Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

There's no debate. These are documented facts (that anyone can read). There was a question about capacity and I answered it, that's all.

If you don't believe that history said that's total up to you. I find that odd, when we talking easy to confirm facts. But I'm not trying to convince you or anyone.

I agree. It makes no sense for the cap to still be there in 2025. A planning condition is not supposed to limit future development.
The T2 terminal in ~2007 was a "10 year plan". The FCC's original condition was something like "the year the airport reaches 30m passengers the operator shall submits plans for expansion". That was not unreasonable imo. DAA should have been looking that this from 2017. At the very least, the No-build application should have been in years ago. Ridiculous that they are submitting in 2025.

Dublin Airport posted on Twitter that the High Court upheld the decision to grant permission for the underpass.

Does that mean that part of the Infrastructure Application is now irrelevant and can proceed?

But with tariffs some US companies will advance plans to open a base in Europe to service the European market. Ireland would get its fair share of such companies.

Not sure that's FCC being "at it". I think you might be misreading one of the links above.

In the first link, executive report states application clamed "sightlines exceeded 50m, in excess of requirements for 42km/h public road, and airport is strictly 30km/h". But the drawing wasn't provided. Report question how they achieve the above. Importantly, a 40km/h road actually requires 72m not 50m. A 30km/h road requires 48m.)

Report concludes development is acceptable in principle, but sightlines demonstrating compliance are to be submitted. That is a completely reasonable request from FCC given the lack of critical information, and the apparent misunderstanding of the requirements. The fact the sightlines where not shown (and cropped from) on the drawing is a bit of a red flag tbh, at best it's very careless.

New drawing submitted shows sightlines are...30.08m - and just about makes the 30m requirement for a 20km/h road and far short of the claimed number. Given they got that so wrong originally, the FI is pretty justified.

and makes it clear that same type of information request was already clarified in a previous application!

The previous application is the underpass application, it's a completely different part of the airport (pier 3) and has nothing to do with the above sightlines at T2. It definitely didn't address the above, and even if it did, it still needs to be shown in relation to the new design.

What they are actually trying to claim is that, the underpass application demonstrated that airside roads are up to IAA to approve and are exempt from planning and exempt from the requirements for a public road. Kinda flakey argument, given the design statement claimed it greatly exceed the safety standards for a public road in the first place. And if they were going with approval by IAA rather road standards, they'd have to show that the IAA approve.

It's kinda obvious what happen. Architect messed up the sightlines. Luckily they also got the speed limit wrong, it's 20km not 30km. So looks like it should be approved. Probably some professional embarrassment on the architects behalf, so they are trying retroactively move the goal posts rather than owning the mistake.

" Will do whatever we can " you're the bloody leader of the country aren't you ? Can we get musk and trump over here to clean the place up... that cap would have been gone in a week or less, over there...

Whatever is to be done, let's not suggest that Trump and Musk are the ones to emulate. 🙄

A great way to mark yourself out as someone not worth listening to is wishing we had Trump or Musk in charge here.

Effectively the role of taoiseach here, is the same as president, mainly a ceremonial role...

I think the government, should stop the messing around... its critical infrastructure, end of... that certainly puts it out of any council hands.

The government made it up on the fly with covid restrictions that had no legality or logic - a 12euro meal, 5km radius rule etc. Laws, common sense, and the will of the public were all ignored when they wanted to do so.

A cap that everyone can see makes no logical sense, that is severely restricting the use and growth of the only major airport on the island of Ireland, is by any definition a critical piece of national infrastructure and national policy.

There is no downside whatsoever to the government declaring tomorrow that the cap can be ignored.

The €9 meal was based on an existing legal definition of a substantial meal in a licenced premises; namely that from the era when you had to get a meal with your ticket to a nightclub. Absolutely not made up on the fly. Inane use of it, yes, but not made up.

Dated back to the 60s when it was 10/- (50p); inflated to £2 and then €9 in two steps over the years.

Just to clarify, in relation to COVID-19, that, to give legal force to the measures that were introduced and changed at various times, legislation was passed by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the President. There were legal challenges to some measures but none succeeded, to my knowledge. The wholly exceptional nature of the health emergency was the rationale for powers that would never have been contemplated in normal times and no Government is going to try to replicate the use of such powers to solve a tricky political problem.

The whole world had to react on the fly. At times heavy handedly. But the 12euro meal had a basis in law, as pointed out above. The 5km radius has a logic and was encoded in law.

The cap is restricting the growth now, obviously. But it wasn’t intended to limit the airport to the 2007 plans. It was a condition around when the next stage should be developed. It’s become a restriction because DAA have sat on it since 2017. The operational application should have been in years ago.

There is no downside whatsoever to the government declaring tomorrow that the cap can be ignored.

There is clear justification to grant the operational application. The need is here, the evidence is there. But people, ie local residents, interested groups etc, have a legal right to object. That doesn’t mean they can prevent it, but they have a right to be heard.

Same way somebody who is clearly guilty is still entitled to a trial. Certain process are legal entitlements. Allowing the government or a semi-state operation skip those process is a slippery slope, especially it’s the latter’s fault we reached this point.