor.


        Compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, and the
        GDSD scheme would address the issues of contamination of water courses
        and flooding, providing the measures proposed for Pier E area is extended to
        all of the apron areas as per my recommendation. As these are aimed at
        attenuation at „greenfield‟ status and „salmonid‟ water quality, the risk to
        natural environment and by extension to human health would be lowered to
        acceptable levels.


        I do consider however, that as there are significant community concerns, it
        would be beneficial that noise, air and water quality monitoring data should be
        made available to the local community on a continuous basis in real time (to
        indicate conformity with recognised standards). As this information is stated
        to be collected by the DAA (or on their behalf) on a continuous basis, its
        display on their website should not present a problem. Indeed it would
        showcase the efforts by the DAA to detect any exceedances and provide
        timely mitigation measures as it was argued was being done during the
        hearing.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 251 of 308
        As I have discussed in the noise section, in relation to noise issue I defer to the
        findings of the inspector‟s report for the „northern parallel runway‟ case,
        particularly in terms of the adequacy of the EIS.


        There were various references during the hearing to Health Impact
        Assessments        carried out elsewhere (Heathrow, Standstead, Schiphol) and
        whether they were conclusive or not. Based on the evidence before me it
        would be reasonable to conclude that while there may be models in other
        countries for a HIA in the vicinity of airports, there seems to be no EU-wide
        adopted model, nor a requirement for one.


        I will now look at the County Development Plan policies:


        Policy DAP 13 of the County Development Plan states:


               To ensure that every development proposal in the environs of the airport
               takes account of current and predicted changes in air quality and local
               environment conditions. This should form part of the Environmental
               Impact Statement where an EIA is required, and of the Health Impact
               Assessment.


        The view of the planning authority was that this referred to the environs of the
        airport. They maintained a HIA did not exist under Irish Law.


        The policy DAP 13 is provided under „Air and Water Quality‟. It is as such
        quite restrictive in its remit. There is no similar requirement in policies under
        „Noise‟ or other areas which were listed as examples by Dr. Staines.


        Secondly, the objective requires taking into account of current and predicted
        changes in air quality and local environment conditions as part of the EIA and
        the HIA. It does not specifically require that a HIA be carried out. It would
        therefore be reasonable to conclude that an issue of material contravention of
        development plan objective does not arise.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 252 of 308
        There were differences of opinion between the first party and the appellants as
        to whether property values were effected by the presence of the airport. While
        the first party maintained that there was in fact a positive impact arising from
        employment opportunities, and that there was in any case a rise in property
        values, this was strongly contested by third party appellants who maintained
        that the values would have arisen as a result of the economy but at a lesser
        level than they would have done otherwise. They also raised a credibility issue
        with the employment argument (as not much increase was anticipated by the
        first party as a result of the proposed T2 project it could not have a positive
        impact).


        During the hearing I asked the first party which communities were compared
        in relation to property values. The response was that the assessment was
        carried out by a firm of auctioneers, and Lucan and Swords were compared as
        they had similar characteristics in terms of size, distance to city centre, access
        to M50 and main roads etc. I note the most effected communities i.e. St.
        Margarets and Portmarnock did not seem to be included in the comparisons.




        Dublin Airport, as argued many times, has been going through significant and
        unprecedented growth. While this has a serious impact on the operations of the
        airport stretching the facilities both on the landside and airside to the limits,
        clearly, it also has been effecting the communities who bear the brunt of the
        adverse effects of such rapid growth. Regardless of the reason for growth in
        aircraft activity (whether arising from factors related to the general economy
        or from a planned expansion of the airport) in my view managing the growth
        at the airport should also include measures for containing the effects on the
        communities. At the least monitoring information should be provided by the
        DAA at a level easily accessible by the effected communities.


        Other measures referred to in Sustainable Development: Strategy for Ireland
        such as noise certification and monitoring of take-off routes would also need
        to be considered by the relevant authorities.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 253 of 308
        I do, however, as discussed in various sections, accept the main premise of the
        first party that the impact would mostly arise from increased aircraft activity,
        which would continue to increase regardless of a second terminal to the limit
        of the existing (or permitted) runway capacity , and the impact arising from
        additional aircraft activity due to additional terminal facilities would not be
        significantly over and above the impact that would arise without such
        facilities.


        I note that, theoretically, the absence of additional terminal facilities may lead
        to more night-time flights as the day-time slots become completely filled
        (spreading into troughs), and this could have more adverse impact on the
        communities.


        As discussed in earlier modules in the case of St. Margarets the impact is not
        only from aircraft activity but also from road works. These road works are
        considered necessary to facilitate surface access to the airport, particularly
        during the second phase. I have discussed these issues under the transport
        module.


        There are no objectives in relation to the surrounding residential communities
        in the LAP. This is presumably because they are located outside the „airport
        box‟.


        I note however, the County Development Plan states:


                 Change is inevitable for the existing residential communities around
                 the airport. Thus it is necessary to work together with residents to
                 achieve significant incremental change, an approach which could
                 ultimately completely alter the settlements character.




        The CDP has specific polices in relation to St. Margarets and other residential
        communities under DAP16, DAP17 and objectives DA09 and DA10. While


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 254 of 308
        the first two seem to relate restrictions in housing and existing developments
        the latter two require consultations with the community.


        DA09 To develop a consultative board based on international best practices
                 involving existing communities, Fingal County Council, Aer Rianta
                 and other appropriate stakeholders to consult about detailed
                 resolution of the future of the communities in the area and to seek
                 consensus about nature of change


        DA10 To prepare a strategy for St. Margaret‟s Special Policy Area involving
                 consultation between the existing community, Fingal County Council
                 and DAA




        During the hearing it was stressed by the representative of St. Margaret‟s that
        they were „not consulted‟ but were rather told what was going to happen, by
        ARUP acting on behalf of FCC. I shall refer to this matter under legal and
        procedural matters.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 255 of 308
11.      FIRST PARTY APPEAL AGAINST CONDITIONS


      The written appeal by the first party was against conditions numbers 6, 27, 29, 30,
      31, 34 and 43. During the hearing they withdrew their appeal against conditions
      numbers 27, 30 and 43. Of these
            Condition number 6 required completion of M50 upgrade between
             Ballymun exchange and the M1/M50 junction prior to commencement of
             development During the hearing it became evident that the contract for the
             M50 upgrade was signed, and it was agreed that the condition was no
             longer necessary.


            Condition number 29 required provision of a travellator between T1 and
             T2 on the landside. Following discussions at the hearing it was agreed the
             travellator would not cater for large number of users.


            Condition number 30 required the presence of a bat specialist during
             demolition of any buildings, and placed a time restriction for removal of
             trees. This would remain in revised form


            Condition number 31 related to construction times. It was agreed that the
             condition was more appropriate to developments in residential
             environments. The suggested revision to allow construction until midnight
             was acceptable to all concerned.


            Condition number 34 related to passenger route within the retail area of the
             departure lounge. While the revisions proposed by the first party was
             acceptable to the planning authority I do consider a revised condition to be
             necessary as discussed in the building design section.


      During the hearing the planning authority also suggested revisions to some of their
      conditions. These were not appealed against, and the first party had no difficulty
      with compliance with the suggested revisions. I referred to these in relevant
      sections of the report.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 256 of 308
12.     ADEQUACY OF EIS and COMPLIANCE WITH THE EIA DIRECTIVE


        The issues of „project splitting‟, and avoidance of „cumulative impacts‟, were
        raised by the third parties over and again throughout the hearing, and were
        discussed in more detail under „project splitting‟ at the end of the first module.
        They also formed an important component of the closing submissions.


        The main argument put forward by the residents was that while this was not a
        „pure‟ form of project splitting, there were a number of projects pushed
        forward by the DAA individually and in quick succession, which constituted a
        more „subtle‟ form of project splitting. In doing so there was a failure to
        identify the whole project, and avoidance of an appropriate assessment of
        cumulative impacts.


        An Taisce maintained there was project splitting not only in terms of „runway‟
        and „terminal‟ and „car parks‟ but also in terms of whole series of other
        categories which would be generated by the terminal such as stabling and
        servicing of additional aircraft, additional fuel requirements and storage of the
        same, engine testing of additional aircraft, catering and transport requirements
        of additional services. While some of the individual projects had their
        individual EISs, others did not. The piecemeal approach amounted to complete
        subversion of the EIA Directive requirements.


        Mr. Sweetman argued that development of aprons near St. Margarets
        constituted „project splitting‟, as did the failure to include the construction
        compound in the EIS.


        The submission by the Counsel for Ryanair maintained that the capacity
        provision of the terminal was such that it necessitated development of other
        facilities (such as Piers B and F). As the impact of these developments was not
        examined, this constituted project splitting.


        Separate applications for the runway, car parks and the terminal led to failure
        to address cumulative impacts particularly in traffic generation. There was no
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 257 of 308
        examination of cumulative impacts, and existing developments were not
        subject of an EIS. There was another application for extension of T1, and a
        number of others in the last year. All these constituted project splitting. He
        argued that the EIS was defective and it was not up to the Board to grant
        permission.


