Our Ref: 20060509-Fingal- Dublin Airport

9th May 2006

The Secretary
An Bord Pleanala
64 Marlborough St
Dublin 1

Dear Sir

REF: Appeal against Notification of Decision on 12th April, 2006, by Fingal County Council, to grant permission to Dublin Airport Authority plc, for a new north runway at Dublin Airport.

AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THIS PLANNING APPLICATION

We wish to appeal this Decision Notification on the basis that the application has been lodged and determined in breach of Council Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by 97/11/EC, as amended by 2003/35/EC. The proposal is part of a larger project to accommodate the expansion of Dublin Airport which is being put forward without strategic Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Impact Statement, Further Information and Addendum to Further Information provided by the applicant is deficient with regard to Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive with regard to alternatives the identification of, consideration of and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts with regard to the traffic generation, Greenhouse gases, noise and ecology.

Inadequate Strategic Environmental Assessment
While the lodging of this application predates the implementation of the SEA Directive, this does not exempt the project from the requirement to assess its impact with regard to a larger project or series of projects to accommodate in this case airport and passenger capacity expansion.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the accompanying of the application by the EIS which is mandatory for airport development, the application constitutes evasion of Strategic Environmental Assessment, beyond that defined by the SEA Directive. The proposal is a major element of the long-term expansion of Dublin Airport in a master plan study completed in 2003 by a consultant team, led by BP (Ireland) Ltd, referred to in Section 3.1.1.6 of the EIS, which is stated to have delivered, 'a proposal for a balanced development of all elements of the airport system to enable the airport to cater for this growth for up to 30 million passengers per annum and beyond.'

However, this master plan is dependent upon further terminal areas, transportation improvements car parking and other ancillary development, which is not addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement or the assessment carried out by and consent granted by Fingal County Council.

We submit that the lodging of consent applications for individual elements of an airport expansion envisaged to cater for 30 million passengers, by 2020 is premature unless appropriate assessment is carried out and mitigation measures are put in place with regard to this expansion, including phased timetabled and targeted link between passenger number increase and mitigation measures with regard to noise, transport generation and Greenhouse gas emissions and ecology.

Inadequate Consideration of Alternatives

Section 2 of the EIS on Alternatives gives what is no more than a summary assessment of alternatives. We consider that the most significant viable alternative, namely the increased use of other airports in Ireland has not been sufficiently assessed. We further submit that the objective of Government Policy as outlined in National Spatial Strategy, Ireland, 2002, and the Government decentralisation programme to foster balanced Regional development has not been assessed. While Section 2.3.1.3 states that additional capacity at either Shannon or Cork, 'would in itself have significant environmental impacts', the comparative impacts between such development and for Dublin are not addressed.

Most significant is the argument used that expansion of Cork or Shannon 'would require significant surface area access to infrastructure projects to be implemented (road/rail), in order to allow those who wish to travel to the Greater Dublin Area to reach their destinations'. This does not address the fact that Dublin Airport is currently deficient with regard to rail access to those areas travelling to the Greater Dublin Area. Furthermore, no analysis is provided of the national breakdown of air passenger demand for those air passengers' origin and destination in the Greater Dublin Area, as opposed to other regions.

Shannon Airport in particular, has excess capacity and a consultancy study is currently being undertaken assessing the feasibility of diverting the current divergence of the Limerick/Ennis rail route to serve the airport and thereby remedy the major error which occurred in the planning, development and expansion of Shannon and the associated new town. Enhanced road access to Shannon is currently under construction or at advanced planning, with the development of the N7 Nenagh to Limerick, the Limerick Southern Ring Road, Phase 2 and western river crossing, and the Ennis by-pass and the proposed Gort by-pass. This provides significantly enhanced access to Shannon Airport from both Galway and Limerick and may also be linked to enhanced access from Cork and the southwest region, with shorter rail and road travel distances than to Dublin.

Inadequate Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Generation
The EIS and Further Information submitted fails even to quantify Greenhouse gases generated by the proposed development which is intended to serve the major expansion of the airport and therefore generates significant additional Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases from aviation travel were exempted from the provisions of Kyoto. However, this does not exempt the requirement to consider the environmental
Impact of increased Greenhouse gas generation of any aviation development. The argument in this EIS uses the same cop out/fob off used by consultants for motorway
and dual carriageway projects in Ireland. This is the claim that the Greenhouse gas generation by road projects designed to cater for significantly enhanced road vehicle traffic levels, will be mitigated by future fuel efficiency and vehicle emission improvement. This is despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that this is, or is likely to be the case within any foreseeable timeframe and that any vehicle emission improvement that is likely to occur, will be negated by the overall larger increase in vehicle numbers and movement.

Section 15.2.2.6 refers to 'measures to reduce aircraft emissions, including the introduction of aircraft and engines with lower emissions and higher fuel efficiency'. No evidence is furnished that this is occurring to the level required to mitigate aviation Greenhouse gas limits when the projected increase in aviation is factored. Accordingly, the claims made in Section 15.3.2.2, that reduction in fuel consumption will contribute to lower emissions is unfounded.

The EIS is further deficient in proposing mitigation measures for the additional CO2 emissions from transport demand to serve the proposed additional capacity at Dublin airport. The EIS does not provide any data on Greenhouse gas generation by transportation access. Yet these figures should clearly be open to calculation since the breakdown of staff and passenger access between public transport, private car, taxi and freight/service vehicle should be obtainable, along with origin and destination data, which should allow average trip distance to be calculated.

As with the assessment of transportation impacts, no data is provided on the current modal share for access to the airport between different transport users.

