Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Numerous people have suggested the airport should be treated as strategic infrastructure (and making planning decisions for example within the department of the environment, or as KJ and MOL would like to go straight to An Bord Pleanala).

A problem with this is the legislation which prompted the daa back in the late teens to lobby for the current system (ie dublin airport no longer strategic infrastructure, anca creation, initial planning going to fingal coco and appealed to ABP). European lawmakers brought in Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 which specifically requires the right to appeal to a higher and different body. If going straight to ABP - there is no current higher planning body. Ditto the DOE.

Ultimately any attempt to streamline the planning around this still needs to comply with established european law.

it actually isnt a separate matter - and is why i think it is proving difficult to untangle though ive never heard it mentioned on the airwaves. while i completely accept your position that it is a national asset and aught to have national oversight - the legislation under which dublin airport finds itself requires that the planning process needs to have a separate and higher body to which planning decisions can be appealed to. the exact quote within the legislation -

'Member States shall ensure the right to appeal against operating restrictions adopted pursuant to this Regulation before an appeal body other than the authority that adopted the contested restriction, in accordance with national legislation and procedures'

I am no legal scholar but recall hearing during radio discussions on various (not related to this) matters that European legislation, where applicable, supersedes national legislation.

If planning decisions were to bypass local council and go to ABP there would then need to be a new quango established specifically to oversee planning decisions related to the airport in order to function as the separate appeals body. I have no insight into how this whole process developed but would imaging that the gov at the time figured having Fingal as first body, followed by ABP as 2nd body satisfied this legislation. Indeed the daa lobbied for this at the time. KJ has repeatedly requested during interviews to make the airport classified as strategic infrastructure but makes no mention of this aspect of European legislation or how he envisages satisfying this requirement.

We already have things like railway infrastructure applications go straight to ABP and a few years ago there was the SHD process where large housing developments bypasses local authorities because they were considered critical. Why would planning applications submitted by the airport be any different?

Currently an application for a new terminal would be treated no different than someone in Balbriggan looking to add a porch to their house which seems ridiculous

FCC and ABP approved the north runway and capacity between the two runways is up to 60million per year. Any noise issues would have to have been assessed then? There’s nothing being built in this application. All infrastructure is already there and has already been assessed for noise impacts? Why would they need to do it again in this application? More red tape and unnecessary delays. If we can’t get unused spiral ramps leading to nowhere demolished is it any surprise!

Relevant action must be near a final decision now?

The airport will be close enough to 36 million passengers this year anyway. The government continue to do absolutely nothing about it. What a joke.

Time for the Government to step up to the plate now as they committed to in the program for Government, I won't hold my breath!

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum:l28068 describes some of the EU directives that authorised 'competent authorities' to assess whether an individual airport had a 'noise problem' and then to develop a plan using a balanced approach to improve the noise situation if it has one. that page i linked specifically notes that "Furthermore, the report notes that, in general, the number of people affected by noise has increased because the number of movements has increased".

Handily, ANCA, which previously identified dublin airport as having a noise problem, released their annual report in the past few days -

"ANCA attends pre-planning meetings between the airport and planning authorities to provide advice on the management of aircraft noise. All planning applications for development at Dublin Airport are subject to technical examination by ANCA" - you might recall that the daa havent had any pre planning meetings for the 36 million application and just today: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/03/06/dublin-airport-faces-further-delays-on-passenger-cap-decision/

anca's report specifically says " Noise Abatement Objective In 2022, ANCA established a noise management plan for Dublin Airport. This plan is called a noise abatement objective, and it defines the noise impact reductions to be achieved in the years ahead" and "The number of people categorised as ‘highly sleep disturbed’ is the standardised indicator for measuring sleep disturbance from environmental noise. The noise objectives for Dublin Airport require continuous improvement in this category from a 30% reduction by 2030 to a 50% reduction by 2040. ANCA has aligned these noise objectives with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation(WHO) that seeks to limit the exposure of the population to higher levels of noise exposure"

It is less arbitrary than "concerned with a few hundred locals' and the planning concerns around noise are actually based on established european law. Even if categorised as national infrastructure and the planning process taken on by a separate planning body vs fingal coco, ANCA will still have a role and will base their recommendations about whether the noise situation is being made worse. below is taken from the ANCA report which shows an increase in number of people exposed to noise above 65dB Lden - not the reduction that the noise abatement plan is hoping to achieve.

To be honest at this stage i think the daa are purposely trying to create planning drama which might prompt the gov to change the legislative landscape for them. I think they cant bypass the european legislation however and the fact that anca have identified a noise problem which they feel needs addressing.

If that's was the case, then DAA would just need to reference the noise assessment for up to 60m passengers and it would breeze through. But I suspect ANCA would have been aware of that if it were the case, and highlight doubt that they would make such a clanger

None of that is relevant. Noise impacts have been assessed previously for all infrastructure that’ll be used for this mere 4 million passenger increase. It’s far from a big increase. 

Are you sure they were assessed? Or just assuming they would have been.

As this is the EIAR and it from a very quick (crtl+F) scan it appears that it benchmarked the runway noise assessment at 32m.

Assessment Year(s) The Assessment Years are the points in time at which the likely significant effects of the proposed Relevant Action are assessed. The reasons for selecting these years are given below.

 2022: the year when the North Runway is first expected to become operational.

 2025: the first year of highest use of the runway system in the Proposed Scenario (i.e. when 32 million passengers per annum throughput is first expected to be reached but not exceeded). This is also the first year of predicted maximum environmental effects in the Proposed Scenario.

From that it's pretty clear the the runway application was approved on the basis that it's impact was only assess at far as 32m and not 60m. Which probably should have been obvious, when would they hinder the runway application by setting the assessment at 60m.