        He further argued that the details of discussions between the planning
        authority and DAA to set the parameters of the EIS, (for example roads), or
        the scoping was not made available to the public. The public was entitled to
        this. As it was not made available to the public, this rendered the permission
        null and void.
        He referred to a number of cases. In Commission vs. Ireland (199, ECR 5901)
        it was successfully argued that Ireland had transposed Article 4(2) incorrectly,
        by setting absolute thresholds for Annex 2 projects, as even a small project
        could have a significant effect on the environment.


        He argued that definition of a project was central to any decision making and
        asked what the big picture in this case was. He noted there was no „scoping‟
        by the planning authority.


        In the case of Arklow Holidays vs. An Board Pleánala Justice Clark held that
        if parameters were impermissibly wide, then the public were excluded from
        the appropriate consultation process.


        In the case of Jones v Mansfield District Council (2004) the court of appeal
        had held that the planning authority could not rely on conditions and
        undertakings as a surrogate for the EIA process. They would argue that one
        could not conclude that the development is unlikely to have any greater effects
        on the environment then as stated in the EIS simply because the greater effects
        are likely to be eliminated by the measures carried out in pursuant to
        conditions.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 258 of 308
        The Counsel for the planning authority stated that as a „matter of law‟ he
        deemed the EIS to be adequate. The overriding issue was public consultation,
        identification of the main environmental effects and mitigation measures
        before the decision maker made the decision. In making their decision and
        imposing conditions (in effect mitigation measures) their concern was that the
        significant adverse effects on the environment from a throughput of 35 million
        people had been assessed. One did not look at what might happen in two years
        down the line (such as individual piers). One did not look at each and every
        effect but to significant effects.


        The obligation to provide an EIS and the mandatory information to be
        contained in the EIS was provided under Article 94 of the Regulations and not
        under Schedule 6. Paragraph 1 under Schedule 6 provided for mandatory
        information while paragraph 2 provided for information to be provided on a
        qualified basis having regard to current knowledge and methods of
        assessment. Information regarding cumulative impacts came under paragraph
        2 where amplification by way of qualification and clarification of mandatory
        information was required.


        They took the view that the mandatory information was adequately set out in
        the EIS and there was adequate amplification, and that the developer had
        looked at cumulative impacts of putting through 35million passengers.


        The LAP had identified environmental issues at macro level. They (the
        planning authority) had a full understanding of the area.


        He stressed that the EIS formed the basis for the EIA process, and that the
        views of the third parties had to be heard. He asked the Board to note the
        range of submissions / observations made by the third parties in the first
        instance and the wider range of issues raised in the grounds of appeal, and in
        particular the elaboration of the issues and new issues raised during the oral
        hearing.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 259 of 308
        There was now a substantial body of information before the Board gathered in
        the context of the appeal which constituted part of the information for the
        purposes of EIA. All the issues had been ventilated at the hearing.


        Referring to the preamble of the EIA Directive „… likely significant effects
        conducted on the basis of appropriate information supplied by the developer
        which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the people who may be
        concerned by the project in question…‟, he submitted that this was precisely
        what was done in this case, by the amount of elaboration.


        Mr. O‟Donnell for the DAA said the primary purpose of „project splitting‟ was
        avoidance of obligation to prepare an EIS, which was clearly not the case here
        as there were two separate applications before the Board, and both were
        accompanied by an EIS.


        He wanted to distinguish the obligations under Irish Law, which required an
        EIS to be prepared to comply with Schedule 6 of the 2001 Regulations. There
        was no equivalent under the EIA Directive to prepare a statement. Therefore
        the adequacy of the EIS had to be judged under Irish Law, and essentially
        under Irish Law because its implementation has not been challenged. In any
        event it did not matter, as EIA was a process.


        The EIS was the starting point of the process. The assessment had to be
        carried out first by the planning authority then by An Board Pleánala. He
        referred to Arklow Holidays v An Board Pleánala where Justice Clarke had
        ruled that EIA was a „process‟, and while the EIS had not addressed a number
        of critical issues, the defects were cured by being raised indirectly at the
        hearing, considered and assessed during the process.


        In the case of Terminal 2, the associated site development, direct and indirect
        effects were identified in the EIS and the cumulative impacts had been clearly
        identified. The entirety of the project was predicated on 35mppa throughput
        and the EIS had identified all the issues, such as traffic, surface water, airside
        emissions etc. These were discussed at length at the hearing. He submitted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 260 of 308
        that both the requirements of the Irish legislation and the European Directive
        were complied with.


        Earlier in my report I referred to the decision of the DAA that a step change
        was required to move away from the piece meal, add-on approach to
        development of Dublin Airport to a „plan lead approach‟ where they decided
        to looked at the overall picture and provide a strategy for the development of
        the campus as a whole. The Terminal and Piers study was the result of this
        mind change, followed by the capacity enhancement study.




        I am not sure why the DAA did not follow the same principle for the planning
        process and for the integral EIA process. Such a holistic approach would have
        answered a lot of questions, and saved a lot of time and money, not just for
        DAA but also for the effected parties who are trying to keep up with
        continuous developments at the airport. The current piece meal approach to
        development consent is not efficient, and judging by the number of appeals
        (almost to each and every development proposal), and the apparent mistrust of
        third parties is not very effective either.


        The third parties are correct in pointing to the number of planning applications
        in a short period of time. They are also correct in stating that while some of
        the larger developments are accompanied by an EIS, the smaller ones, which
        on their own do not need an EIS, may also have adverse impacts particularly
        through cumulative impact.


        The concept of project splitting as outlined by the counsel for DAA arises
        from division of a single project into smaller separate projects so that each
        falls below the thresholds set out both in European and national legislation for
        which environmental impact assessment is required. As such it originates from
        a desire to avoid the EIA process.


        In this case „the runway‟ and „Terminal 2‟ are treated as separate projects but
        each is accompanied by an EIS. In the case of the terminal the EIS also
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 261 of 308
        includes the future MSCP. In response to my question during the hearing it
        was stated that the development for the MSCP was not included in the
        development due to time constraints and the pressure to move the T2 project
        forward to provide as early a response as possible to the unprecedented
        demand.


        While as stated earlier the piece meal approach is not a very efficient way,
        there is no evidence before me to conclude that the succession of planning
        applications is not more of a coordination problem than a desire to avoid
        impact analysis.


        Secondly the Dublin Airport LAP has specific objectives for various
        developments within the designated airport area. In particular there are a
        number of separate objectives for different components of the airport such as
        runways, terminals and piers, aprons etc. As the LAP has gone through a
        public process and has been subject of an SEA to test against various
        environmental effects at macro level prior to its adoption, the developments
        (in broad terms) as envisaged in the objectives have been in the public domain
        for sometime. Avoidance of public participation therefore does not seem to
        arise as an issue.


        Within the designated airport area, there is a very significant division between
        landside functions and airside functions. The terminal is located at the
        interface of the two and provides for the essential and the only public link
        between the two.


        The proposed terminal, pier and provisions for landside access, have
        requirements, characteristics and impacts significantly different from the
        operations of the airside functions.


        It is therefore not completely illogical that they be treated as separate projects
        distinct from each other and each have an EIS identifying likely significant
        impacts arising from its distinct characteristics.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 262 of 308
        The question then becomes whether the piecemeal approach has prevented the
        identification and assessment of significant adverse effects, and cumulative
        impacts.


        During the hearing I was particularly conscious of the issue and allowed third
        parties ample time to put their particular concerns forward while discussing
        individual modules (sometimes to the exasperation of the first party Counsel,
        particularly in modules related to drainage, air quality and emissions, noise,
        built and natural heritage, capacity and traffic/transport). I note that the parties
        were advised in the letter outlining the format of the hearing that cumulative
        impacts and relevant European Directives would be discussed.


        I have also advised the hearing on many occasions that as the Board would be
        dealing with both the runway and the terminal appeals they would have access
        to all of the information gathered as part of both appeals, including the views
        of consultants advising inspectors in their specialised areas.


        The most significant problem with the separation of the two projects is the
        determination of the extent of the area where the two overlap. Indeed this was
        the most significant issue in the minds of the residents. Some asked „how do
        you differentiate between the aircraft activity generated by the runway from
        that generated by the terminal?‟.


        They argued they were told at the runway hearing that there would be no
        increase in the passenger numbers as a result of the runway as it would be
        constrained by the terminal, and now they were being told there would be no
        or very little increase in aircraft movements and noise as a result of the
        terminal as it would be constrained by the runway.


        They questioned how one could have a second runway without a second
        terminal, or how the DAA was managing to put through extra million
        passengers per annum, without additional aircraft activity. In their view the
        fundamentals of the comparison was flawed, as an impossible situation was
        being presented as realistic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 263 of 308
        Indeed the two developments are clearly and inextricably interlinked and not
        mutually exclusive. The approach adopted by the first party in the EIS team
        was to use „Do Minimum‟ and „Do Something‟ scenarios and examine the
        impacts that would arise in the worst-case scenario through unconstrained
        capacity of the either. They explained that it involved a situation where the
        peak hour spread to the rest of the day, and it was realistic in the future if
        nothing happened.


        While confusing to many, I consider this to be a reasonable approach, and
        acceptable in principle.


