Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The residents pointed out that there was an option to have their properties bought to remove them from the flight path. I believe the deal is the valuation of the property plus 30% which, on the face of it, is generous, but two issues remain to be teased out. Who will value the property? Will the property valued as one that is on the flight path or as one that would be worth X amount if it were located somewhere else, with 30% being added?

The Minister will be happy to know that the residents whom I met were satisfied that the amendment brought forward in the Dáil to restrict the decibel count to 45 by day and 40 by night, on average, would be unworkable. They were satisfied that the limits would simply not work and were willing to agree to negotiate on a change. They were talking of a figure of 65 decibels by day being stipulated, but wanted the figure of 40 decibels by night, on average, to be retained. During my visit to the area we looked at some readings and, I think, the highest I saw was 88.7 decibels.

The next issue I want to discuss is that of the regulator. As my colleague pointed out, the IAA was taken out of the equation because of a legal difficulty. The residents have a difficulty in understanding how a local authority that annually collects €29 million in rates could be regarded as independent when it comes to having the noise regulator on its staff. The residents need further reassurance in that regard. I know from speaking to the Minister today that many of the issues surrounding noise levels are already covered in European Union directives, but the position needs to be explained to residents in the area. I take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is willing to arrange for his officials to meet the specific group of residents in St. Margaret's whom I met to reassure them in that regard.

Night flights seem to be a source of particular concern. The residents told me some harrowing stories about the difficulties encountered in maintaining sleep patterns. Sleep deprivation is a problem and we must consider the matter. I have also heard there are difficulties in local schools in not being able to keep windows open during the day. We have got to do something about that issue as we simply cannot have people living in sealed boxes.

It is great that An Bord Pleanála has an appeals mechanism. I remember being a member of a residents' association in the west. As the chairman wanted to appeal everything, we spent our lives paying solicitors. That is not the way to move forward. I would much prefer to see engagement with local people and local representatives in order to have a very clear path painted for them with respect to appeals mechanisms.

The point was made to me that when the second runway was constructed, the flight path would be over a large housing estate. As I did not view the area, I cannot be 100% certain on the claim made, but if there will a large housing estate on the flight path, will it cause serious problems? Are people expected to live their lives in sealed boxes?

The residents in the area I visited maintained that a roundabout in it had to be resurfaced on a regular basis because of the damaged caused by pollution pumped on top of it from aircraft taking off. In other words, they had to contend with the surface of the roundabout becoming skiddy every couple of months.The residents are on the Minister's side with respect to the amendment put down in the Dáil, which limits the airport to the point where it could probably not operate at all, but they want to be in the discussion nevertheless. I wonder if we could organise something along those lines, even at this late stage, in order to facilitate the passage of this Bill. Everybody accepts that the passage of this Bill is important for the development of the airport.