Property developer Gerry Gannon has secured the approval of An Bord Pleanála to continue to operate a temporary car park next to Dublin Airport for at least another seven-year period.
The 41-acre park has 6,240 individual parking spaces and is leased to QuickPark, the Irish-based company run by businessman John O’Sullivan.
Gannon set a precedent when he originally got planning permission for the park despite strong opposition from Aer Rianta, which took the issue to the Supreme Court. Up to then the semi-State body had a virtual monopoly on parking adjacent to the airport. At the moment the Dublin Airport Authority rents 3,000 short-term spaces and 19,000 spaces for long-term parking. A number of hotels within the vicinity of the airport have also begun operating small-scale car parks in recent years to supplement their revenues.
The Gannon-owned car park has been trading exceptionally well since it opened because of its keen terms – it is currenly charging an on-line rate of €7 per day – and the fact that it is more convenient than most of the other car parks. QuickPark operates a 24-hour shuttle bus to the airport terminal every five minutes. The journey to the terminal can also be completed in five minutes. Gannon bought the 41.8 acres for the park in two lots at a figure reported to have been €400,000 per acre. The second parcel of land was acquired from the Royal College of Surgeons.
The proposed Metro North rail service has designated a site next to the car park as one of its principal stops to and from the airport. One of the conditions of the most recent planning approval by An Bord Pleanála is that Gannon’s company should provide facilities for the charging of electric cars in the car park.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label dublin airport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dublin airport. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Sargent backs Portmarnock protest group over runway
Portmarnock protest group, Uproar has been given further backing for its campaign against the second parallel runway at Dublin Airport by the Minister for State for Food and Horticulture.
Minister for State, Trevor Sargent TD has written to the Finance Minister, Brian Cowen TD to ask that a full cost-benefit analysis of the runway project be carried out.
A full cost-benefit analysis of the project itself and the land that will be used for the project is something that Uproar has been asking for since the beginning of its campaign.
Minister Sargent wrote to the Finance Minister on October 25th and asked him to clarify whether Government rules on weighing the costs and benefits of major projects applied to the proposed new runway.
In his letter, Minister Sargent says that a cost benefit analysis is needed for the project that would 'quantify the value of the public land asset earmarked for the proposal'.
He said the government must also weigh the cost for the country in terms of further congestion in the Greater Dublin Area and the cost for areas like Shannon who will see further economic activity concentrated on the east coast at its expense.
The letter states:
'Can I ask that no government decision be taken on the proposed runway at Dublin Airport until a full cost-benefit analysis of the project is undertaken by all declared stakeholders, particularly Government?'
A spokesperson for Uproar told the Fingal Independent that the response to Minister Sargent's letter will be an important test of the Government's real commitment to its own 'value for money' policy as reiterated in the Programme of Government 2007'.
Fingal Independent
Minister for State, Trevor Sargent TD has written to the Finance Minister, Brian Cowen TD to ask that a full cost-benefit analysis of the runway project be carried out.
A full cost-benefit analysis of the project itself and the land that will be used for the project is something that Uproar has been asking for since the beginning of its campaign.
Minister Sargent wrote to the Finance Minister on October 25th and asked him to clarify whether Government rules on weighing the costs and benefits of major projects applied to the proposed new runway.
In his letter, Minister Sargent says that a cost benefit analysis is needed for the project that would 'quantify the value of the public land asset earmarked for the proposal'.
He said the government must also weigh the cost for the country in terms of further congestion in the Greater Dublin Area and the cost for areas like Shannon who will see further economic activity concentrated on the east coast at its expense.
The letter states:
'Can I ask that no government decision be taken on the proposed runway at Dublin Airport until a full cost-benefit analysis of the project is undertaken by all declared stakeholders, particularly Government?'
A spokesperson for Uproar told the Fingal Independent that the response to Minister Sargent's letter will be an important test of the Government's real commitment to its own 'value for money' policy as reiterated in the Programme of Government 2007'.
Fingal Independent
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Second airport terminal most important building in a generation, say authority
THE Dublin Airport Authority has claimed that its proposed second terminal at Dublin Airport is arguably “the most important public building in a generation.”
An oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála into the controversial new terminal — which will be known as T2 — heard yesterday that it will cater for 15 million passengers per annum, bring Dublin Airport’s capacity up to 35 million passengers per year.
Planning permission for the 92,000m² facility was granted by Fingal County Council last October.
However, the decision has been opposed by a number of objectors including local residents groups, An Taisce and Ryanair, which has conducted a high-profile PR campaign against the cost and location of the new terminal.
The DAA claims T2 — which is due to open in 2009 — will cost €610m including a new pier, roads and associated facilities. However, Ryanair maintains that the final total will be in excess of €800m.
An Bord Pleanála inspector, Öznur Yücel-Finn, was told by DAA witnesses that the new three-storey terminal would provide 56 additional check-in desks and 19 extra airbridges.
DAA director of capital programming, Mark Foley, justified the need for T2 on the basis that Dublin was Ireland’s national airport and one of the 10 busiest airports within the EU.