        There would nevertheless be increased aircraft activity solely as a result of the
        terminal project. This is assumed by the EIS team to be 2% for the year 2012
        and 7% for the year 2024.              This base figure was supplied to the three
        consultants preparing the impact analysis (on air quality /emissions, noise and
        transport) by the DAA and was based on the growth forecast by Dr. Mary
        Coveney using 2003 as the baseline for the runway and 2005 as the baseline
        for the terminal. These were different as a result of changes in GDP and
        number of other factors including a decrease in domestic flights.


        While I find the argument that there may be some credibility issue with these
        low percentages (as suggested by Mr. Harley) to be plausible, in my view it
        would be reasonable to conclude that the increased impact of aircraft activity
        solely arising from the proposed terminal and pier facilities would not be
        significantly high, as the aircraft activity would ultimately be determined by
        the runway capacity or the lack of it.


        I also accept the explanation by the DAA that while the number of passengers
        were increasing, larger aircraft was carrying more passengers,                       that the
        passengers were still going through the existing terminal but at low service
        levels, and the increased number of passengers could still be catered for by
        spreading the peak hour to the rest of the day / night.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 264 of 308
        The impacts arising from the additional service facilities such as catering on
        the landside (in particular transport and parking) have been examined in this
        case through employment and traffic generation. In this area I consider Mr.
        Harley‟s assertions that the employment figures have been underestimated, to
        be plausible, particularly as the creation of additional 1000 jobs for every
        million passengers is stated to be an industry accepted norm. However as this
        is mostly relevant in the case of traffic generation, the conditions
        recommended in relation to a cap on car parking would in my view address the
        issues that might arise from the information deficit.


        In my view an examination of the impact of additional facilities to serve the
        airside functions (fuel, engine testing etc) would be more efficiently carried
        out as part of the „Northern parallel runway‟ case.


        Schedule 6 (in relation to Article 94) of the Planning and Development
        Regulations, 2001 sets out the information to be contained in an EIS. The
        document submitted with the application covers the main headings. I have
        examined the adequacy of different sections of the EIS while assessing
        specific issues, identifying areas where there is an information deficit. Most of
        these were discussed at the hearing. It is also important to note that the EIS is
        required to identify only the „likely significant effects‟ and not all of the
        possible effects.


        I also note that while there was not a specific health impact assessment (HIA),
        as part of the EIS, the EIA Directive does not seem to prescribe how the
        impact analysis on human beings should be carried out, and whether it should
        be in a different form than the impact analysis of other categories. I note there
        is no mandatory requirement for a HIA.


        Another issue raised by the third parties was that the conditions imposed by
        the planning authority involved works in areas outside the ownership of the
        applicants and some of these might require their own EIA or CPO procedures.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 265 of 308
        The Board would note that particularly under the transport and drainage issues
        I have raised the same concern and recommended that the conditions imposed
        by the planning authority requiring the applicant to carry out certain works be
        replaced by conditions whereby the applicants would pay special contribution
        to the planning authority. The planning authority would go through the
        appropriate procedures to carry out such works as identified in the County
        Development Plan and LAP objectives.


        In terms of cumulative effects what is required is an assessment of the totality
        of the impact of the project taken as a whole as some aspects of the project
        which might not have impacts on their own when taken on a cumulative basis
        might give rise to significant impacts.


        In the case of the appeal development this could arise in a number of areas,
        building works such as extensions to buildings and extensions to piers in
        brownfield areas where there is possibility of soil contamination, provision of
        additional remote stands with surface water drainage and water contamination
        issues, road works and car parks to facilitate the proposed development with
        additional traffic generation issues, and developments outside the airport box
        but serving the airport, such as car parks and the construction compound, with
        their traffic generation, surface water attenuation and contamination issues.


        A number of these were raised in the hearing and formed part of the further
        information request in relation to transport. The Board would note my
        recommendation for a condition requiring submission of a planning
        application for the refurbishments of T1 and piers B and A, rather than
        agreement with the planning authority. This would enable further examination
        of possible cumulative impacts. Similarly I refer to recommended conditions
        in the other areas.


        Overall I do agree with the views of the counsels for the DAA and the
        planning authority that the EIS provides a starting point for the EIA process.
        The involvement of third parties (who were very knowledgeable on most if not


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 266 of 308
        all of the issues) in the appeal process and in particular in the oral hearing
        facilitated expansion of the knowledge base considerably.


        I submit that there has been a thorough examination of the issues to inform the
        Board on the likely effects of the proposed development and to facilitate their
        decision on the case, while being mindful of the impacts of the wider
        development of which the proposed development forms a part.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 267 of 308
13.     LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES


        During the course of the hearing a number of issues were raised by third party
        appellants, which I would like to bring to the attention of the Board.



        Conflict of interest

        It was argued by the appellants that ARUP, the authors of the EIS for the
        proposed development acting as consultants to the applicants (DAA), were
        also acting as consultants to the planning authority in road planning and design
        in the area, and in particular taking part in the consultations of Fingal County
        Council with St. Margarets Residents. Some argued that the conflict of interest
        was so severe that the oral hearing should be abandoned.


        The planning authority maintained that there was no conflict of interest and
        that ARUP together with Atkins Consultants were looking at various road
        layout as part of the LAP proposals for infrastructure.                       There was a
        considerable amount of development being planned in the South Fingal Area
        (for a population of 40,000-50,000). Therefore a considerable amount of
        infrastructure needed to be planned to serve such population, including
        connection between Blanchardstown and Baldoyle. They submitted that the
        consultants were retained for standard work such as road design, route
        selection and constraint mapping. ARUP were consultants for Baldoyle to
        Stockhole Lane running parallel to the southern runway, while Atkins were
        working on the Stockhole Lane to Malahide Road.


        The first party categorically refuted that there was a conflict of interest.


        In my view, the determination of whether a conflict of interest would arise
        from employment of the same consultants by the first party and by the
        planning authority is a matter for the Courts and outside the scope of this
        planning appeal.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 268 of 308
        Validity of the application


        The argument put forward by An Taisce was that the proposed development
        gave rise to a number of infrastructural difficulties, and that the planning
        authority instead of requiring an appropriate EIS, had simply chosen to use
        conditions to address these problems. They had no right to do so particularly
        as some of the conditions involved land takes which infringed on third party
        rights. They needed to require further information and a revised public notice,
        or simply declare the application invalid.


        They further argued that the Board had no entitlement to validate an
        application retrospectively. This would deny third party rights and be in
        conflict with the requirements of the EIA Directive. Again it was requested
        that the hearing be abandoned or at least adjourned to receive Counsel opinion
        on the matter, which could nullify the whole process.


        As discussed in the relevant sections, some of the conditions imposed by the
        planning authority require the applicants to carry out works outside the lands
        in the ownership of the applicants. These works may also necessitate an EIA
        or a CPO process.


        Some of these works are included in the LAP as specific objectives (I refer to
        specific roads and drainage objectives such as EA6 or FW1), and some are
        included in the development contribution schemes. Notwithstanding possible
        separate requirements (for EIA and CPO) it seems therefore possible that the
        works referred to in those conditions can be carried out by the local authority
        to which, the applicants can be required to contribute by way of contribution
        or in some cases by way of special contribution.


        Therefore, and noting that the declaration of an application as being „invalid‟
        is a matter for the planning authority having regard to the relevant sections of
        the Act, and ultimately for the Courts, I am of the opinion that a case of
        „retrospective validation by the Board‟ do not seem to arise in this case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 269 of 308
        Availability of information


        The issue of validity was also raised by Ryanair but in relation to the validity
        of the permission.


        During the hearing there were repeated requests by Ryanair for some
        documents.
        I asked the DAA if those documents did indeed exist, and whether they would
        be making them available to the hearing. The answer was yes they did, and no
        they would not make them available as they contained sensitive commercial
        information regarding the future plans of airlines.


        The Ryanair team was unhappy that I did not direct DAA to disclose the
        information sought. They argued that the public process of seeking planning
        permission was circumvented as the information available to the planning
        authority was not made available to the public. They maintained this was
        unfair, and in breach of constitutional justice and would fundamentally
        undermine and render void the planning permission.


        The counsel for Ryanair referred to an unreported judgement (O‟Mahony vs.
        An Board Pleánala, HC, 18th Feb, 2005) and stated that the inspector had the
        entitlement to force and request delivery of appropriate information to form a
        valid, full and considered view. In this case the inspector had failed to exercise
        powers to request the furnishing of appropriate information to remedy the
        defects.


        During the course of the hearing it also became evident that some pages of the
        other documents were removed from the sets forwarded to the Board
        (requested by the inspector prior to the hearing and circulated to the parties)
        on the grounds that they contained sensitive commercial information, though
        they had been made available to the planning authority previously.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 270 of 308
        Following my request for clarification of the matter, the planning authority
        stated that the documents were made available to them as part of the
        preparation of the LAP (not as part of the planning application). Counsel for
        Fingal County Council returned the relevant pages to the DAA during the
        course of the hearing. They were not made available to the hearing. In
        response to the suggestion by Ryanair Counsel that I could be given a copy, I
        informed the hearing that, I would make the information available to
        everybody if provided with the same.


        I understand that this information would be available to the Regulator, and
        was available to the Verifier appointed by the Government.