DAA would have been well aware of that. And the fact they left is so late to apply, and "forgot" about noise. It's really starting to look like they are strategically dragging this out as @brianiac mentioned above.

Some reporting from the Sunday business post below, I think its fair to say the opinions expressed in the report are accurate and realistic. We really do know how to self harm our economic future when dealing with critical infrastructure projects such as the DAA projects, Metrolink and Dart + extensions etc.

Dublin Airport is a national asset and key to Ireland’s economic future, yet it is being stymied by effectively local gripes

Whoever is determined to sabotage Irish tourism is certainly well on their way to achieving it.

The legal challenge to the 32 million cap on passengers using Dublin Airport is meandering its way through the Irish and European courts, a process that may take a couple of years to resolve. The planning application to raise the cap to 40 million will likely follow a similar timeline.

The airport can’t even demolish the brutalist car parking structure attached to Terminal 1 to make it look somewhat modern and appealing, as that is now deemed by the planning authority to be an architectural gem. There really is no accounting for taste.

An Bord Pleanála is in the process of a final determination on the number of aircraft movements as part of a noise mitigation plan. Residents in the area surrounding the airport claim the increasing use of the runway is an intolerable burden on their lives.

A draft ruling by ABP proposed increasing the hours the runway could be used, chiefly overnight. However, the flip side of that is a recommendation to cut the total number of movements from 36,000 annually to 13,000, or just 36 per day, which would impact key early morning flights.

It’s the worst of both worlds for the airlines. Embleton called the proposals madness. And it’s hard to conclude she isn’t wrong. Leaving the second runway idle is wasting a crucial piece of national infrastructure. Ireland pitched itself as a destination for tourism, relies on workers from abroad for key jobs and is a location for international investment. Just don’t disturb anyone’s sleep in the process.

Tourism is not a luxury industry. It is one of Ireland’s largest employers and a cornerstone of the economy, supporting businesses from hotels and restaurants to rural attractions and city retailers. It deserves more than lip service.

Ministers will soon pass through Dublin Airport on their way to various St Patrick’s Day destinations, where they will deliver speeches about Ireland’s openness, its global connections, and the need to attract more investment. They should take a hard look around as they do. The airport is one of the country’s most valuable assets. It does not need a major new build to handle more passengers, it simply needs to maximise the infrastructure that has already been built to serve the country’s long-term needs.

The government can’t keep tiptoeing around this issue. The airport is key to Ireland’s economic future and is too important to be slowly eroded by local disputes and political inertia. Planning restrictions, environmental concerns, and residential objections all have their place, but they cannot be allowed to hold the country to ransom.

If we fail to act, other airports will not hesitate to take the business. And once it is gone, it will not be easy to win back.

That’s related to the night flight restrictions, which is not the passenger cap! Obviously it overlaps and one impacts the other but it’s important to remember they are separate matters!

Yes indeed - my point was to counter the previous assertion that

" Noise impacts have been assessed previously for all infrastructure that’ll be used for this mere 4 million passenger increase. It’s far from a big increase. "

My general point is i believe (and could be wrong) that ANCA have a statutory role in assessing noise impacts and i am not sure there is specific legislation that allows the gov issue an 'executive order' to bypass planning legislation. I agree that hamstringing the airport leads to impacts on the economy. But it is also crazy that the daa have managed this whole situation so appallingly and KJ seems to be wandering around hoping for a magical solution to appear.

I recently moved directly into the flight path of 10R/28L, and have to say there is no noticeable noise at all that would affect my sleep. I've never been woken up or struggled to go to sleep due to aircraft noise.

There is a period of time between 1900-2300 where you hear the odd plane, but it is a satisfying low rumble that passes and not a lingering screaming jet engine as some would believe. The train line which is somewhat nearby too is much noisier.

It is hard to believe others experiencing the exact same thing would sabotage the entire country for what should be a complete non issue for anyone's lives. Planes are quiet now and even still hearing them on the odd occasion is part of living in our modern world.

Shut Down the m50... I saw a programme on rte about it years ago and dear god, it was loud... some houses were right beside it... planes are getting quieter, no more caps on aviation, in relation to road access or noise... noise perhaps reduced between certain hours... maybe...

I can understand why the DAA are appealing to ABP the refusal by FCC to grant permission to remove the spiral car park ramps when you look on Google maps they would get back a sizeable amount of space back to add onto terminal 1 for future use. How this was refused in the first place by FCC is bizarre to say the least!

Even if the cap is removed they can probably handle at the most 38/39 million passengers per year before the terminals/piers are maxed out and if the planning is not removed from FCC and given directly to ABP or a new infrastructure department the facilities will be lacking again like in previous years…. .

I can understand why the DAA are appealing to ABP the refusal by FCC to grant permission to remove the spiral car park ramps when you look on Google maps they would get back a sizeable amount of space back to add onto terminal 1 for future use. How this was refused in the first place by FCC is bizarre to say the least!

It was refused because essentially "potential development", is a poor justification for demolition.
Demolition in itself considered development (in planning terms). So application was for development that achieved nothing (other than exposing a gap in the facade upgrade).

A credible application would have included the planned development. If nothing is yet planned, then there is no point in demolishing…But there is no way DAA are undertaking an expensive demo without a plan for what goes there. Which begs the question, why they felt the need to split the demo from the development.

Even if the cap is removed they can probably handle at the most 38/39 million passengers per year before the terminals/piers are maxed out and if the planning is not removed from FCC and given directly to ABP or a new infrastructure department the facilities will be lacking again like in previous years…. .

Part of the airport probably could handle that, but any system is only as good as it's weakest point. And based on current data, the current airport weak point (security) puts capacity at 36m.

The no-build application is a short term fix. And even if both applications were granted today, its questionable whether DAA could complete the upgrade in line with growth.