Dáil Éireann - Volume 586 - 25 May, 2004

Written Answers. - Airport Development Projects.

  325. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 431 of 23 March 2004, his Department or the IAA has been able in the interim period to ascertain the number of landowners affected by the three orders in question at Dublin, Shannon and Knock Airports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15267/04]

  Mr. Brennan: The orders the Deputy refers to in his question were made under Section 14 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1950. The orders in question were made between 1988 and 1993, and relate to circular protected areas of 300 metres radius from the IAA’s DVOR-DME equipment at Rowlestown west, County Dublin; Kilgarriff west, Charlestown, County Mayo, and Knockaun, Shannon, County Clare.

Neither my Department nor the Irish Aviation Authority has records which would indicate the number of landowners affected by the three orders in question, either at the time of making, or whether changes in land ownership subsequently may have changed the number of landowners affected. There is no requirement in the 1950 Act to identify landowners in advance of making the orders.

  326. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport further to Parliamentary Question No. 635 of 27 April 2004 relating to the differences between the ERM maps and the Aer Rianta EIS consultation brochure, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the western threshold of proposed runway 10/28 as shown on the ERM maps is approximately 250 metres east of Kingston cross roads whereas this very same threshold is shown on the Aer Rianta EIS consultation brochure of October 2002 as being approximately 500 metres east of the aforementioned Cross Roads leading to considerable confusion on the part of the public regarding the precise location of this proposed runway threshold; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15268/04]

[528]   Mr. Brennan: As I indicated in my earlier reply of 27 April 2004 on this matter, I am not aware of any significant difference between the ERM report and Aer Rianta’s consultation brochure of October 2002 in the context of the purpose for which each of those documents were produced. The consultation brochure was produced by Aer Rianta as part of the public information process associated with the preparation of an environmental impact statement to accompany a future runway planning application to the local planning authority. The ERM report comprised a study on the development of public safety zones in the vicinity of Dublin, Shannon and Cork Airports.

Both of these documents depicted, for illustrative purposes, the proposed runway 10/28 and while there was a minor difference, of the order of approximately 100 metres, in the depiction of the western threshold of that runway as between the draft ERM report of June 2003 and the Aer Rianta consultation brochure, this was brought to ERM’s attention during the public consultation process and was corrected in the final version of the report which was submitted to myself and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in September 2003. Both documents now depict the western threshold of the proposed runway as being approximately 425 metres east of Kingston Cross Roads.

  327. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport if his attention has been drawn to the ICAO aerodrome obstacle chart, type A, for runway 11/29 at Dublin Airport, in particular obstacle 11 thereon; the details of the said obstacle, with particular reference to its identity, date of construction, distance from the nearby runway threshold, length, breadth, height and its height relative to the notional 1.1% slope on the chart in question at its innermost edge that is nearest to the nearby runway threshold; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15269/04]

  Mr. Brennan: The matters to which the question relates are appropriate to Aer Rianta and its safety licensing authority, the Irish Aviation Authority.

  328. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport if, during Report and Final Stages of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill 1997, the then Minister, Senator O’Rourke, stated in Dáil Éireann on 27 May 1998 that protected area powers, if granted to Aer Rianta, would represent a wide range of safety related powers to transfer to a commercial State body and that, in effect, a person’s rights in relation to private property could be limited by enabling the company to restrict development if such proposal were adopted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15270/04]

[529]   Mr. Brennan: I have checked the record of the relevant debate in Dáil Éireann and I can confirm that the comments attributed by the Deputy to my predecessor are essentially correct. My reply to the Deputy’s earlier Question No. 636 of 27 April 2004 on this matter is not inconsistent with those comments.

  329. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport further to Parliamentary Question No. 640 of 27 April 2004, if, in relation to the earlier draft public safety zone, PSZ maps (details supplied) and taking cognisance of the fact that such maps differed significantly from those contained in the subsequent ERM report of June 2003, he will outline in tabular form, in respect of all runways at each State airport, the respective levels of perceived air traffic movements on which such PSZs were based; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15271/04]

  Mr. Brennan: When Environmental Resources Management, ERM, was preparing its report on public safety zones, it consulted with the local authorities in question a number of times. During those consultations, which took place over a period of about one year, ERM have advised that they used a number of different maps that were shown to the local authorities.

ERM have advised that as the study was progressing, both the mathematical modelling and risk analysis being used by ERM to determine the public safety zones, as well as the flight movement data being used in its analysis, were being refined. Therefore, while the approximate shape, size and position of the public safety zones was becoming clear, their precise delineation on the maps being used by ERM was subject to change.

As part of their public consultation process before finalising their report, ERM published details of the sizes of the public safety zones it was proposing, along with details of how it arrived at those particular zones.