Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Nijmegen

The legal profession are adept at dragging things out. Look for sight of documents like the construction contract that at first glance you’d wonder why it had any relation to a notice to quit. The folks sitting in situ have all the time in the world, DAA have a deadline to meet. Drag your feet, juice the size of the settlement cheque. It’s probably not a DAA screw up per se, it’s just that our legal system is designed for these drag out proceedings.

Larbre34

I don't see it mentioned, the latest update of Google Maps shows the runway in an advanced state of construction, certainly enough to show the updated Airport footprint very clearly.

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess they may already be aware of it Brennar ffs.

Sure they are but what are they doing about it.

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

I don't see it mentioned, the latest update of Google Maps shows the runway in an advanced state of construction, certainly enough to show the updated Airport footprint very clearly.

You don’t see what mentioned, Lar...?

If it’s the halting site, it’s still there at the threshold of 28R.

Larbre34

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You don’t see what mentioned, Lar...?

If it’s the halting site, it’s still there at the threshold of 28R.

No, the fact that google maps has been updated to show the runway.

On the halting site issue, what influence do you expect local representatives will have on a court case over land and leases between a commercial semi-state body and the executive of a local authority?

I'll not keep you in suspense, its none. So they know about it, but can and will do absolutely nothing. The court case will run its course unless the Fingal executive clear the site in the meantime.

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, the fact that google maps has been updated to show the runway.

On the halting site issue, what influence do you expect local representatives will have on a court case over land and leases between a commercial semi-state body and the executive of a local authority?

I'll not keep you in suspense, its none. So they know about it, but can and will do absolutely nothing. The court case will run its course unless the Fingal executive clear the site in the meantime.

I expect that who ever is responsible for ,pending a court case ,if the taxpayer is exposed , they will be out of a job.

prunudo

Larbre34 wrote: »

I don't see it mentioned, the latest update of Google Maps shows the runway in an advanced state of construction, certainly enough to show the updated Airport footprint very clearly.

Weird scrolling around and not seeing a plane parked up or a car park full. A ghost town and a sad sign of the times. Looks like 16/34 is also out of action.

LXFlyer

prunudo wrote: »

Weird scrolling around and not seeing a plane parked up or a car park full. A ghost town and a sad sign of the times. Looks like 16/34 is also out of action.

That has more to do with the Google algorithm that is removing static objects (such as aircraft and vehicles) from Google Earth.

If you switch between google earth and the normal satellite view on a laptop (by clicking on the globe) you'll see aircraft (and vehicles on the M1/M50 for example) magically reappearing.

prunudo

LXFlyer wrote: »

That has more to do with the Google algorithm that is removing static objects (such as aircraft and vehicles) from Google Earth.

If you switch between google earth and the normal satellite view on a laptop (by clicking on the globe) you'll see aircraft (and vehicles on the M1/M50 for example) magically reappearing.

Oh, didn't know that. Thought it was a bit odd not to even see a few parked up.
Especially as there are buses in the terminus behind the multi storey carpark.

L1011

The removal of planes and boats has removed the Jeanie Johnston and the Cill Airne floating pub from the Liffey too, its a rather odd decision

Nijmegen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sure they are but what are they doing about it.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I expect that who ever is responsible for ,pending a court case ,if the taxpayer is exposed , they will be out of a job.

Would that be the Minister for Transport who granted a license in the 1980s or the person in DAA who issued a notice to quit in 2017, 4 years lead-time before the runway was due to come into operation?

I just don't see the connection here to "somebody's head should be on a plate" - you might as well pick whoever made the decision in 1922 to stick with a common law system that creates endless scope for due process to drag on and makes decisions a lottery built on a house of case law cards.

The runway project was put back on the cards in 2016, the notice to quit came in 2017, Fingal haven't managed to get the travelers to move on and they are exercising their legal rights in our system to drag the whole thing out. Short of saying that pending appeals in the High Court somebody should just go down with a bulldozer and run them over I'm not quite sure what you're looking for.

Brendan Bendar

Nijmegen wrote: »

Would that be the Minister for Transport who granted a license in the 1980s or the person in DAA who issued a notice to quit in 2017, 4 years lead-time before the runway was due to come into operation?

I just don't see the connection here to "somebody's head should be on a plate" - you might as well pick whoever made the decision in 1922 to stick with a common law system that creates endless scope for due process to drag on and makes decisions a lottery built on a house of case law cards.