        The said information being related to future plans of the airlines would be
        useful in checking the accuracy of the figures presented by the DAA in
        relation to the capacity requirements for design of T2, and in particular of the
        critical busy hour figure of 4200, which in effect determined the area
        requirements. However I do not believe directing the DAA to provide
        commercially sensitive information is appropriate.


        I also note that the counsel for Ryanair suggested that the inspector (and the
        Board) engage an aviation expert to interpret the figures provided by the
        DAA.


        As indicated in the relevant sections of my report, I arrived at my conclusions
        on the basis of the information before me, and following my listening during
        the hearing to considerable number of questions and answers over many days.


        Should the Board consider that the information withheld is necessary for their
        deliberations, I recommend a request of further information from the DAA
        prior to making a decision.


        The Counsel for Ryanair further argued that the details of discussions between
        the planning authority and DAA to set the parameters of the EIS, (for example
        roads), or the scoping was not made available to the public. The public was
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 271 of 308
        entitled to this. As it was not made available to the public, this rendered the
        permission null and void.


        The discussions between planning authority and an applicant are outside the
        remit of this appeal.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 272 of 308
        Strategic Environmental Assessment of the LAP and NDP


        The first argument put forward by the third party appellants in relation to this
        issue was that the NDP was not the subject of an SEA as required under
        Article 3 of the SEA Directive and as such the proposed development was
        nullified by this failure to subject NDP to an SEA. It was also stated that
        necessary procedures were being followed to bring the matter to the attention
        of the European Commission.


        The matter of whether the NDP complies with the requirements of the SEA
        Directive is a matter for another forum, and outside the scope of this appeal.


        The Board would note that, at the time of making the application the previous
        NDP (2000-2006) was still in effect. I also note the previous NDP did not
        make a specific reference to Dublin Airport (though its objectives included
        consolidation and improvement of Ireland‟s international competitiveness).


        The second argument put forward by the third party appellants was that the
        SEA of the LAP was defective as it did not include one of the headings
        required under the SEA Directive, namely „Climate‟ in particular „Climate
        Change‟. This rendered the LAP null and void.


        Mr. Lumley (for An Taisce) noted that while the inspector had inquired during
        the hearing regarding the statute of limitations for a challenge of the SEA of
        the LAP, there was no statute of limitations if the case was prima facia, as in
        this case, an omission of one of the headings. In his view An Board Pleánala
        could not deal with the case until the Council admitted the deficiency and
        subjected the LAP to a proper SEA.


        In their response the planning authority did not accept that climate change was
        not covered in the SEA of the LAP. Both the „scoping‟ report and the air
        quality sections required green house gases and emissions to be examined. The
        environmental objectives, the backbone of the entire LAP, had two specific
        objectives, EO14 (to promote minimisation of green house gas emissions) and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 273 of 308
        EO15 (to support action on climate change). The entire LAP would have been
        tested against these environmental objectives. Sean O' Faircheallaigh for the
        planning authority who was responsible for the LAP said had they done the
        environmental report now, having regard to the current prominence of the
        issue, they would have included a separate section under climate change.


        Mr. Lumley disagreed as in their view monitoring of air quality did not cover
        climatic change effects. Appendix A (the scoping report) and objectives on
        pages 90-94 did not make specific reference to climate change.


        The Counsel for the planning authority argued that the subject of this hearing
        was a planning application and its EIS under Irish Law.


        The SEA Directive was transposed into Irish Law through SEA Regulations
        2004. While I note that the Directive would have had direct effect had it not
        been transposed, or transposed incorrectly or had deficiencies, there is no
        documentary information before me to indicate that such is the case.


        During the course of the hearing I inquired whether the LAP had gone through
        the appropriate procedures prescribed in the legislation, and was advised that it
        had. I also inquired whether the SEA or the process were the subject of a legal
        challenge, and was advised that no they were not. I further inquired whether
        the statutory period for challenging the SEA had expired. It had.


        While I do note the argument put forward by An Taisce that as they were not a
        statutory consultee for the SEA (as in the case of planning applications or
        development plans), they were not aware of the SEA procedure by FCC of the
        LAP, and that had they been aware they would have pointed out what they
        considered to be a serious deficiency, I do not consider the issue to be a matter
        for this appeal.


        In my view the decision on whether appropriate procedures were followed
        during the adoption of the LAP and whether the SEA for the LAP is deficient
        is a matter for another forum, and outside the scope of this appeal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 274 of 308
        While the arguments put forward by the third parties that making a decision on
        a planning application which relies on a plan (LAP) with a defective SEA
        would be open to challenge is reasonable, there is no documentary evidence
        before me to indicate that SEA (and LAP) have been declared defective.


        I note that during the oral hearing I have included a separate module on
        „climate change‟ where parties and observers put forward their views on the
        matter. I refer the Board to the considerable amount of submissions provided
        as part of their evidence. I also refer to my assessment on the issue.




        Application for Costs


        There were frequent references to the cost of appealing the proposed
        development by a number of third parties. Some drew attention to the
        resources, and the number of experts available to the DAA and argued that this
        was not acceptable under constitutional justice as the third parties were at a
        disadvantage.


        The issues was also raised in relation to project splitting and the difficulties it
        caused for third parties in identifying issues in each case and financing
        relevant expert witnesses.


        Referring to Article 10 (a) of the Council Directive 2003/35/EC, they
        requested that they be awarded costs.


        They were informed that the matter would be brought to the attention of the
        Board.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 275 of 308
        Adequacy of Public Notice


        It was argued by some of the third party appellants that the public notice was
        inadequate as it did not refer to the works to the apron area which would be
        necessary during the construction of Pier E.


        I note „the construction, extension, alteration or removal of aprons, taxiways
        or airside roads used for the movement of aircraft and the distribution of
        vehicles and equipment on the airside, within an airport‟ is exempted
        development under Class 32(b), Schedule 2, Part 1 of Planning and
        Development Regulations, 2001. The only limitation for this exemption relates
        to a requirement for notification of the planning authority in writing not less
        than 4 weeks before the development takes place.




        Planning Authority’s obligations under the EIA Legislation


        Mr. Sweetman stressed that they were appealing against the decision of the
        planning authority on the basis that the planning authority had not carried out
        a proper EIA.


        This was strongly contested by the Counsel for the planning authority.


        Counsel for Ryanair said in the decision of ECR 5975, it was determined that
        the screening decision by the national competent authority must contain or be
        accompanied by all the information that makes it possible to check that it had
        adequate screening. In this case the planning authority had documents which
        the public did not. During the hearing the planning authority had indicated that
        they never really considered the size issue but merely operated on the basis of
        representations made by DAA that the number of passengers were going to be
        as stated.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 276 of 308
        The issue of whether the planning authority had adopted appropriate
        procedures in carrying out their duty is a matter for another forum and outside
        the scope of this appeal.


        Similarly the adequacy of the planner‟s report (and whether it carried out an
        appropriate assessment of the proposed development) is not a matter for this
        appeal.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 277 of 308
14.      CONCLUSIONS


      Having regard to the above, the following are my conclusions:


            While various international policy initiatives and measures including
             demand management of air travel could take place, and indeed could have
             significant effect on air travel, in the absence of any measures to date, and
             having regard to the predicted future growth in air traffic, it would be
             reasonable to conclude that the demand for air traffic is likely to rise in the
             short to medium term, regardless of whether it is met at Dublin Airport or
             elsewhere in the country.


            In the absence of a planned commitment at NDP level a tunnel under the
             Irish Sea could not be considered as a realistic alternative that would have
             any significant impact on the demand for air travel to/from Ireland for the
             present or in the near future.


            The increased demand is likely to further exacerbate the congestion
             presently experienced at Dublin Airport


            Having regard to the fact that over 70% of those using Dublin Airport have
             origin /destinations within GDA, the argument that increased use of the
             existing regional airports would not serve the needs of the demand arising
             in the GDA is reasonable


            The examination of alternative locations within the GDA is adequate and
             the conclusions arrived that development of other airports with necessary
             airport infrastructure as well as landside infrastructure to provide adequate
             access would take considerable time to plan and implement and would not
             be ready to meet the existing demand in the short term, is reasonable


            Ultimately, the decision to locate an airport anywhere in the country is a
             strategic decision to be made by the Government at national level. There is


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 278 of 308
             no documentary evidence before me to indicate that a policy decision has
             been made to locate a new airport elsewhere in the country.


            The Aviation Action Plan does provide a clear direction for the growth of
             Dublin Airport, and in particular the provision of new terminal and pier
             facilities


            The proposed development is in accordance with the NDP to ensure
             infrastructural capacity increase in line with the growth in air service in
             Dublin Airport because of its international gateway status for a capital city.


            The NDP makes references to significant investment in other State
             airports, such as Cork and Shannon, as well as in six regional airports, in
             addition to and not instead of Dublin Airport.


            The NDP through Transport 21 makes a strong commitment for the
             provision of public transport (Metro) and improved road infrastructure
             (M50 upgrade) to facilitate landside access to Dublin Airport.


            The proposed development is in accordance with the NSS, which
             considers expanding the level of services available from Dublin Airport to
             an even wider range of destinations to be essential in the interest of
             underpinning Ireland‟s future international competitiveness.


