Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 3 October 2018

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport

General Scheme of the Airport Noise Regulation Bill 2018: Discussion

1:30 pm

Mr. Ronan Gallagher:

I believe Deputy Robert Troy alluded to our track record in that regard. Our first option was to use the Irish Aviation Authority. While I was not there at the time, my sense is that the authority put up its hand. It is well resourced and competent. Therefore, we went a long way down the road, supported at the time by legal advice that it could be done. There were developments in case law at European level, but largely the issue of conflict came from the fact that the authority, as well as being regulator, also had a commercial wing that was providing air traffic control services. Therefore, in the end the conflict arose from it having a commercial interest in traffic levels at the airport. On the one hand, it regulates and, on the other, has a skin in the game in the development of the airport. It was felt that would be too much.

Reverting back to why the Department would not be an option, the State owns Dublin Airport. Therefore, in a way the Minister, with the Minister for Finance, is a shareholder. We might also have been facing the same questions about conflicts in that respect.

Other options were quite limited. Given the amount of time and resources put into exploring the IAA option and given the timeframes, we did not have much time for an extended beauty contest to see who might want this. In a way, there was a limited field. We looked at a few existing agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency which was quickly ruled out by its line Department and the agency, I suppose, because of its inability to step up to the plate.

We also looked at the Commission for Aviation Regulation, but it is a small body. As it is an economic regulator, the very technical noise and environmental aspects, the scope of the mapping required and the carrying out of a public consultation process were beyond its capability within any reasonable timeframe. In the light of that, Fingal County Council became a very clear candidate.

Deputy Robert Troy asked about the 2002 directive. It is an important factor. The directive requires Fingal County Council to map noise levels in its area. As I am not an expert, committee members will need to cut me some slack in giving what will be a non-technical explanation. Part of it specifically relates to mapping noise levels and their impact at Dublin Airport. It is required to come up with a noise action plan. I believe last week or the previous week it published a draft noise action plan for Dublin Airport. Therefore, it does much of the groundwork. It measures noise levels at Dublin Airport and identifies the people living in the area who are affected by them. It identifies the scale in different estates and areas in Fingal. It also identifies the drivers behind it. It does all of this under the 2002 directive.

Regulation No. 598/2014 is an extra piece specifically related to airports. With the 2002 directive, Fingal County Council takes account of Dublin Airport, but it also considers the M50 and other generators of noise. Regulation No. 598/2014 specifically refers to the mapping of noise levels at the airport and then applies a balanced approach to identify how we can manage and mitigate noise levels at the airport using the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, scheme which involves a series of measures, land use, aircraft technology and aspects such as landing patterns and traffic movements around the airport. A combination of things can be done to manage noise levels and if at the end of them they are not sufficient to bring the noise down to a reasonable level, operating restrictions, the levels at which they might be and how they might function at the airport, will be considered.

Regulation No. 598 provides for that but the 2002 directive does not. The latter is a much more general piece about measuring and monitoring noise whereas Regulation No. 598 has a suite of actions that can be taken in response to it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.