The runway project was put back on the cards in 2016, the notice to quit came in 2017, Fingal haven't managed to get the travelers to move on and they are exercising their legal rights in our system to drag the whole thing out. Short of saying that pending appeals in the High Court somebody should just go down with a bulldozer and run them over I'm not quite sure what you're looking for.

You won’t drag me down that bulldozer rabbit hole Mr N.

What I am looking for is that the taxpayer is not exposed to significant costs in the resolving of this issue.

If the legal situation is as you say, and I have no reason to believe it’s not, then someone in ‘charge’ should introduce legislation to co er these situations.

We had an issue down in Tipp where a group were bargaining reportedly with councils for stables and grazing for animals.

And all this whilst the honest taxpayer starting off is finding it almost impossible to purchase a modest house.

What I’m looking for is an end to this kind of fcukkherry and fair play for the taxpayer.

Not too much to ask for surely.

apologies for going a bit off topic but the issue does have a ‘once removed’
connection.

Larbre34

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What I’m looking for is an end to this kind of fcukkherry and fair play for the taxpayer.

Not too much to ask for surely.

Lol.

And on the expectation of someone losing their job over it? Double lol.

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

Lol.

And on the expectation of someone losing their job over it? Double lol.

I don’t know what kind of comment that was Lar, but seems to me either that kind of outcome is foreign to you, or you’re being cynical.

I cannot decide which.

Nijmegen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You won’t drag me down that bulldozer rabbit hole Mr N.

What I am looking for is that the taxpayer is not exposed to significant costs in the resolving of this issue.

If the legal situation is as you say, and I have no reason to believe it’s not, then someone in ‘charge’ should introduce legislation to co er these situations.

We had an issue down in Tipp where a group were bargaining reportedly with councils for stables and grazing for animals.

And all this whilst the honest taxpayer starting off is finding it almost impossible to purchase a modest house.

What I’m looking for is an end to this kind of fcukkherry and fair play for the taxpayer.

Not too much to ask for surely.

apologies for going a bit off topic but the issue does have a ‘once removed’
connection.

I go back to my point about our common law system, so. There isn't a law that can be introduced in the land save perhaps a constitutional amendment (and those can be dodgy and have unintended consequences) that cannot be challenged in court. Governments of late have tried to introduce all sorts of things like "strategic development zoning" type laws that still got dragged into the courts (and in some cases, saw developments with permission struck down) because you can't just write a law that says "Ignoring all these other laws and all that precedent in law, we are going to do this now." In particular anything that gets near the right to a dwelling, which is protected in the constitution (see, unintended consequences, bet nobody thought that would stop someone building a runway).

To the substance of the matter re Dublin Airport infrastructure, the parties involved know DAA is on a deadline and there's a fair chance longer they can stretch it out in legal arguments (that may eventually actually end in DAAs favour, just after their deadline) the bigger the settlement will be.

Screaming for people to be fired won't really change the underlying fundamental nature of our legal system. It's just a cost of doing business in Ireland.

Brendan Bendar

Nijmegen wrote: »

I go back to my point about our common law system, so. There isn't a law that can be introduced in the land save perhaps a constitutional amendment (and those can be dodgy and have unintended consequences) that cannot be challenged in court. Governments of late have tried to introduce all sorts of things like "strategic development zoning" type laws that still got dragged into the courts (and in some cases, saw developments with permission struck down) because you can't just write a law that says "Ignoring all these other laws and all that precedent in law, we are going to do this now." In particular anything that gets near the right to a dwelling, which is protected in the constitution (see, unintended consequences, bet nobody thought that would stop someone building a runway).

To the substance of the matter re Dublin Airport infrastructure, the parties involved know DAA is on a deadline and there's a fair chance longer they can stretch it out in legal arguments (that may eventually actually end in DAAs favour, just after their deadline) the bigger the settlement will be.

Screaming for people to be fired won't really change the underlying fundamental nature of our legal system. It's just a cost of doing business in Ireland.

I don’t doubt that you are correct,and indeed one wonders why this wasn’t tackled years before now, years ago.

That’s what has me so riled.

Why would this not have been addressed years ago rather than wait until the last minute metaphorically speaking and then the time constraint wouldn’t be on the DAA.

I note that Forest Little G. C lost some land adjacent to the boundary road.

There was no problem there it would appear.

Did Forrest little own that land.

Do the good people in the halting site own the land
Who provided the accommodation, who serviced it, who is the legal owner.
I presume the people will be rehoused.