Mr Foley said Dublin Airport was not comparable with Hahn, Beauvais or Luton — airports which Ryanair insist have built suitable terminals at a fraction of the cost of T2.
He told the hearing that Dublin Airport had suffered from under-investment and congestion over the past decade due to exceptional passenger growth which had seen numbers increase from seven million in 1995 to over 21 million last year.
Andrew Evans, an airport design consultant working on behalf of DAA, said a number of alternatives for the expansion of Dublin Airport had been examined before the DAA had decided on building T2 to the east of the existing terminal.
He told the hearing that the DAA had ruled out an increased use of other airports outside Dublin as a study had shown that Dublin Airport was the most convenient facility for 80% of passengers using it.
Baldonnell Airport to the south-west of Dublin was not considered a suitable alternative as it would provide no obvious environmental benefits, said Mr Evans.
He pointed out that Baldonnell, which is used as a military airfield, is also located nearer to densely populated areas than Dublin Airport.
The options of relocating Dublin Airport to a new site was also discounted for economic and environmental reasons, said Mr Evans.
Another engineering consultant, Colm Moran, said the exact location of T2 within Dublin Airport had been chosen after the DAA had carried out a study to evaluate the relative merits of four possible sites.
He claimed the planned location for T2 was the “fastest and least risky” option.
During preliminary exchanges, a number of objectors argued that An Bord Pleanála was not entitled under planning legislation to conduct the current hearing because it was part of a split project by the DAA.
Opponents claim planning permission for T2 should not be treated separately from the DAA’s plans to build a second runway at Dublin Airport.
Irish Examiner
An oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála into the controversial new terminal — which will be known as T2 — heard yesterday that it will cater for 15 million passengers per annum, bring Dublin Airport’s capacity up to 35 million passengers per year.
Planning permission for the 92,000m² facility was granted by Fingal County Council last October.
However, the decision has been opposed by a number of objectors including local residents groups, An Taisce and Ryanair, which has conducted a high-profile PR campaign against the cost and location of the new terminal.
The DAA claims T2 — which is due to open in 2009 — will cost €610m including a new pier, roads and associated facilities. However, Ryanair maintains that the final total will be in excess of €800m.
An Bord Pleanála inspector, Öznur Yücel-Finn, was told by DAA witnesses that the new three-storey terminal would provide 56 additional check-in desks and 19 extra airbridges.
DAA director of capital programming, Mark Foley, justified the need for T2 on the basis that Dublin was Ireland’s national airport and one of the 10 busiest airports within the EU.
Mr Foley said Dublin Airport was not comparable with Hahn, Beauvais or Luton — airports which Ryanair insist have built suitable terminals at a fraction of the cost of T2.
He told the hearing that Dublin Airport had suffered from under-investment and congestion over the past decade due to exceptional passenger growth which had seen numbers increase from seven million in 1995 to over 21 million last year.
Andrew Evans, an airport design consultant working on behalf of DAA, said a number of alternatives for the expansion of Dublin Airport had been examined before the DAA had decided on building T2 to the east of the existing terminal.
He told the hearing that the DAA had ruled out an increased use of other airports outside Dublin as a study had shown that Dublin Airport was the most convenient facility for 80% of passengers using it.
Baldonnell Airport to the south-west of Dublin was not considered a suitable alternative as it would provide no obvious environmental benefits, said Mr Evans.
He pointed out that Baldonnell, which is used as a military airfield, is also located nearer to densely populated areas than Dublin Airport.
The options of relocating Dublin Airport to a new site was also discounted for economic and environmental reasons, said Mr Evans.
Another engineering consultant, Colm Moran, said the exact location of T2 within Dublin Airport had been chosen after the DAA had carried out a study to evaluate the relative merits of four possible sites.
He claimed the planned location for T2 was the “fastest and least risky” option.
During preliminary exchanges, a number of objectors argued that An Bord Pleanála was not entitled under planning legislation to conduct the current hearing because it was part of a split project by the DAA.
Opponents claim planning permission for T2 should not be treated separately from the DAA’s plans to build a second runway at Dublin Airport.
Irish Examiner
Monday, 16 April 2007
Public hearing on airport plans
A PUBLIC hearing into plans to open a second terminal at Dublin Airport begins today.
The hearing, expected to last ten days, will decide if permission should be granted for the €395m terminal which will be used by up to 15m passengers a year when it opens in 2009.
But even if planning permission is granted, the project could still be delayed. Low-cost airline Ryanair said last week it would seek a judicial review if An Bord Pleanala gave the terminal the go-ahead.
If that does not succeed, the airline said it would go to the European Court in a bid to halt the construction of the terminal on the grounds of "abuse of monopoly power".
Irish Independent
The hearing, expected to last ten days, will decide if permission should be granted for the €395m terminal which will be used by up to 15m passengers a year when it opens in 2009.
But even if planning permission is granted, the project could still be delayed. Low-cost airline Ryanair said last week it would seek a judicial review if An Bord Pleanala gave the terminal the go-ahead.
If that does not succeed, the airline said it would go to the European Court in a bid to halt the construction of the terminal on the grounds of "abuse of monopoly power".