Section 15.2.2.6 states that the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) estimated that 'improvements in air traffic management could reduce aviation fuel burn by between 8-18%'. No evidence is submitted in 15.2.2.7 and 15.2.2.8 that the operation of the proposed new runway will help improve air traffic management to achieve reduction in aviation fuel burn by the level proposed. Furthermore, this refers only to aviation fuel burn in movements in and around airports, not the overall net aviation fuel use for flights. .

Inadequate Assessment & Mitigation for Passenger & Staff Access Demand to Airport
In its initial submission on the EIS, the Dublin Transportation Office submitted that, 'the corresponding landside transport requirements associated with the growth in air traffic should be considered in this stage as part of an overall development strategy for the airport. In particular, a substantial improvement in the level of public transport accessibility, especially from the Dublin Metropolitan Area is crucial, which include the development of a number of public transport networks across bus, light rail and heavy rail modes.'

At the time of the application in 2004, the DT0 Platform for Change, 2000-2016 was already in place but with no budgeted or timetabled implementation strategy.
Since then, in November, 2005, has come the Government announcement of 'Transport 21' including a metro to the airport. Consultation on route options for this metro has recently taken place. Accordingly, both the EIS and assessment of the application by Fingal county Council considered options of the development proceeding with or without a metro. We submit as a preliminary principle that any consideration of airport expansion in the absence of a metro proposal implemented within the most immediate achievable timetable is untenable and should be disregarded.

However, the assumption that the mere building of a metro is sufficient as a solution to resolve access to an expanding Dublin Airport is also untenable. We submit that the metro is only one of a range of measures and must be part of an overall integrated transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area and linked towards enhanced rail access from the surrounding regions. Dublin Airport is the largest single origin and destination point in the State and needs an effective Mobility Strategy to maximise efficient movement for passengers and staff and minimise the use of private cars for a combination of reasons, congestion mitigation, efficient use of land and resources and mitigation of Greenhouse gas and air pollution particles.

No Mobility Strategy is currently in place to Dublin Airport to achieve these objectives. The continued policy of the Dublin Airport Authority and previously, Aer Rianta, has been the progressive accommodation of private car demand through the uncontrolled accommodation of surface and increasingly multi-level car parks. No modal split or modal share information is provided to show the ratio between private transport which must include taxis, which take up the same amount of road space as private cars, and public passenger transport. No comparative data is provided between Dublin Airport and other airports serving European capital cities of comparable size, such as Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

No development facilitating airport expansion should be facilitated unless linked with a targeted and timetabled Mobility Strategy specifically designed on an annual basis to increase the ratio between staff and passengers arriving by public transport vehicle whether a rail or bus over those by car and taxi.

Failure to address Council Directive 2002/49/EC of Environmental Noise.
Noise is a major issue for residents in the catchment area of the proposed development. Condition 7 with regard to noise, apart from requiring implementation of mitigation measures proposed in the EIS and Further Information and clarification, also required, under Condition 7(a), that 'the current noise standard shall be reassessed on a regular basis against best international standards. In particular, that Noise zones shall be considered in the light of the new EU Directive on Environmental Noise.' Given that the EU directive on Environmental Noise, Council Directive 2002/49/EC has already come into force on since 18th July 2004. Notwithstanding the lack of direct implementation into Irish law, there is an onus to implement the provisions of articles already in force for any current development proposal and provide for the articles of the Directive that come in force from 2007.

Neither the EIS, nor Additional Information, nor the Planner's Report by Fingal County Council adequately addresses this requirement of article 8 of the Directive to have a noise action plan in place by the 18th July 2008.

In the case of road proposals which are linked with CPO proceedings on land, there is provision by which a property not directly required for the road take, may be acquired if its occupation is rendered untenable on grounds of noise or other impacts. In this case, there is a significant noise impact in addition to that already experienced by residents in the affected area by the operation of the existing airport and clear and precise mitigation measures must be proposed at this stage to address that and the relevant EU Directive compliance.

Inadequate Assessment of Ecology
The EIS along with further information and clarification requests by Fingal County Council while focusing correctly on the immediate land use impact of the development does not address the wider or cumulative ecological impact of increased aviation and greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposal and the larger project to accommodate the expansion of Dublin Airport to cater for over 30 million passengers. Furthermore while immediate ecological conditions have been attached in the decision notification and excessive of issues has been left to post consent agreement under condition 17 in breach of the EIA Directive.

Inadequate Assessment by Fingal County Council
We submit that the assessment of this application by Fingal County Council is entirely deficient and represents a systemic abrogation of its legal obligations under the EIA Directive as the primary consent authority with regard to this application. In particular, the planning authority has granted consent on the basis of an EIS which is entirely deficient in baseline data and environmental mitigation with regard to alternatives, Greenhouse gas generation, transport congestion generation and noise and ecology.

Fingal County Council have failed entirely to address the issue of Greenhouse gas generation, with no conditions attached and mitigations measures in the EIS which are entirely inadequate. With regard to transportation impact, the assumption has been made that this could be resolved by modification to the existing infrastructure with the metro link announced in Transport 21 and junction improvements. This fails to address the impact on passenger demand projected by the increase in airport use which this development is designed to facilitate. No proper consideration is given to the recommendations of the DTO or attachment of conditions which would reflect the concerns of the DTO Transportation Strategy which would have to include a range of measures integrated into the overall enhanced public transport system for the Greater Dublin Area. With regard to ecology Fingal County Council have failed to assess the wider or cumulative ecological impact of the development and attach conditions which are based on an excessive level of post consent agreement between the applicant and the planning authority.

Yours sincerely

IAN LUMLEY
Heritage Officer