I don’t expect you to know all that, but I think it’s only fair that the taxpayer be concerned about to what would appear on paper anyway to be a fleecing operation of significant proportions.

Unless of course DAA win the case, which from my limited experience doesn’t happen too often without a significant ‘sweetener’.being trousered.

Larbre34

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I don’t know what kind of comment that was Lar, but seems to me either that kind of outcome is foreign to you, or you’re being cynical.

I cannot decide which.

Both.

Its never happened before, so its not going to happen now.

I'd point you to the current situation where Teachers Unions are deciding when and when not, special needs schools will be open during the current crisis.

The Unions are all powerful, individual public servants are never held personally to account, certainly not over something as trivial and local as this halting site not being vacated on time.

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

Both.

Its never happened before, so its not going to happen now.

I'd point you to the current situation where Teachers Unions are deciding when and when not, special needs schools will be open during the current crisis.

The Unions are all powerful, individual public servants are never held personally to account, certainly not over something as trivial and local as this halting site not being vacated on time.

Thanks Lar, understand your point of view.

Tenger

Let all take a deep breath and remember this is a thread about Dublin new runway and infrastructure

A320

The approach lights for 10L have also been installed

L1011

Various posts deleted due to people not reading the very obvious warning above them & replies

J6P

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fingal-council-puts-dublin-runway-flight-plans-on-hold-40121317.html:p

Fingal County Council has delayed lifting restrictions on Dublin airport’s new €320m runway.

The local authority is seeking additional information from airport operator DAA on its planning application.

jamo2oo9

J6P wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fingal-council-puts-dublin-runway-flight-plans-on-hold-40121317.html:p

Fingal County Council has delayed lifting restrictions on Dublin airport’s new €320m runway.

The local authority is seeking additional information from airport operator DAA on its planning application.

Can you check your link please. It's giving me a 404 error.

MJohnston

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Can you check your link please. It's giving me a 404 error.

It's just the ":p" at the end:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/planning-authority-seeks-further-detail-on-dublins-new-320m-runway-40121317.html

PCros

J6P wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fingal-council-puts-dublin-runway-flight-plans-on-hold-40121317.html:p

Fingal County Council has delayed lifting restrictions on Dublin airport’s new €320m runway.

The local authority is seeking additional information from airport operator DAA on its planning application.

So this is really only in relation to Condition 3(d)?

I take it Condition 5 remains the same.

HTCOne

I can understand a curfew on the new runway, it's bringing aircraft closer to homes that the existing runways wouldn't effect as badly. Not saying I agree with it mind, other airports allow more freedom for flights in lower noise categories etc so I would hope that's being incorporated into any review.

What I do not understand is the all encompassing nature of the movement cap. The existing runways shouldn't have their movement cap reduced from existing levels, I don't get the logic of that at all. If it wasn't a problem 40 years ago when 1-11s, jurassics, DC-8s etc were shaking the fillings out of anyone wishin a couple of NM of the threshold then it certainly shouldn't be one today.

goingnowhere

And bear in mind the new runway is really an extension of the old 29 which was used though intermittently until about 20 years ago.

If you bought a house near the airport what do you expect?

I don't think there would be a problem with current ops on 28L and close 28R 0000-0600 save for emergencies and where 28L is closed for maintenance

0lddog

goingnowhere wrote: »

...If you bought a house near the airport what do you expect?...

What about those of us who have been living in houses near the airport since it was Collinstown Aerodrome? A few DC3 movements per day was about the height of it then - later a sprinkle of Viscounts and such stuff.

Nijmegen

While I do agree that reducing ops from where they are today makes no sense, I think it is fair to say that the more people live underneath the flight paths as they'll exist due to population growth and so on and so you will get more sensitivity to expansion. The current council position is too extreme, but it's worth noting that some of the worlds greatest hubs operate with strict nighttime restrictions on them. Short of building the airport in the sea with no overland routes for the planes, you gotta live with what the folks underneath have to say about it.

IngazZagni

The north runway in its 3k form has been in planning documents since the mid 60’s. There isn’t an issue with closing the north runway between midnight and 6am. The real issue is the shoulder times of 6am-7am and 11pm-midnight which see a large amount of departures and arrivals respectively. I even think they could accept an 11:30pm-6:30am closure of the north runway subject to the caps outside that windows being lifted.

If the restrictions aren’t changed then I don’t believe the runway will open and the €300 million plus lots of future economic development down the drain.