Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The strategic growth of Dublin Airport has been phenomenal and it is a hugely important contributor to Ireland's economy making approximately €6.9 billion according to a recent InterVISTAS study. It employs almost 16,000 people directly. The number of passengers using the airport reached 25 million in 2015 and in the first five months of 2016 these numbers increased by 14% in a year-on-year comparison. Mr. Kevin Toland, the CEO of DAA, whom I met at his briefing last week, stated that the development of the new north runway will support around 1,200 extra jobs and ultimately create another 30,000 jobs. While this further growth and economic impact of Dublin airport is strongly welcomed it is imperative we do not lose sight of the responsibilities of the Dublin Airport Authority to the residents and locality surrounding the airport which is impacted by noise pollution and pollution to the environment. Over the years I have made representations to the DAA on very early take off and high noise levels over Clonshaugh, Coolock and Artane, generally when the wind is coming from the east. Recently I made a number of representations to the chief executive, Kevin Toland, and his staff on behalf of residents from the Offington area, the Howth peninsula and Sutton due to their complaints about take offs from 4.55 a.m. In the late 1980s the 10R-28L runway was built without any planning conditions, no environmental impact study or night flight restrictions. At the time the St. Margaret's community council battled against Aer Rianta for appropriate insulation against noise pollution for the homes affected. The insulation scheme which was implemented at the time is apparently the one now being offered to those affected by the north runway without any review of whether it is still an appropriate level of insulation. Will the Minister confirm this? What research has the DAA carried out to show it is a proper level of insulation? The new north runway is not expected to have night flights though the DAA is saying it will fight that planning condition, meaning that the old 10R-28L runway will have night flights. Residents affected, who I represent, recognise the importance of the growth of the airport, particularly in the light of Brexit. They are simply asking to be treated fairly, with great consideration and the same treatment as those affected by the new north runway, given that the international legislative environment was very different 25 years ago.

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

There are two issues here, both connected. The first is the old runway at Dublin Airport. Residents within the contours of the old runway are concerned that increased flights, emissions and traffic will compound the problems they already experience. As Deputy Broughan said, they feel hard done by that the original runway was not subject to the same planning conditions or environmental impact study requirements.

They are worried that the mitigation measures that will be available to those coming within the contours of the new runway may be superior to the protection that they get or do not get, as the case may be.

There is a second issue which is of critical importance, and that is the new runway itself. We must register that this application is being made now almost ten years after the permission was given in a completely different type of world that we live in. Even then, with lesser criteria on noise and environmental protection than we have now, the condition applied was that the DAA should not loosen up on its restrictions on night flights. Anybody who went to the briefing last week will be aware that the DAA is explicit in its intention to break that condition that was applied years ago when conditions were less stringent than they are now and that is completely unacceptable to the local communities in the area.

There is a significant issue that the current proposal is to insulate homes that would experience noise levels of 63 dB or above, but night noise levels of 40 dB to 55 dB are known to have adverse health effects according to the World Health Organization, WHO. It is a little annoying that the WHO changed its recommendation on night noise maximums in 2009, two years after the planning permission was granted at a level of 63 dB. We cannot have that. With the current knowledge, we cannot ignore the health and safety impacts on residents in that community. What can the Minister do to reassure us that all of those matters will be considered?

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

I thank the two Deputies for once again bringing this particular subject to my attention. I met the DAA last week on the same day as it was making the presentation in Buswells, and I put some of those points to them to take away.

As the Deputies will be aware, DAA has a statutory responsibility to manage, operate and develop Dublin Airport, including the provision of infrastructure necessary to meet existing and future demand, such as the north runway project. The DAA was granted planning permission in 2007 for a second parallel runway and the necessary lands have been preserved for such a project since the 1960s. However, due to the downturn in the economy, the project was not progressed. Given the significant increase in passenger numbers at Dublin Airport in recent years and the projected traffic growth in future years, it is clear that a second parallel runway is needed.