            Overall, the proposed development is not contrary to the provisions of the
             over- riding policies at National level.


            The proposed development is in accordance with the policy and objectives
             of the Regional Planning Guidelines which consider Dublin Airport as the
             premier international access point not only to the region, but also to the
             country, and accepts that the continued development of this asset is
             essential in the interest of underpinning Ireland‟s future international
             competitiveness.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 279 of 308
            The DTO Strategy-Platform for Change recognises the key role of Dublin
             Airport and contains proposals for an integrated transport network for the
             GDA together with demand management services to Dublin Airport


            The County Development Plan refers to Dublin Airport as the most
             significant single economic entity both within Fingal County and the
             region as a whole, and as the principal gateway to Dublin, GDA and the
             Country, and seeks to facilitate its development potential within the
             policies and objectives of the plan.


            The proposed development is in accordance with CDP Objective DA04 „to
             facilitate the on-going augmentation and improvement of terminal
             facilities at Dublin Airport‟


            The proposed development is in line with the LAP policies to maximise
             the potential of existing infrastructure and to satisfy the needs of airlines
             and other users, in particular the provision for a new terminal T2 and Pier
             E to be located to the south-east of the existing 14 bay terminal T1.


            The LAP supports greatly enhanced public transport provision for the
             success and sustainability of Dublin Airport, and provides for public
             transport measures such as Metro North, Orbital Metro West, improved
             bus infrastructure, bus links to the new Dart station at Baldoyle, and an
             extensive programme of upgrades to the external road network.


            The adoption of a plan-based approach to the development of Dublin
             Airport in favour of the previously followed piece meal and incremental
             approach is appropriate.


            The issue of the capacity of Terminal 2 is relevant mainly in the context of
             compliance with the objectives of the LAP to achieve a balanced
             development of two campuses, and optimal use of the terminal and pier


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 280 of 308
             facilities. It is also important in the context of traffic generation and impact
             on the carrying capacity of the road network in the area, and in relation to
             proposed demolition of Corballis House a Protected Structure.


            Having regard to the provisions of the LAP, and the findings of various
             studies carried out both by DAA and Fingal County Council, I am satisfied
             that a capacity of approximately 30mppa as indicated in the LAP is
             appropriate for the eastern campus. This would also be in line with the
             figures indicated in the NDP.


            Dublin Airport is a unique airport with two dominant airlines. Therefore,
             the design of the second terminal needs to take into account this unique
             situation, to accommodate one or the other carriers


            While the current trend in Dublin Airport is in the direction of increased
             low-cost operations, as a result of the recently completed „open skies‟
             agreement, facility planning with flexibility to suit the needs of long- haul
             carriers as well as short-haul (particularly low-cost) carriers would be
             appropriate.


            There is a trend in increased aircraft sizes in both short-haul and long-haul
             operations, and therefore a need for the provision of flexible stands to cater
             for various aircraft types


            The long haul operations in particular would have larger space
             requirements than presently provided to process bigger numbers of
             passengers carried by larger aircrafts, (check-in, security and passenger
             screening, boarding, staff accommodation, lounge and catering, rest
             rooms, larger baggage carousels, etc). There is also need for space to meet
             the up-to-date requirements of US immigration for pre-clearance,


            The provision of IATA Service Level „C‟ is appropriate and in accordance
             with accepted industry standards.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 281 of 308
            The methodology adopted by the DAA for determining the size (floor
             area) of the facility based on growth forecast, the future plans of airlines,
             busy day and planning day schedules is one of the acceptable
             methodologies used by the airline industry


            The decision on whether the demand attributed to various airlines for the
             calculation of the „busy hour‟ figure is accurate is not a matter for this
             appeal but for another authority specifically charged with such
             responsibility, who would have access to confidential information on
             airline plans. Similarly, the building cost of the terminal, and various
             charges arising from its floor area (size) are a matter for consideration by
             another authority charged with such responsibility,


            Having regard to the inefficiencies arising from the provision of two
             separate terminals, and the need for some headroom during the
             refurbishments of T1, it would be appropriate to allow some flexibility
             whereby the capacity provision is higher than 30mppa and in the region of
             32ppa


            Provision of capacity above this level could frustrate achievement of LAP
             objectives


            Having regard to various developments which taken place in T1 over the
             years, there is uncertainty regarding its capacity (currently operating at
             22mppa). It would therefore be appropriate that refurbishment of T1
             should take place immediately after completion of Phase 1 of T2 to
             ascertain its operating capacity at Service Level C.


            While it is likely that the growth in demand for airside travel will continue
             in the short term, its profile will be more uncertain in the medium to long
             term. Therefore a review of the needs and emerging trends in five-six
             years time would be appropriate to have a better understanding of the


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 282 of 308
             longer term needs and requirements at the airport in the context of a
             review of LAP objectives


            Having regard to the capacity provision of the existing runway, in the
             event of a decision not to grant permission for the northern parallel
             runway, Terminal 2 together with refurbished Terminal 1 could result in
             excessive processing capacity at phase 2


            As the ultimate capacity specified in the EIS is 35mppa the impact of the
             proposed development has only been examined up to 35mppa. Therefore
             any exceedance of 35mmpa, would constitute material intensification and
             would require further planning permission and associated assessment of its
             impacts.


            Overall, I consider the iterative process followed by the first study team in
             reaching the final proposition for the location of terminal and pier facilities
             to be well thought out, thorough and robust.


            The objectives set out by the design team to locate the Metro and Ground
             Transportation Centre in the heart of the campus, to have distinct
             separation of vehicular access to T1 and T2, to locate pier facilities at the
             section where the apron space is most generous, to protect the OCTB and
             its setting from intrusions are appropriate and consistent with proper
             planning and sustainable development.


            The location of the terminal is appropriate in terms of urban design and
             meets LAP objectives the for provision of a high quality public realm and
             a building of character


            I am satisfied that in terms of scale, height and overall mass, the proposed
             Terminal 2 is of acceptable proportions and with its high visual quality and
             contemporary design would provide an appropriate „landmark‟ building at




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 283 of 308
             this location. As such it would meet the requirement set out in the LAP for
             a building of „character‟.


            The location of the future MSCP opposite Terminal 2 is acceptable and
             would not have an undue impact on accessibility to the Ground
             Transportation Centre


            Having regard to the space requirements for functional areas, the need to
             process increased numbers of passengers (arising from increased aircraft
             size) in a reasonable short stretches of time, and the need to reduce
             /eliminate excessive queuing in various thresholds, I am satisfied that the
             depth of the building as proposed is required to provide an acceptable level
             of service. I am also satisfied that the depth would need to remain constant
             regardless of capacity provision. It is noted that capacity increases would
             be through increase of the width of the building.


            The proposed location would provide good connectivity between T2 and
             the Ground Transportation Centre, and to airside facilities in particular to
             Pier B, as all are within easy walking distances with acceptable comfort
             levels


            Internally, the „illuminated central spine‟ would provide a direct and clear
             route for the passengers. In general the building design provides for
             comfortable passenger experience with acceptable walking distances.
             While the route through the retail section of the departure lounge is
             unnecessarily lengthy, the issue can be resolved by way of a condition


            The proposed new Pier E is well designed and functionally efficient. Its
             location at the section with most generous apron space is appropriate for
             flexible and maximum stand provision

            Overall I am satisfied that T2 would meet the requirements set out in the
             LAP and provide improved passenger experience in a well thought out,
             well designed and visually stimulating building both inside and outside.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 284 of 308
            The proposed development would necessitate removal of Corballis House
             which is a Protected Structure of regional importance, and not of a lesser
             „local‟ importance


            While the building contained 17th century fabric, over a century and a half
             it went through substantial changes including significant additions to
             reflect the affluence and increasing social standing of the owners. The
             building does not have significant cultural value over and above other
             buildings of the same period


            Incorporating a number of different phases over several centuries Corballis
             House does not have sufficient archaeological significance to be
             considered a national monument


            Its setting and curtilage have been degraded significantly and surrounded
             by road and airport development, and it is not likely that it will regain its
             former setting, or curtilage.


            Incorporation of Corballis House into the new terminal building while
             seriously compromising the functional operation of the T2 would not
             provide a positive heritage value. Similarly, designing the terminal
             building around Corballis House would not provide an appropriate setting
             for Corballis House, and /or appropriate heritage value


            A reduction of the size of the new terminal building would not remove the
             impact on Corballis House, but would seriously compromise operational
             functionality of the terminal


            The availability of alternative locations for the terminal building is not a
             consideration under S. 57 of Planning and Development Act, 2000




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 285 of 308
            The provision of necessary airport infrastructure referred to in the NDP
             does constitute a development of „national importance‟


            Having regard to the provisions of S.57 (10)(b) of the Planning and
             Development Act, 2000; it is considered by the Architectural Heritage
             Advisory Service and Policy unit of DoEH&LG, that „exceptional
             circumstances‟ arose, in case of developments of national importance.


            I accept that „exceptional circumstances‟ have arisen in this case and that
             the proposed demolition of Corballis House is acceptable.


