ABP Confirms flight paths are not compliant with planning permission
The recent draft decision concerning Dublin Airport Authority’s (daa) “relevant action” (RA) focuses on the number of night flights and the operational hours for the north runway. However, a major issue now brought to light by An Bord Pleanála’s (ABP) Planning Inspector is daa’s deviation from the originally approved route that was a key aspect of the 2007 planning permission granted for the north runway.
The approved route as requested by daa, requires planes to fly straight ahead for 5 nautical miles over empty fields and solar farms while climbing to 3,000 feet before making turns. Known in the aviation industry as the Noise Preferential Route (NPR), it was at the heart of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway’s planning permission.
In their 432-page report, ABP’s Planning Inspector clarifies that “the flight patterns submitted in the applicant’s supplementary information […] differ from those submitted in the original EIS for the North Runway application.” This is a very important clarification for the 30,000 people unnecessarily suffering the effects of aircraft noise.
“In 2007 ABP stressed that granting the permission was fundamentally based on environmental information supplied by daa and they reinforced this with Condition 1 requiring no deviation from the EIS” said civil engineer Gareth O’Brien, spokesperson for NRTG. “This clarification by ABP is significant because it confirms a deviation from the runway’s Noise Preferential Route, a clear breach of Condition 1 of the planning permission which remains in force.”
DAA blames the Irish Aviation Authority
Daa claims their decision not to align the north runway flight paths with the Noise Preferential Route was made at the instruction of the IAA for “safety reasons”. According to the Inspector, daa claims the Authority acted as consultant on the design of the present flight path routes that ignore the NPR.
ABP’s Inspector has highlighted that they have been forced to disregard many submissions showing alternative solutions and ignore daa’s failure to align with the NPR because IAA in its role as aviation safety regulator has not made a submission confirming or denying daa’s claims. The Inspector notes that IAA has 14 weeks from the date of publication of the draft decision during which they can make a submission.
Several groups representing noise-affected residents, including NRTG, have had meetings with IAA senior management who have explained the IAA Safety Regulator’s role regarding approval of aerodrome procedures. NRTG’s understanding from the IAA is as follows:
· Aerodrome procedures, which include flight paths, are designed by the aerodrome operator, in this case daa, and then submitted to the IAA for approval. Upon receiving the submission, the IAA’s role is limited to ensuring that the procedure when considered in isolation does not fall below the minimum required safety standards.
· No other criteria such as environmental impact, alignment with an approved Noise Preferential Route, or any other aspect of the aerodrome operator’s planning permission are considered by IAA in approving or rejecting a submission. Use of such criteria being outside the scope of IAA’s authority would likely lead to legal action against IAA if they were to use those criteria to assess a procedure submission.
· IAA’s role is not to perform a qualitative or comparative engineering analysis of the proposed solution nor is the Authority permitted to suggest improvements or alternatives. IAA does not choose or recommend flight path routes.
· The IAA Safety Regulator must not be involved in designing solutions that it would later approve or reject. To do so would present a clear conflict of interests and undermine their role as independent regulator.
· Approval of the submitted procedure by the IAA Safety Regulator does not in any way imply their endorsement of that procedure as being the best way, the safest way or the only way of complying with the regulatory requirements.
An Bord Pleanála’s inspector has made clear that IAA’s lack of response has been pivotal to their being forced to accept the present routing of flight paths from the north runway despite acknowledging they are not aligned with the planning permission.
North Runway Technical Group calls on IAA, as Ireland’s aviation safety regulator, to please make a submission to ABP and clarify its role in the approval of flight paths. We request that IAA confirm or deny daa’s contention that the Safety Regulator required daa to adopt the present flight paths as the only way to comply with safety regulations.