Against this background, the DAA announced its decision to proceed with the development of the north runway project in April 2016. The DAA expects construction to commence in early 2017 with the runway operational by 2020. The planning permission granted for the second parallel runway in 2007 had 31 conditions attached and is valid for ten years. I should point out that planning matters are the responsibility of the relevant local authority, Fingal County Council in the case of Dublin Airport, or An Bord Pleanála, as appropriate. Two of the conditions relating to noise operating restrictions are of particular concern to DAA in that they would result, DAA states, in operations across the entire airport being restricted during the night, between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., to limit noise impacts on the surrounding area. The constraints are such that flights at the airport in the peak hour between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. would have to be cut back by approximately one third. Over the last number of months, DAA has been examining the scope of a further environmental impact statement, EIS, for the purpose of seeking a review of the operating restrictions foreseen for Dublin Airport under the existing planning permission for the north runway. I understand that a public consultation has now commenced to explain why changes are being sought to the two planning conditions and to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to contribute to the content of and the approach to be adopted in the EIS process. Regarding the issue of noise, EU Regulation 598/14 relating to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at EU airports entered into force last month. This regulation sets out the process to be followed when deciding on noise-related operating restrictions and involves consideration of all potential aircraft noise mitigation measures. The regulation provides for consultation with interested parties, including local residents living in the vicinity of the airport. The new noise regulation presents an opportunity to establish a modern, cohesive and measured approach to the management of noise at Irish airports which is capable of delivering the best outcome for all stakeholders. With a view to ensuring the most effective implementation of the new noise regulation in Ireland, my Department is currently working on the detailed technical arrangements to be set down in regulations that I intend to make in this regard as soon as possible. Finally, I met with senior officials of DAA last week to discuss a number of issues, one of which was the north runway project. The DAA advised that it is very conscious of balancing the national needs in delivering an essential piece of infrastructure while minimising impacts on local communities.

In this regard, DAA briefed me on its engagement with residents on the project and outlined the various strands of work underway on the project, which include the discharging of pre-commencement planning conditions relating to noise mitigation measures, such as the voluntary insulation and house buyout scheme which will be available to residents whose houses are most impacted.

In addition, they spoke about the substantial public consultation and communications programme they have commenced which will continue as the north runway project develops. I understand that these information sessions will provide relevant and accessible information to stakeholders about the planning permission that has been granted, what will be built, when it will be built, how it will be built and how any issues will be addressed.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister referred to EU Regulation 598/14, some new legislation he would be bringing in, detailed technology arrangements etc. Does the Government intend to introduce a general noise Bill? The concern we mentioned at the DAA briefing is that residents talk about 69 dB levels and the airport referred to average levels.

On night flights, many of the biggest airports, such as Heathrow, Zurich and Frankfurt, have severe restrictions on flights between 11.30 p.m. and 4.30 a.m. Currently, Heathrow is restricted to 16 flights a night. The DAA literature speaks of 65 night flights but in the Roganstown consultation, DAA mentioned 100 flights a night. We will now have the second runway. What will be the Department's attitude on that?

Last week the Minister received the Indecon report which speaks of competing terminals. It also speaks of a possible second airport for Dublin. What is the Minister's attitude to those matters?

There is grave concern from the most affected residents - those within and close to the noise contours. Obviously, we will be expecting a strong response from the Minister.

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

When we raised this at Minister's questions, in fairness, the Minister was forthright in his support for residents in the area and the need for them to be adequately compensated. Those points were registered by the local communities and welcomed.

The Minister's answer is explicit as to the intentions of the DAA. They openly intend to try to breach this restrictive night-flight condition even though ten years ago when standards were lower it was deemed to be unacceptable for the local communities. It is even less acceptable now.

There is no business or connectivity imperative behind the proposition of that early morning glut. It is simply in place to enhance the profitability of the carriers, particularly the ones which want to have an aircraft return to base and go back out on another leg. For example, there are early morning flights departing to sun destinations where the passengers would far prefer to go mid-morning. That morning glut is all about aircraft going out and come back in time for a second leg.

The profits of airlines are of a lesser concern to the well-being of the local community. It is unacceptable that those conditions would be breached and that we would not have a cost-benefit analysis on this proposal. Such an analysis needs to be done holistically. I hope the Minister takes those points into account.

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

I thank the Deputies again for bringing this to my attention. They will not find a more sympathetic audience or Minister to the problems of the residents than I will be. I am particularly conscious of their difficulties, although I must say that the number complaints landing on my desk is not as many as I would have expected. However, that is probably because they are complaining to the Deputies rather than to me.

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

Most of the time.

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

I have been conscious of this for some time and I am quite happy that the Deputies are delivering that message to me, and I will keep in communication with the Deputies.

The issue of compensation was raised by Deputy Clare Daly. When I met the DAA - Mr. Kevin Toland and the chairman, Mr. Pádraig Ó Ríordáin - last week I asked them what sort of measures they had in mind and they addressed the issue of insulation, which I did not think was necessarily the be all and end all.

They spoke in terms of paying people premium prices for their houses if they were disturbed or had to move. By that I understand it is not just the market price they are talking about, and I take some sort of encouragement from that. We were not specific on it but I will continue to pursue them on that issue if people feel the noise is so great they must move. In certain circumstances, it is a disturbance that is not warranted and nobody deserves that. They would be unfortunate victims of a necessary development in the country's infrastructure. I take fully the point about some conditions being set for noise many years ago. That might be something to be borne in mind, particularly in the public consultation process.

There was mention of the Indecon report and competing terminals by Deputy Broughan. I am reading the Indecon report now and it is something that will have to be considered in light of developments at the airport. I have an open mind about it and I will be discussing it with various parties in the near future.