            Dublin Airport is a major trip generator, and one of the greatest transport
             pressure points in the Country


            Generation of additional trips at Dublin Airport is predominantly a
             function of „terminal‟ capacity and not „runway‟ capacity


            Policies at national and regional level emphasise the need to place public
             transport at the centre of the airport development strategy


            There is commitment for significant public investment in landside
             infrastructure serving Dublin Airport through the Metro and road
             improvements


            An uncurtailed increase in car parking availability serving the airport and
             in car based travel would undermine this public investment. Therefore it is
             appropriate to place caps on the amount of long term, short term and
             employee parking serving the airport


            Any expansion of the airport and the associated increases in the demand
             for landside access would need to be provided for in a manner which seeks
             to maximise usage of modes other than the private car



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 286 of 308
            In particular there is a necessity for a significant increase of „bus mode‟
             share in the period prior to the operation of the Metro, as increased
             demand for access as a result of the proposed Terminal 2 if provided for
             mainly through private car would have a significant adverse impact on the
             road network capacity


            It would appropriate for the DAA to take a proactive role in achieving
             increased public transport mode share for both passengers and employees.
             This would need to be done in addition to demand management measures


            A significant component of assumptions regarding delivery of external
             transport projects included in phase II do not have funding under Transport
             21. Therefore, in the absence of certainty or commitment for provision of
             external infrastructure projects which the proposed development would be
             dependent upon, the proposed Phase II would be premature.


            There have been flooding and water contamination issues associated with
             the airport development as a whole


            It is necessary to protect, as required by the Habitats Directive, the
             „salmonid‟ quality and otter habitat quality of the Sluice Stream / Cuckoo
             river and the designated European site at Baldoyle Estuary which receive
             water from these streams.


            Having regard to the uncertainty regarding the time frame for the
             completion and implementation of the drainage scheme for the airport as a
             whole, the apparent problems associated with the contamination of water
             draining into the European Site, and airside connectivity of Terminal 2 to
             all apron areas with pier and stand facilities, it would be appropriate to
             extend the drainage and contamination prevention measures to the existing
             apron areas and all surfaced areas serving remote stands.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 287 of 308
            The appeal site is located in a highly artificial and highly illuminated
             environment, which is not conducive for rare species to thrive, and does
             not seem to contain any protected species or provide habitat for any other
             than common species, though precautionary measures for supervision by a
             bat specialist during demolition would be necessary


            Noise levels        associated with        the proposed development               would
             predominantly be associated with aircraft activity, and to a lesser degree
             with landside traffic.


            An increase in noise levels associated with increased aircraft activity
             would mainly be a function of runway capacity rather than terminal
             passenger processing capacity


            In the event of permission not being granted for the northern runway the
             aircraft movements would be limited by the capacity of the existing
             runway (which could roughly equate the capacity envisaged by the two
             terminals upon completion of first phase). In the event of a permission
             being granted for the second runway, the noise levels would continue to
             increase without any constraint to the capacity of the new runway


            I accept that the increase in noise levels associated with second terminal
             would not be significant in the first phase, due to existing runway capacity


            I consider the methodology adopted in the examination of noise impacts to
             be a reasonable, in general terms


            I am satisfied that while there will be some reduction in noise levels
             through technology and through elimination or phasing out of some noisier
             aircraft types, this would be counter balanced by the increase in aircraft
             movements as a result of economic growth. Thus the impact will not be
             positive as suggested by the first party.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 288 of 308
            An increase in aircraft size would not lead to increased noise levels.
             Therefore the increased ability afforded by Pier E to accommodate larger
             aircraft types would not lead to increased noise levels by itself.


            While it is accepted that the flight paths are determined by the Aviation
             Authority and not by DAA, monitoring and control of take-off routes by
             the appropriate authorities would be in accordance with recommendations
             by Sustainable Development: Strategy for Ireland


            The Noise Directive was transposed into Irish Law by way of
             Environmental Noise Regulations 2006, and came into effect on
             03/04/2006. Its provisions would apply.


            While there have been problems associated with air quality monitoring in
             the past, this seems to have improved in recent times. It would be
             appropriate to provide the results of continuous monitoring on the DAA
             website in real time in addition to suggested quarterly reports to the
             planning authority.


            Based on the evidence provided I accept that the air emissions are
             generally below the limits set in National Air Quality Standards


            In relation to the predictions for the future I accept the dispersion model
             used by the first party to be an appropriate methodology.


            I accept the argument in principle, that aircraft movements would be
             constrained by the runway capacity, and that the prediction of air quality
             emissions (based on the growth forecast, and regardless of the terminal
             capacity to process passengers) would give a reasonable indication.


            I consider the EIS deficient in terms of emissions from car traffic, as it
             includes only the campus area, while emissions associated with very large
             car parks around the airport (though serving the airport) are excluded.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 289 of 308
            I am satisfied however that the conditions suggested in the transport
             module in relation to restrictions on further car park developments and
             requirements in relation to modal split in favour of public transport would
             also be beneficial in terms of curtailment of emissions.


            The EIS is deficient in terms of quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions
             from aviation activity associated with the proposed development. However
             in the absence of an internationally accepted model in relation to how it
             should be measured (CO2 or CO2 equivalent) and as increase in the
             number of aircraft movements would be more associated with the runway
             capacity at the airport, rather than increase in the terminal capacity alone it
             would be unreasonable to refuse permission for the proposed development


            Having regard to the provisions of the recent National Climate Change
             Strategy, which acknowledges an increase in greenhouse gas emissions to
             more than double the present levels and provides for a specific
             Government policy for supporting inclusion of aviation in Emission
             Trading Scheme, and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
             Change, it would be reasonable to conclude that the emerging issue of
             impact of aviation on climate change is a matter appropriate for strategic
             policy at Government and EU level and outside the scope of this appeal.


            The National Climate Change Strategy is quite prescriptive in relation to
             measures to be applied in the case of land based transport.


            While I accept the basic premise that land based transport emissions at the
             surrounding major roads are much higher than the campus, the exclusion
             of emissions from car parks outside the campus (which are of considerable
             size) constitutes information deficit.


            I am satisfied that the future increase in emissions arising from land based
             transport could and should be curtailed by measures to ensure modal shift


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 290 of 308
             to public transport as discussed in the traffic and transport module. These
             would be in line with the policies indicated in the National Climate
             Change Strategy.


            The conditions recommended in the transport module to ensure significant
             modal shift, would also facilitate compliance with above policies.


            While the impact of the expansion of Dublin Airport on the residential
             communities would arise mainly from increased aircraft activity (noise,
             emissions, safety concerns), in the case of St. Margaret's there will also be
             significant impact from land based traffic and from road works to facilitate
             particularly phase II of the proposed development


            A formal health impact assessment is not a mandatory requirement


            The EIS meets the statutory requirements, and does provide an adequate
             basis for an assessment of the proposed development. The areas of
             information deficit, have been either supplemented by way of further
             information or highlighted by third parties during hearing and discussed
             thoroughly.


            The EIS provides the starting point for the EIA process and participation
             during the three week long hearing by very knowledgeable third parties
             facilitated expansion of the knowledgebase considerably. I am therefore
             satisfied that a public consultation process has taken place, that there has
             been a thorough examination of all relevant issues, and that there is
             substantial amount of information now available to enable an informed
             decision.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 291 of 308
15.      RECOMMENDATION


      In view of the above, and following my review of the contents of file, the
      submissions and relevant documents, inspection of the site and its environs and
      conduct of the oral hearing, I recommend that permission be


         (a)      Granted for „Phase 1‟ of the proposed development, and,
         (b)      Refused for „Phase 2‟


      Should the Board agree with my recommendation I recommend Schedules along
      the following lines:




      Phase 1


      REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS


      Having regard to National Policy and Guidelines as set out in the


              National Development Plan (2007-2011)
              National Spatial Strategy (2002-2020)
              Transport 21:


      Which provide for enhancement of infrastructural capacity and expansion of the
      level of service at Dublin Airport because of its international gateway status, and
      provide for investment priority for upgraded public transport system and improved
      road network to serve Dublin Airport,


      And also having regard to:-
              Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (2004-2006)
              DTO Strategy: Platform for Change
              Fingal County Development Plan (2005-2011)
              Dublin Airport Local Area Plan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 292 of 308
            Aviation Action Plan 2005
            Provisions of S.57 of Planning and Development Act, 2000
            National Climate Strategy


     It is considered that the proposed development subject to conditions set out below,
     would provide an appropriate response to current congestion and poor level of
     service presently offered at Dublin Airport, would provide for improved surface
     water attenuation and water quality discharged at the eastern campus of the
     airport, would not result in unacceptable increase in air emissions and noise over
     and above the levels that would otherwise occur, would not result in traffic
     congestion on the surrounding road network, would not contravene provisions for
     the protection of the         architectural and archaeological heritage, would not
     contravene the provisions of the National Climate Strategy, would accord with the
     provisions of Aviation Action Plan, and would accord with the policy and
     objectives of the current Fingal County Development Plan and Dublin Airport
     Local Area Plan.




     CONDITIONS


     General

1.      The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, particulars,
        lodged with the application, and the mitigation measures outlined in the EIS as
        amended by the drawings (or further plans and particulars) submitted during
        oral hearing, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the
        following conditions.