Irish Independent
Friday, 13 April 2007
Ryanair 'won't use' terminal if it's built
The oral hearing starts Monday, so here's the early exchanges:
RYANAIR has repeated its threat to go to court in an attempt to block plans for a new 15 million passenger terminal at Dublin airport, writes Fergus Black. As a public hearing into the project prepares to get under way on Monday, the budget airline said it would seek a judicial review if An Bord Pleanala gave the terminal the go ahead.
If that does not succeed, the airline said it would go to the European Court in a bid to halt the construction of the terminal on the grounds of "abuse of monopoly power".
Should that attempt fail, Ryanair says it will not use the second terminal when it opens for business in 2009.
Yesterday, Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary took journalists on a "reconnaissance flight" to Germany to demonstrate how terminals at Frankfurt Hahn and Bremen airports could be built up to 10 times cheaper.
Earlier this month, the airline opened its 19th European base in Bremen, claiming it had bought a maintenance hangar and developed it as a second terminal for €10.4m
Mr O'Leary said Frankfurt Hahn's proposed second terminal would be built for €60m with a capacity for 15 million passengers - 12 times less than the €750m Ryanair claims the DAA intends spending on the second terminal.
But the DAA said comparisons between Dublin and minor airports such as Hahn, were "meaningless". The authority said the terminal would cost €395m.
RYANAIR has repeated its threat to go to court in an attempt to block plans for a new 15 million passenger terminal at Dublin airport, writes Fergus Black. As a public hearing into the project prepares to get under way on Monday, the budget airline said it would seek a judicial review if An Bord Pleanala gave the terminal the go ahead.
If that does not succeed, the airline said it would go to the European Court in a bid to halt the construction of the terminal on the grounds of "abuse of monopoly power".
Should that attempt fail, Ryanair says it will not use the second terminal when it opens for business in 2009.
Yesterday, Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary took journalists on a "reconnaissance flight" to Germany to demonstrate how terminals at Frankfurt Hahn and Bremen airports could be built up to 10 times cheaper.
Earlier this month, the airline opened its 19th European base in Bremen, claiming it had bought a maintenance hangar and developed it as a second terminal for €10.4m
Mr O'Leary said Frankfurt Hahn's proposed second terminal would be built for €60m with a capacity for 15 million passengers - 12 times less than the €750m Ryanair claims the DAA intends spending on the second terminal.
But the DAA said comparisons between Dublin and minor airports such as Hahn, were "meaningless". The authority said the terminal would cost €395m.
Sunday, 18 February 2007
The no runway campaign continues
I received this email from the United Portmarnock Residents Opposing Another Runway. For those interested in this campaign, please read the following email.
Dear Brendan,
I see you have been covering some of our stuff on your blog, i.e. our figures on the global warming impact of Dublin Airport as reported in Village and some moves in
Tullamore to consider a Midlands airport. You can check us out at www.norunway.com.
The next phase in our battle with the forces of evil (unsustainable planning junkies) will be at an oral hearing at An Bord Pleanála into the proposed new terminal at Dublin Airport. ABP has decided to call one but no date is fixed yet.
Also you may know the ABP has asked for more information about the proposed new runway (mostly noise data). That's unusual, I'm told, as the oral hearing was held before last Christmas. It pushes off the Board's decision on the runway into mid year (July probably). It may also mean that the oral hearing on the terminal will be held before the runway decision. That's as should be as the DAA has been trying to get away with project splitting and this sequence will make it easier for us to have a go at them for that chicanery.
As we've been saying they're trying to get away with trebling passengers to 60 million by submitted planning applications in a piecemeal fashion, and claiming that any noxious consequences of their activities will be due to some other piece of their plan which is not under consideration at this time.
Has a look at the legal submission our legal eagles made which goes into this project splitting a bit: www.norunway.com/t2a/legals.htm
Regards, Matt Harley
Dear Brendan,
I see you have been covering some of our stuff on your blog, i.e. our figures on the global warming impact of Dublin Airport as reported in Village and some moves in
Tullamore to consider a Midlands airport. You can check us out at www.norunway.com.
The next phase in our battle with the forces of evil (unsustainable planning junkies) will be at an oral hearing at An Bord Pleanála into the proposed new terminal at Dublin Airport. ABP has decided to call one but no date is fixed yet.
Also you may know the ABP has asked for more information about the proposed new runway (mostly noise data). That's unusual, I'm told, as the oral hearing was held before last Christmas. It pushes off the Board's decision on the runway into mid year (July probably). It may also mean that the oral hearing on the terminal will be held before the runway decision. That's as should be as the DAA has been trying to get away with project splitting and this sequence will make it easier for us to have a go at them for that chicanery.
As we've been saying they're trying to get away with trebling passengers to 60 million by submitted planning applications in a piecemeal fashion, and claiming that any noxious consequences of their activities will be due to some other piece of their plan which is not under consideration at this time.
Has a look at the legal submission our legal eagles made which goes into this project splitting a bit: www.norunway.com/t2a/legals.htm
Regards, Matt Harley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)