Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

73. To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he had discussions with the Dublin Airport Authority about the new runway at the airport since the authority confirmed plans to construct it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15507/16]

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted that the Minister is ahead of me. He can alleviate the concerns of Portmarnock residents about the application by the DAA for an extended second runway.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for tabling the question. It is the third time I have answered it today and I will try to answer it in a manner which is consistent with the way I have answered the other two. Deputies Brendan Ryan and Dessie Ellis asked the same question.

I hope to meet the DAA next week or the week after.

A meeting was supposedly going to be arranged today. The issue of the second runway and the effect it will have on the residents of the area is something I will raise as a priority. I said in my earlier response that I do not regard it as the right of a State monopoly simply to destroy or damage the lives of individual citizens or groups of individual citizens because it is more powerful. It is only fair that, as the argument is weighted very strongly in favour of the DAA, the position of those residents should be given strong consideration by the State and by the authority itself and I intend to make strong representations to the authority on behalf of the residents. Obviously, it is my view and probably the view of every Member that it would be wrong to stand in the way of the second runway because of the great benefits it will bring to the country and because of the necessity for it. Given 25 million passengers go through the airport every year, it must go ahead but that does not mean the authority can ride roughshod over the sensibilities or the lives of those who live in the area. Those who represent them have a strong case. They will obviously have to have either the necessary insulation from noise, which is impossible to guarantee, or adequate compensation for the extraordinary disturbance to their lives this will cause.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I did not expect to get to this question and I will defer to his previous replies but the fact that practically all Deputies in the constituency have tabled a question on this issue today indicates the seriousness of the threat residents feel regarding this development. We will call the Minister to account and call on him to stand by them and by the comments he has just made. We are dealing with a planning permission that has almost expired. It is almost ten years old and it was granted at a time standards were different in terms of noise pollution and the impact that has on people's mental health and well-being and in terms of climate change factors. An evaluation of the decision now has to be updated to take cognisance of the environmental damage and the impact on householders. One of the particular concerns in Portmarnock is noise but the St. Margaret's community is very much impacted from the point of view of some properties being bought up while others have not been because they were on the periphery of the development. Does the Minister intend to raise that aspect of the issue with the DAA? When a line is drawn, the people on the other side of it feel aggrieved that they face the worst scenario whereby their properties are not bought but they will be impacted most by the development.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies will be cognisant of the fact that the problems faced by the residents will not stop the second runway. That will not happen because there is an overall national interest in putting the second runway there. The damage and the difficulties caused in their lives by the runway should be recognised in a material way. Some of these people have lived there for 30 or 40 years and the inconvenience, disturbance and disruption would be indefensible on its own but in the greater national interest, they must be compensated properly. I do not know whether that should be done by mitigation of noise or by monetary compensation but due consideration must be given to the difficulties in which they find themselves.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could have a debate about whether the overall national interest is served by the project. We have to factor in the cost of the impact in terms of climate change, which has not been factored in given the project was originally put together many years ago. One of the key impacts on the residents is the move which will undoubtedly take place from restricted flying hours, particularly at night and early in the morning. The DAA seems to be operating knowing this clause was not granted in the planning permission but is going ahead anyway before inevitably forcing the State's hand. It is similar to building an additional lane on the M50, closing it and allowing the pressure to build before saying that we have to open it during these hours. The DAA is building the runway with a view to breaching the condition imposed on it in respect of the health and well-being of the citizens to whom the Minister referred. Unless that issue is nailed down, we will have a big problem in that regard.