        Reason: In the interest of clarity.



2.      The period during which the development permitted by this order may be
        carried out shall be five years from the date of this order.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 293 of 308
        Reason: Having regard to the nature of development, the Board considers it
        appropriate in this case to specify a period of validity of the permission in
        excess of five years.


Capacity

     1. (a) The combined capacity of Terminal 2 together with Terminal 1 shall not
        exceed 32mppa.


        (b) No later than 12 month of commencement of operation at Terminal 2,
             refurbishment works to Terminal 1 to improve service to IATA level „C‟
             shall be carried out, and shall be completed within 24 months. A planning
             application indicating the details of the proposed works shall be submitted
             to the planning authority no later than 6 months of this decision date. The
             submission shall also include any proposals for the upgrading of the piers
             A and B and shall provide for details of surface water attenuation and
             pollution prevention measures in the apron areas serving all piers and
             remote stands associated with T1 and T2. These works shall be completed
             at the same time as refurbishment works to Terminal 1.


             Reason: In the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of
             the area, to ensure satisfactory and timely completion of necessary works
             to T1 and to piers, and to provide for appropriate level of water attenuation
             and water quality control measures in the eastern campus.




Architectural and Archaeological Heritage

1.      Prior to commencement of works on site, the applicant in consultation with
        Architectural Heritage Advisory Service and for the written approval the
        planning authority shall carry out further evaluation of the features and
        fixtures of Corballis House and prepare a list of items to be salvaged. All
        items shall be removed under supervision by the planning authority and
        forwarded to relevant authorities as directed by the planning authority.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 294 of 308
2.      Prior to commencement of development the applicant in consultation with
        National Monuments Service shall provide a programme of works for all
        removal works and archaeological recovery of all items, including those
        reused in the building of Corballis House. The material thus recovered
        /removed shall be disposed in accordance with requirements of National
        Monuments Service. Any demolition works on the site shall be monitored by a
        qualified archaeologist.


3.      Prior to its demolition and removal of features and fixtures, an information
        video (or a similar medium) highlighting historical and cultural aspects of
        Corballis House shall be prepared by the applicant which shall be placed in
        appropriate locations within the terminal building for public viewing. A copy
        of the produced documentary shall be forwarded to the Irish Architectural
        Archive and /or National Museum.


4.      The stripping of topsoil at the pre-construction and site preparation stages of
        development throughout the site, particularly on the airside shall be monitored
        by a qualified archaeologist to be agreed by the Department of the
        Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In the event of the discovery
        of new archaeological material of importance, works in the area of the find
        shall cease immediately and the Department of the Environment Heritage and
        Local Government shall be notified without delay.

        Reason: to ensure satisfactory documentation of architectural, archaeological
        and cultural context of Corballis House, and to ensure any potential remains of
        the Castle site are recovered, and recorded.


Natural Heritage/ Ecology

1.      A bat specialist shall be present when any buildings on site are partially or
        fully demolished, or when trees are removed. In the event of bats are being
        found the planning authority and NPWS shall be notified immediately and
        their requirements shall be complied with. A report by the specialist shall be


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 295 of 308
        submitted to the planning authority upon completion of demolition and tree
        removal works.


        Reason: To protect natural heritage




Passenger experience
1.      The exit from the passenger search area into departures lounge /retail area
        shall be relocated to the western side of the central escalator / toilet pod.


        Reason: to prevent unnecessary walking distances for departing passengers
        through retail area, (particularly those bound for pier B).




Construction times


1.      On-site construction work shall be permitted between 06:00-00:00 hours
        (midnight). These hours may be extended, in exceptional circumstances,
        subject to prior and written agreement of Fingal County Council.


2.      The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority in
        use and operation hours of the remote construction compound serving the site.


        Reason: In the interest of amenity



Drainage


1.      Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface
        water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such
        works and services.

2.      The applicant shall carry out monthly sampling at the point of discharge from
        the airside surface water drainage network to the Cuckoo Stream. The


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 296 of 308
        sampling results shall be forwarded to the planning authority on a monthly
        basis and shall be provided on the DAA website, on a weekly basis within
        10days of each sampling date.


        Reason: In the interest of public health, to ensure a proper standard of
        development, and to ensure continuous monitoring of the quality of surface
        water discharged onto Cuckoo Stream which is a Salmonid River and which
        discharges to a European Site


Contaminated Soil /Aquifer protection


1.      Prior to commencement of development the applicants shall submit to the
        planning authority for written approval, details of proposals for excavation and
        containment of contaminated soil during site works together with measures
        necessary for aquifer protection.


        Reason: to ensure satisfactory handling of contaminated soil and to provide
        precautionary measures for aquifer protection




Air quality /Emissions


1.      DAA shall monitor air pollutant concentrations within the environs of Dublin
        Airport at locations to be agreed with the planning authority. The pollutants to
        be measured shall include nitrogen dioxide, benzene, particulates (such as M10
        and M25) and ozone. The measurements shall be undertaken so that
        concentrations can be compared with compliance of the appropriate NAQS.
        The monitoring network shall include both continuous sampling equipment
        and passive sampling methods for monitoring the air pollutant parameters.


        Results obtained from the air quality monitoring network shall be submitted to
        the planning authority on a quarterly basis, and displayed on the DAA website
        in real time (failing that on a weekly basis). The frequency and pollutant
        parameters shall be reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure adequate monitoring.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 297 of 308
        Reason: to ensure adequate monitoring of emissions and air quality




Traffic and Transport


1.      Within 6 months of the date of this decision the applicant shall submit to the
        planning authority for its written consent details of proposals to achieve 35%
        mode share of public transport for passengers and employees combined. The
        agreed details shall be in place prior to commencement of operations at T2.


        Reason: It is considered reasonable, as Dublin Airport is a major trip generator
        that DAA should play a proactive role to ensure an appropriate level of public
        transport access to the airport during the most critical periods in advance of
        completion of Metro North


2.      The Mobility Management Plan (MMP) submitted as part of the planning
        application shall be complied with in full and all costs shall be paid by the
        applicant. In addition, the following associated measures shall be undertaken:

        i) Specific mode share targets shall be set and made publicly available on a
               website or similar public forum.

        ii) Baseline surveys shall be undertaken, as soon as practicable, to establish
               the following:

                  travel habit surveys

                  parking surveys, including accumulation and duration surveys

                  traffic counts of motorised and non-motorised modes to indicate mode
                  share

                  queue length and kerbside surveys

                  This survey information will be updated on a regular basis.

        iii)      A suitably qualified Mobility Manager shall be appointed upon
                  commencement of development.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 298 of 308
        iv)      Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared and made publicly
                 available on a website or similar public forum.

        v)       The MMP shall be reviewed every two years and the reviewed plan
                 shall be made publicly available on a website or similar public forum.

        Reason: In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development, to
        secure sustainable travel patterns and to accord with the requirements of the
        LAP.



3.      A dedicated bus service for employees living within the catchment of the
        Airport shall be provided by the applicant. Details of this service shall be
        agreed with the planning authority prior to the occupation of the development
        and shall include:

        i)       A definition of the catchment area.

        ii)      The route(s) of the service.

        iii)     A schedule of the service, which shall include the times when other
                 public transport bus operators are not operating a service.

        Reason: To secure the most sustainable travel patterns appropriate to the
        development.



4.       The accommodation of bus services accessing the arrivals and departures
        kerbs and the coach park shall be based upon the principle that those services
        delivering and collecting the greatest number of passengers shall have priority
        at the arrivals/departures kerbs. Full details of these access and priority
        arrangements for public and private coach/bus services shall be submitted to
        the planning authority for its written agreement, prior to the occupation of the
        building.

        Reason: In order to maximise public transport accessibility to the terminal
        building.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 299 of 308
5.      Additional bus priority measures within the campus shall be introduced, if the
        surveys required as part of the MMP illustrate congestion at the kerbside or on
        the internal road network. Details of these additional measures will be agreed
        with the planning authority, if required.

        Reason: To avoid traffic congestion and to secure the free flow of buses.




6.      The applicant shall liaise with the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) on an
        ongoing basis and shall ensure that Metro North tunnel alignment and station
        box is preserved and made available when required. Full details of the
        foundations and subterranean works associated with the subject development
        in the vicinity preferred alignment shall, along with correspondence
        demonstrating compliance with the RPA‟s requirements, be submitted to the
        planning authority prior to the commencement of development.

        Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development
        of the area.



7.      The following junction improvements shall be undertaken prior to the
        occupation of the development and shall be agreed with the planning authority
        prior to the commencement of development:

        i) The junction of the R132 and Corballis Road South shall have dedicated
             left and right turning traffic lanes and pedestrian and cycle crossing
             facilities. The revised junction shall have regard to the design of the
             proposed upgrade of the R132.

        ii) The junction of the R132 and the Southern Parallel Road shall have a free-
             flow slip road from the Southern Parallel Road onto the R132 (i.e. from
             west to north). The revised junction layout shall have regard to the
             provision of the proposed East-West Distributor Road.

        iii) The junction of the South Parallel Road and the Ballymun-Naul Road
             (R108) shall have a left turn free flow slip road from Dardistown to



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 300 of 308
              Ballymun (i.e. from east to south). The revised junction shall have regard
              to the proposed East West Distributor Road.

           iv) The junction of the Naul Road and the Forest Road shall be replaced by an
              at-grade roundabout.

           v) The junction of the R132 Swords Road, the realigned Stockhole Lane and
              the Naul Road (Cloughran Roundabout) shall be replaced by an at-grade
              signalised junction.

           Reason: To avoid traffic congestion and minimise traffic impacts.




8.    Full details of the following shall be agreed in writing with the planning
      authority prior to the commencement of development:
      i)      pedestrian crossovers of the internal roads between the proposed short-
              term car park and Terminal 2 .

      ii)     tactile paving, which shall be in accordance with “Guidance on the Use of
              Tactile Paving Surfaces”.

      iii)    the layouts of the internal road alignments and cross-sections. Corballis
              Road North, Corballis Road South, the East Link Road and the West Link
              Road shall have design speeds of either 60Km/h or 50Km/h. All other
              roads shall have a design speed of 50Km/h or 30Km/h. All roads within
              the Airport campus shall have speed limits of 50Km/h or 30Km/h. There
              shall be no speed limit of 20Km/h.

      iv)     the layout of the two proposed major signalised junctions within the
              campus - the Corballis Road South/ East Link Road junction and the
              Corballis Road North / West Link Road - shall be analysed using
              OSCADY, TRANSYT, LINSIG or other similar software for the AM
              peak, the midday period and the PM peak, in the years 2012 and 2024.

      v)      details of cycle parking.

      vi)     cycle lanes additional to those illustrated in the application shall be
              provided:

              between the proposed terminal and the Old Central Terminal Building


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 301 of 308
             on the new West Link Road

             on the northern side of Corballis Road South

      Reason: In the interests of road safety and for the convenience of all road users.



9.    The following Intelligent Traffic Management measures shall be implemented
      by the applicant.

      i)     The three sets of traffic signals on the R132 at Collinstown Cross, South
             Corballis Road and the Airport roundabout, and the two sets of signals at
             the major junctions within the Airport campus, shall be linked and shall be
             under the control of Fingal County Council‟s and/or Dublin City Council‟s
             Traffic Management Centre.

      ii)    CCTV cameras shall be provided at the same three junctions. The cameras
             shall be compatible with Fingal County Council‟s and Dublin City
             Council‟s CCTV monitoring systems.

      iii)   Variable Message Signs (VMSs) shall be provided to serve the functions
             of parking guidance and emergency incident management. The VMSs
             shall be compatible with the proposed Fingal County Council Parking
             Guidance System and with Dublin City Council‟s Regional Traffic
             Management Centre.

      iv)    Ducting for fibre-optic cables shall be provided to facilitate
             communications with CCTV cameras and VMS signs, and the conversion
             of traffic signals to SCATS.

      Reason: In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development .



10. Full staged Road Safety Audits shall be carried out for all road infrastructure
      works and submitted to the planning authority for its agreement. The Road
      Safety Audits shall be compliant with the NRA Road Safety Audit Guidelines
      (DMRB Volume 5 – Section 2) and shall be submitted for compliance at the
      appropriate stages of development.

      Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 302 of 308
11. The applicant shall produce an Emergency Incident Traffic Management Plan
      (Emergency Incident TMP) in agreement with the Transportation Department.
      The Emergency Incident TMP shall consider the traffic implications of
      blockages at different locations in the Dublin Port Tunnel, the M1, the M50, the
      N2, the R132 and the R108. In each case, it shall identify alternative access
      routes to/from the Airport and set out procedures to manage traffic and inform
      motorists and public transport operators.

      Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.



12. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit for the
      written agreement of the planning authority a comprehensive environmental
      protection plan to minimise the impacts of the construction processes. The plan
      shall provide for, inter alia:

      i)     provision for loading and unloading of materials;

      ii)    storage of plant, materials, operatives vehicles;

      iii)   provision of temporary offices and car parking;

      iv)    temporary site access;

      v)     identification of the main routes to be used by construction traffic having
             regard to the location of residences in the area and the standard of roads to
             be used;

      vi)    a survey of the road and pavement conditions affected by the construction
             route. A bond shall be agreed with the planning authority prior to the
             commencement of development;

      vii) measures to minimise dust and spillages or deposits of clay or other
             materials along the route. Such measures should include wheel washes and
             other cleaning mechanisms;

      viii) a waste management plan to ensure the minimisation of waste, re-use or
             recycling of materials;

      ix)    hours of construction activities and access to the site, minimising
             construction access during the AM and PM peak periods.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 303 of 308
Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and amenity.



13. All associated parking provision shall be the subject of separate planning
      applications and Environmental Impact Statements, as required. Any additional
      parking provided shall have regard to the mode share targets established by the
      MMP and the growth of passenger numbers using the Airport. Having regard to
      the assumptions underpinning the EIS submitted with the subject application,
      the submitted MMP and the capacity of Phase 1 of the development, the
      following restrictions to car parking, which are a direct result of the proposed
      development, shall apply:

      i)     The total number of long-term public car parking spaces serving the
             Airport shall not exceed 26,800.

      ii)    The total number of short-term public car parking spaces shall not exceed
             4,000.

      iii)   There shall be no material increase in the number of employee car parking
             spaces serving the terminal facilities.



      Reason: In the interests of the free-flow of traffic and the proper planning and
      sustainable development of the area.



14. The charges for all public car parking serving the development shall, following
      consultation with the Dublin Transportation Office (or its successor), be agreed
      by the planning authority prior the occupation of the proposed development. The
      charges shall be set having regard to the mode share targets established in the
      MMP, the availability of parking and the ongoing implementation of public
      transport services and infrastructure. The charges shall be displayed on a
      website, or similar public forum, and shall be reviewed every two years.

      Reason: To control the use of parking, reduce car dependency, ensure an
      appropriate public transport mode share and avoid traffic congestion on the
      surrounding road network.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 304 of 308
15. Prior to the occupation of the development, the following shall be agreed with
      the planning authority:

      i)      details of all external (traffic) and internal wayfinding for the public
      ii)     details of a public transport help desk in the arrivals hall
      iii)    identification of a liaison person to consult with the planning authority.


Reason: In the interests of proper planning and development.




Miscellaneous

1.         All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as
           electrical, communal television, telephone and public lighting cables) shall be
           run underground within the site.


           Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the visual amenities of the
           area.


2.         No advertisement or advertisement structure, the exhibition or erection of
           which would otherwise constitute exempted development under the Planning
           and Development Regulations, 2001, shall be displayed or erected (on the
           building/within the curtilage of the site) without the agreement of the planning
           authority.


           Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.




Contributions


1.         The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in
           respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the
           area of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or
           on behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development
           Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 305 of 308
        Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of
        development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may
        facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the
        Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the
        Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or,
        in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to
        determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

        Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a
        condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development
        Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the
        permission.



2.      The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution as a
        special contribution under section 48(2)(c) of the Planning and Development
        Act 2000 in respect of:

                 i)       the upgrading of the R132 between Collinstown Cross and the
                          Airport Roundabout to 2 lanes plus 1 bus lane in each direction.

                 ii)      the provision of the East-West Distributor Road between the
                          South Parallel Road/R108 junction and Collinstown Cross.

                 iii)     Variable Message Signage outside the Airport complex.

                 iv)      Extension of the existing 900mm diameter branch foul sewer at
                          the hotel at Kittyhawks to Collinstown Cross


        The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or
        in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be
        updated at the time of payment in accordance with changes in the Wholesale
        Price Index - Building and Construction (Capital Goods), published by the
        Central Statistics Office. The amount of the contribution shall be agreed
        between the planning authority and the developer, or, in default of agreement,
        the matter shall be referred to the Board for determination.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 306 of 308
        Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute
        towards the specific exceptional costs which are incurred by the planning
        authority which are not covered by the Development Contribution Scheme and
        which will benefit the proposed development.



3.      The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in
        respect of the Fingal County Council Supplementary Development
        Contribution Scheme for Metro North, in accordance with the terms of the
        Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme made by the planning
        authority under Section 49 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The
        contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in
        such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be
        subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the time of
        payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall be agreed
        between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such
        agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper
        application of the terms of the Scheme.


        Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a
        condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Supplementary
        Development Contribution Scheme made under Section 49 of the Act be
        applied to the permission.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 307 of 308
Phase 2


REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS


1.       Having regard to uncertainties regarding capacity of Terminal 1 prior to and
         following its refurbishment, it is considered that proposed phase 2 would be
         premature as it could result in capacity in excess of what is envisaged for
         eastern campus in the current LAP.


2.       The proposed development would be premature having regard to prospective
         deficiency in the road and transport network serving the area and commitment
         by the roads authority to design and fund all external transport elements
         detailed in the EIS to facilitate Phase 2.


3.       Having regard to the uncertainty in relation to growth in aircraft activity in the
         long term, it is considered appropriate that a review of emerging trends be
         carried out following completion of Phase 1 and refurbishment of Terminal 1




--------------------------------
Öznur Yücel-Finn
Senior Planning Inspector




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PL 06F. 220670                           An Board Pleánala                          Page 308 of 308

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:4/29/2010
language:English
pages:308